Gregg

I'd be willing to bet that this "ancient manuscript" says absolutely nothing about dead people (well-known saints, no less) coming back to life and taking afternoon constitutionals. I wonder why this truly extraordinary event warranted less coverage than the raising of Lazarus?Ephesians 4:8-9. This passage says nothing about dead people rising out of their graves and strolling around Jerusalem, where everybody could see them and chat with them.Well, hardly surprising if the catastrophic incidents occurred in remote areas, or if they killed everyone in the vicinity and left no survivors nearby. But catastrophic incidents in highly populated areas, like the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius, which completely destroyed two Roman towns, are well-documented.I think you give way too much credit to the powers that be (or were). I mean, no, Rome and the Jewish state weren't democracies with freedom of speech, and it WAS probably a little easier to control what got written down because reading/writing skills were not as widespread as they are today, but come on. Events like these would have been talked about far and wide, and the authorities would have had little power to prevent gossip. You'd think that some of that gossip would have found its way into written form, thus providing multiple, independent attestation. The Gospels don't count--only Matthew mentions the earthquake, the eclipse, and the dead people rising, and Mark is the only other gospel to mention the veil in the Temple being torn in two. Why didn't "Luke," "Mark" and "John" think that these amazing occurrences were worth mentioning? Surely they would have heard about them too!

Oh, by the way, here is a good link.

Jim Larmore

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gregg
[B]IEphesians 4:8-9. This passage says nothing about dead people rising out of their graves and strolling around Jerusalem, where everybody could see them and chat with them.[B]

And its not the passage I'm looking for I'm still looking.

[B]Well, hardly surprising if the catastrophic incidents occurred in remote areas, or if they killed everyone in the vicinity and left no survivors nearby. [B]

What if the areas where catastrophies occurred had no one capable of historically recording something. We know nothing per se of the ancient American history outside of archeology, however I'm sure earth quakes and other castophys happened. This is avoiding the issue and I apologize. The conspiracy paradox is just that a "paradox, however it is a plausible way of explaining some of these mysteries.

[B]I think you give way too much credit to the powers that be (or were). I mean, no, Rome and the Jewish state weren't democracies with freedom of speech, and it WAS probably a little easier to control what got written down because reading/writing skills were not as widespread as they are today, but come on. [B]

I think the priest / pharisees and saducees contoled a lot of the lives of people back then based on the scriptural evidense. Even though these things would have been talked about doesn't mean it was recorded.

Jim Larmore

Gregg,
Forgive me on the last post ,I'm trying to figure out how to bracket and quote on this forum, I'm still leaning how to use a computer. Most of the the time I wind up fat fingering this sucker into submission but I still have a lot to learn.

I.E. how do you make a bracketed quote? I know how to make the quote you just click on the quote but the whole post is quoted then. How do you pick out individual passages in the quote to bracket for emphasis? Obviously based on what you see above puttin [B] doesn't make it happen.

Jim Larmore

Bernard,
I did some digging in the writings of Flavius Josephus and the issue of Ezra being a high priest or not is somewhat settled in that in Ant. BookXl chapter 5 Josephus states the high priest was Joacim and Esdras (Ezra) was "Principle Priest" of the people. I don't know if "Principle Priest" was higher than the high priest or not, however it was ranked Ezra was given a lot of authority in the re-building and re-constuction of Jerusalem.

I conceed that you are correct on the completion of the Temple that it was in the 6th year of Darius like Ezra6:15 says it does is irrufutable. However like I said earlier this does not do away with the prophecy in Dan 9 concerning the starting point decree made by Artaxerxes to date the messiah's appearance.

