krosero

Do you mean Tacitus in the Annals? "Whatever their origin, these observances are sanctioned by their antiquity."

EDIT: sorry, I saw Andrew's answer only after sending my post.

vsop44

Even if the communications in the 1 st century AD were not as instant as they are nowadays ; Josephus would have heard about Jesus not only for healing the sick , ressuscitating the dead , walking on water , feeding 5000 people with 2 fishes and 5 loaves and walking out of his grave and appearing shortly thereafter in front of 500 witnesses but also if we are to believe the NT of his arrival in Jerusalem on palm sunday and for creating a serious disturbance at the temple on the eve of
the spring festival .
All these events were important enough and drawing large crowds to be reported by the local historians for it is the stuff out of which myths are created and people talk about that kind of feats for generations .

Toto

If these things had happened and had been reported, wouldn't you expect Josephus to say more about Jesus than he did about John the Baptist? If these wondrous events had happened, wouldn't more people have noticed? Wouldn't Christianity have converted more of the Jewish population of Palestine?

Vinnie

See the Jesus FAQ: Sections 1 and 2:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/jesusfaq.html

I need to update that....

for the first one i might want to change "christianity" to "emerging jewish sect" or some such thing to avoid the anachronism of "Christianity"....

and so on and on... ....working on all my articles now..........

______________________________________


[1] Argument: Josephus Doesn't mention Jesus and this counts as positive silence against the historicity of Jesus.

Rebuttal: Even if Josephus did not mention Jesus of Nazareth this hardly argues against his existence. Why? How embarrassing is it for the Jesus skeptics that Josephus says nothing of Christians or Christianity either! Do we take this silence as indicate that there was no such movement as "Christianity" in the first century C.E.?

Josephus also mentions nothing of Paul. We have primary litrature from paul, he founded communuties, preached to a large number of audiences, traveled outside Palestine, causing disturbances across the Roman Empire, ending up under arrest in Rome itself! He was also "popular" to the Jews as well In 2 Cor 11:24-26 he writes, "Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move." We also have a bunch of epistles which popped up in Paul's name. Yet there is no mention of him in Josephus!


Historicists have everything to gain and nothing to lose when discussing Josephus. Any silence here would be probative of nothing at all save possible a determination of the popularity of Jesus to the outside world at this time.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Argument: There are no contemporary references to Jesus or any by an outside source before the second century. This counts against his existence.

Rebuttal: The same type of reasoning applied to Josephus above can be applied to other non-Christian sources that do not mention Jesus--virtually all of which should not be expected to mention Jesus. How much contemporary source material actually survives? Very little! How many of them mention Christians or Christianity? How many contemporary sources mention Paul or John the baptist--two figures who's historicity is secure--like Jesus'? Peter or John, Mary Magdalen, et al?

We can easily dismiss bad arguments from silence such as these. Scholars have already known this for quite some time. As E.P. Sander's wrote:

"Jesus became such an important man in world history that it is sometimes hard to believe how unimportant he was during his lifetime, especially outside Palestine. Most of the first-century literature that survives was written by members of the very small elite class of the Roman empire. To them, Jesus (if they heard of him at all) was merely a troublesome rabble-rouser and magician in a small, backward part of the world. . . . When he was executed, Jesus was no more important to the outside world than the two brigands or insurgents executed with him -- whose names we do not know." -- The Historical Figure of Jesus, p.49.


That last quote about sums it up. Jo does mention Jesus thoughm twice along with his brother James whom Mark. And Paul's BotL.

Vinnie

DE BERGERAC

But remember that according to ACTS: "this things were not done in a corner". Josephus had to mention those things, since he mentions lesser events.

On the other hand, JUSTUS OF TIBERIAS, whom Josephus mentions and whose works have been lost, didn't mention at all Jesus, to the outrage of PHOTIUS who still was able to peruse copies of his works.

Clivedurdle

Is it embarassing? Is there any real evidence that xianity existed in the first century CE?

We have messianic and gnostic cults of various flavours, even the dating of Paul is tautological because it relies on Acts, and who says the earliest references to xianity have any but the vaguest links to how we perceive this group of beliefs we label xianity now?

Is the silence of Josephus about xianity actually pointing out that maybe it is a late first, early second century phenomena? Did it really take off with Hadrian in Jerusalem?

Vinnie

*shaked head*

The movement started in the thirties. It only grew in popularity after its founders death. If the movement (strange Jewish sect) wasn't important enough to discuss, how much less uts obscure rabble rousing founder convicted and condemned to death on a Roman cross.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Yeah, teaching on a hilltop is not "preaching in a corner" but what is your point? The gospels over-emphasixe the popularity and impact of Jesus.

Sander's quote:

Jesus became such an important man in world history that it is sometimes hard to believe how unimportant he was during his lifetime, especially outside Palestine. Most of the first-century literature that survives was written by members of the very small elite class of the Roman empire. To them, Jesus (if they heard of him at all) was merely a troublesome rabble-rouser and magician in a small, backward part of the world. . . . When he was executed, Jesus was no more important to the outside world than the two brigands or insurgents executed with him -- whose names we do not know." -- The Historical Figure of Jesus, p.49.

This is all irrelevant to me as well though, cause Jesus is plugged by Josephus.

Vinnie

krosero

For your item "[12] Argument: Paul Doesn't Mentions Any HJ Details", you list the HJ details that Paul does provide. The issue can be pressed further by pointing out that epistles after Paul generally do not mention HJ details, and that indeed most of early Christian literature seems more concerned with the glorified Christ, living presently in the Church, than with biographical details of the brief incarnation here on earth. Yet surely much of this literature knows of the Gospel picture of Jesus. I have not made a hard count, but it seems to me that the later, non-Pauline epistles give even fewer biographical details than Paul does, which is a curious thing for anyone who regards Paul's silence on many biographical details to be meaningful. If Paul's silence, so defined, means that he didn't know the Gospel Jesus, does the equivalent or greater silence of later writers in the first three centuries mean that they also did not know the Gospel Jesus?

I mention this here because it's very much like asking, "If Josephus is silent about Christ, why is he also silent about Christianity?" It amounts to holding any proposed silence to its own standards. You can ask, for instance, "If it's meaningful that Philo doesn't mention Christ, then what does it mean that Philo doesn't mention the Baptist, surely a figure who would have been at least comparable to Christ, if not more important, in Philo's estimation?" Pressing silences like this is not definitive, and as mentioned here already it gets into highly subjective matters, but it does highlight the question of how much meaning arguments from silence can be expected to deliver.

There is a good counter-argument to the Josephus question at Peter Kirby's online summary of pro and con arguments concerning the TF (search for "Maurice Goguel"). The answer given is that Josephus would have wanted to avoid discussing Messianic cults so as not alienate his Roman audience. To this it may be replied that Josephus had only to mention something in an unflattering light if he wanted to discuss it, but either way this counter-argument should be addressed.

Clivedurdle

Shaking heads can lead to brain damage! In the Romans thread, I asked:


And got the above reply!