Gamera

In the thread on the discovery of Herod's Tomb, one of the
posters asked why didn't Josephus write about Jesus.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=206364&page=2

I suspect the question was rhetorical, and was intended to suggest that Jesus was not an historical figure and the reference to Jesus in Josephus was a later redaction, as it may well be. But it does raise a larger question -- why didn't Judaism write about Jesus? Iindeed, for centuries no reference is made in Jewish texts about Jesus, at a time his historicity was not in question. As near as I can tell the earliest unambiguous mention of Jesus in Jewish texts was by Maimonides in the 12th century.

Now this could have been the result of outside censorship, self-censorship, taboo, or disinterest. But whatever it was, it seems to shed some light on the Josephus references. For instance, one argument that as Christianity rose to political power it strongarmed Jewish scholars to edit out references to Jesus in the Talmud. But if that's the case, why would these same Christian edit in a reference to Jesus in Josephus, especially one that is so unflattering?

At the very least, the lack of an indisputable reference to Jesus in Josephus seems to have little probative value as to his historicity in light of the lack of any reference to Jesus in Jewish writings for another 1000 years when Jesus' historicity was not in dispute. Something else seems to be going on.

Jayrok

Some of the Heresies in the early centuries were stamped out and would have never been known about had it not been for early christian apologetics such as Irenaeus' Against Heresies. Documents/books destroyed, etc.

It seems if Jewish scholars mentioned Jesus and/or his life, teachings, miracles, whatever... Early christian apologists would have cited them, even if the Jews edited all references to Jesus out of literature. Over time, christian writings would have commented on those references to Jesus had they been there.

Why would Christians edited in a reference to Jesus in Josephus and not any other Jewish writings? Well, Josephus wrote for the Romans and his works may have been solely in their possession, and subsequently in the hands of Church fathers. The Talmud and other Jewish writings may not have been accessable to Eusebius, for instance... at least for editing purposes. He may have had opportunity to manipulate works of Josephus though.

gurugeorge

Don't know of this subject directly, but coincidentally, I'd just been readingthis interesting review by Earl Doherty of a book analysing mentions of Jesus in Jewish writings. It is of course from an MJ perspective, but it does give a handy overview that might even be useful to to yourself (if you don't know of it already - which seems unlikely ) or for other MJ-ers or HJ-ers looking in, as a pointer to further research.

Toto

What is unflattering about Josephus' references to Jesus? A wise man who did wondrous deeds?

spin

It must be a post-modern interpretation.


spin

Solo

Frank Zindler, on whom Earl Doherty relies as the "fourth pillar" of his theory and the final arbiter on Jewish witness to Jesus, is an interesting character. He is the president of American Atheists, an organization whose founder's martyred body also disappeared albeit only for a while.

Jiri

Amaleq13

I'm guessing it is a reference to translations that have "so-called" Christ though it is my understanding that it is a mistake to assume this to be necessarily "unflattering".

Nazaroo

One reason for so few 1st century Judaean references to Jesus may be the fact that so few Judaean 'future authors' survived the Roman Wars long enough to relax and write some books.

Its sort of like expecting thousands of memoirs from the Nazi Death Camps. Not a lot of candidates willing to wax eloquent on a sore subject.

Ben C Smith

I think that the participle in question, legomenos, can mean...:

1. ...called in a positive sense, as in the gospel uses of this word (he is called that because that is what he is).
2. ...called in a neutral sense (I am saying that he is called that because that is, in fact, what he is called).
3. ...called in a negative sense, usually rendered so-called (he is called that, but that is not what he is).

Ben.

Toto

Ellen Johnson is the President of American Atheists. Frank Zindler is on the staff, where he is editor of American Atheist Press and the American Atheist Magazine. He has a PhD in biology and works as a linguist.