I know this probably going to unleash a land slide of controversy here but have you studied the Greek and Arabic version of "Testimonium Flavium"? Do you know there has never been any proof that these writings were tampered with? They may be authentic, even critics agree on this point. The parts of Testimoium that I would like you to comment on specifically are 18:3:3 and 20:9:1

Thanks
Jim Larmore

Bernard Muller

Jim wrote:
I believe you are totally wrong about the completion of the temple, in the new testament it says it took 46 years to complete as was posted earlier. The decree by Xerxes would not have made sense if they had already completed the work. Ezra's whole function was to go and set up the infrastructure to make the rebuilding go foward.

This 46 years are about the temple rebuilding, which started under Herod the Great. That's the temple which existed during the time of Jesus.
If you look at Ezra, the temple is rebuilt & consecrated exactly 70 years after the destruction by the Babylonians (6:15). That's the temple which "Daniel" is refering to, because during Daniel's times, that was the one which had been destroyed and was in ruins.

Jim wrote:
I will do some more research on this statement on Ezra 6:15, I don't believe this verse will proove that the temple was completed that much earlier.

I thought an expert like you would have researched Ezra 6:15 earlier

Jim wrote:
Where you not aware of the cunieform tablets or the papyri found at Elephantine?

According to one of your earlier post:
"A fairly recently published cuneiform tablet from Ur of the Chaldees mentioning a date in the year of the death of Xerxes, together with one of the papyri discovered at Elephantine, places the accession of Artaxerxes in Dec. of 465 B.C."

So what does that prove? Artaxerxes started to rule in 465BC, that's it. That's not contested.

Jim wrote:
The prophecy was from the going forth of the command to"build Jerusalem" not just the " Temple" ( Dan 9:25). The Temple was indeed in Jerusalem but it was not the indicative end point or origin of the prophectic time line we are following here.

First, as I stated before, Jerusalem was rebuilt as a town during the rule of Cyrus and before Ezra goes to Jerusalem. I listed the evidence already.
Second, the Bible mentions further rebuilding, that is repairs of city walls & gates and increase of population (making Jerusalem look like a city), but that happened later, after Nehemiah arrives in Jerusalem in 446BC (see book of Nehemiah)
Furthermore, according to 'Daniel' (9:2), Daniel considers the desolation of Jerusalem finished seventy years after its destruction. That shows me that for "Daniel", Jerusalem & its temple are considered the same, essentially the reconsecration of the temple 70 years after the destruction of Jerusalem (Ezra 6:15) signalled the completion of the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

Best regards, Bernard

Jim Larmore

Ok, and now your opinion on Testimonium Flavium?

Gregg

Jim, no problem. To make a bracketed quote, it's bracket, quote, bracket, the text you want to quote, bracket, slash mark, quote, bracket. Then if you want the quote in bold, put bracket, b, bracket between your start quote code and your quoted text, and bracket, slash, b, bracket between the end of the quoted text and the end quote code. Same thing with making the text italic--bracket, i, bracket to start, bracket, slash, i, bracket to end.

It took me a little practice too.

Jim Larmore

Gregg ,
Thanks man , this is a little confusing to me but I'll try it,

YOU GUYS BE PATIENT WITH ME OUT THERE, THERE MAY BE SOME REALLY STRANGE LOOKING POSTS COMMING UP!!!!!!!!:banghead:

Steven Carr

Josephus is the first non-Christian writer to mention Jesus. He does this in Books 18 and 20 of his Antiquities, from about 93 AD. It is worth giving the reference in Book 18 in full.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ . And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

For two centuries no Christian used this passage, although many of them quoted Josephus. For example, Origen quoted Josephus when writing 250,000 words against the pagan writer Celsus but he never uses this passage even when it would have been most useful. In Chapter 6 of Book 1 of 'Contra Celsum', Origen wrote ' ..."Many shall say to Me in that day, In Thy name we have cast out devils, and done many wonderful works." Whether Celsus omitted this from intentional malignity, or from ignorance, I do not know...' Would not Origen have loved to show Josephus as writing that Jesus performed wonderful works?

In chapter 67 Origen quotes Celsus as follows '...this Jew of Celsus.... continues: "The old mythological fables, which attributed a divine origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and Aeacus, and Minos, were not believed by us. Nevertheless, that they might not appear unworthy of credit, they represented the deeds of these personages as great and wonderful, and truly beyond the power of man; but what hast thou done that is noble or wonderful either in deed or in word?' Wouldn't Origen have loved to answer Celsus's taunt by pointing out that the renowned Jewish historian Josephus said Jesus performed wonderful works.

It is admitted that the passage of Josephus was tampered with by Christians. Strictly speaking, this rules it out altogether as evidence. If a prosecution lawyer in a court case tried to introduce evidence that had been tampered with by prosecution witnesses, that evidence would be rejected. However, let us examine the claim that we can tell in this short paragraph by looking at the style, which phrases are Josephan and which are Christian interpolations. In passing I note that many Christians deny that we can tell by looking at the style that Paul did not write 1 or 2 Timothy, Titus or Ephesians, although there we have whole letters to work with, not just a few phrases.

It is worth pointing out that any Christian scribe who had just copied out 17 books of Josephus would be familiar with his style and easily able to express Christian thoughts in Josephan language.

Josephus only uses the phrase 'a wise man' about Solomon and Daniel. Would a first-century Pharisee bracket a crucified criminal with legendary kings and prophets? It was Christian writers who compared Jesus to Solomon (Matthew 12:42) and praised the wisdom of Jesus (Luke 2:46-52)

Josephus only used the phrase wonderful works about Elisha. It was Christians who saw parallels between Jesus and Elijah and Elisha.

In Mark 6:2 , Jews praise the wisdom and mighty works of Jesus. Can we be sure that Josephus's 'wise man' and 'wonderful works' must be genuine as no Christian interpolator would have had any motive to portray Josephus the way the Gospels say Jews regarded Jesus? I doubt it.

Josephus's phrase 'the principal men' (ton proton andron) is mirrored in Luke 19:47 - 'the leaders among the people' (hoi protoi)

The passage of Josephus first appears in 'Ecclesiastical History' by Eusebius in about 320 AD. Eusebius also includes clearly fake letters by Jesus himself. Another quote of Josephus by Eusebius is especially interesting , as we can see how Eusebius would doctor quotes to make them support Christian writings .

Josephus wrote in Antiquities Book 19 Section 346 'But as he presently afterwards looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger (Greek 'Angelos') of ill tidings...' Eusebius in his History (2.10) omits the words 'boubona - epi schoiniou tinos' (ie an owl on a certain rope) and retains only the 'angelos' or messenger. As it stands in Eusebius, the 'quote' of Josephus appears to support Acts 12:23 which mentions an 'angelos', but naturally does not say this messenger was an owl.

Eusebius is the first person to say that Josephus referred to 'the tribe of Christians' . Eusebius also said Tertullian referred to the tribe of Christians. He did not. Eusebius also said Trajan referred to the tribe of Christians. He did not.

To sum up, Josephus's mention of Jesus was unknown for two centuries, is admitted even by Christians to be tampered with and first appears in the work of somebody who produced forged letters of Jesus, doctored quotes of Josephus, and lied about one of the very phrases found in the Testimonium when saying that other ancient writers used it. Almost every phrase expresses Christian, not Jewish, beliefs about Jesus.

There is also a 10th century version of Josephus. This is by a Christian Bishop and is a paraphrase in Arabic, not a quote of Josephus. It also contains clear anti-Islam propaganda. Ten centuries is too long a gap for this to be historical.

To avoid charges of double-standards here, I should point out that I would also reject a Muslim work from 1500 AD which purported to be our first authentic text of what a pagan writer wrote about Muhammad in 650 AD, especially if it contained anti-Christian propaganda and was in a different language. If I were by some chance to find such a work, would you insist that sceptics must take it as genuine?

Jesus in Antiquities Book 20

Josephus wrote in Antiquities 20.9.1 about the high priest Ananus who had arrested and killed 'the brother of Jesus called the Christ, by the name of James and some others....'

Did a Christian interpolator explain who this James was or did Josephus refer back to book 18 for the benefit of his readers?

It is most strange that Josephus put the explanation of who James was before the name itself. If somebody writes 'by the name of X and some others', then we can be sure that the name is all the writer has to go on. Readers would rather learn who the some others were than what the name of James brother was. It is also well known that 'Jesus called the Christ' is the wording of Matthew 1:16. Also, a back-reference to 'Christ' is also problematic as the reference to 'Christ' in Antiquities 18 is itself regarded as dubious by many people.

How does Josephus refer back to people he has previously mentioned in those days when books had no indexes? Here he is going back two books, so readers will need more than a casual reference.

Judas of Galilee was first mentioned in 'Wars of the Jews' Book 2 Section 118 'Under his administration, it was that a certain Galilean , whose name was Judas , prevailed with his countrymen to revolt ; and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans , and would, after God , submit to mortal men as their lords.'

Josephus refers to him again in Book 2 Section 433 as follows '"In the meantime one Manahem, the son of Judas , that was called the Galilean (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Quirinius , that after God they were subject to the Romans )" - considerable detail is included.

In Wars, Book 7 Section 533 we read about Judas again - "... Eleazar, a potent man, and the commander of these Sicarii, that had seized upon it. He was a descendant from that Judas who had persuaded abundance of the Jews , as we have formerly related , not to submit to the taxation when Quirinius was sent into Judea to make one; ...' . So a change of book causes Josephus to say 'as formerly related'.

Judas was also in Antiquities 18 'Yet was there one Judas , a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt , who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty'.

Josephus referred back to Judas in Antiquities 20 'the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Quirinius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have shown in a foregoing book .'

So Josephus usually put in detail and when he referred back from Ant. 20 to Ant. 18, he reminded the reader that it was in a different book. None of these factors apply to Josephus's reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20. A Christian interpolator would naturally need not need to supply such detailed back-references. His readers would know exactly who Jesus called the Christ was.

Bernard Muller

Jim wrote:
Bernard,
I did some digging in the writings of Flavius Josephus and the issue of Ezra being a high priest or not is somewhat settled in that in Ant. BookXl chapter 5 Josephus states the high priest was Joacim and Esdras (Ezra) was "Principle Priest" of the people. I don't know if "Principle Priest" was higher than the high priest or not, however it was ranked Ezra was given a lot of authority in the re-building and re-constuction of Jerusalem.

I did not see where you read Ezra being "Principle Priest" in Ant., XI, 5. But Josephus mentioned the high priests during Ezra's stay in Jerusalem: Jeshua (1,4) the former high priest and father of Joacim, Joacim (1,5), the active high priest, who is succeded by his son, Eliasib (5). But even Ezra as priest, I cannot see it.
And in 'Nehemiah', Ezra is only a scribe & priest (all over chapter 8).

I conceed that you are correct on the completion of the Temple that it was in the 6th year of Darius like Ezra6:15 says it does is irrufutable. However like I said earlier this does not do away with the prophecy in Dan 9 concerning the starting point decree made by Artaxerxes to date the messiah's appearance.

How can you defend your position if you acknowledge Ezra6:15?

I know this probably going to unleash a land slide of controversy here but have you studied the Greek and Arabic version of "Testimonium Flavium"? Do you know there has never been any proof that these writings were tampered with?

Do I know? Oh yes I know. Why Arabic? Josephus' works were in ancient Greek.

They may be authentic, even critics agree on this point. The parts of Testimoium that I would like you to comment on specifically are 18:3:3 and 20:9:1

I have no problem with 20:9:1. Critics agreeing with 18:3:3 being authentic are very few, if any.
About my views on 18:3:3, then I got something for you, a whole webpage of mine on this specific topic (can you stomach it, I dare you!):
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appe.shtml

Best regards, Bernard