aa5874

The Extant works of Flavius Josephus, if taken without the interpolation, the TF, appears to have no information about anyone known as Jesus Christ and no information about any followers of this Jesus Christ.

Although F Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus Christ himself, the father of Josephus was alive during the time Josephus was making his literary works, and his father did write him at least on one occasion and would have been alive when the so-called Jesus Christ lived and was crucufied. (See 'The Life of Flavius Josephus -section 41). It appears the father of Josephus did not give him any information about this worker of wonders and Messiah.


The writings of Flavius Josephus includes the 'Antiquities of the Jews', 'Wars of the Jews', 'The life of Flavius Josephus', Josephus against Apion' and the 'Discourse of Hades' and the interaction of Josephus with the Jewish people was very extensive, and his lack of knowledge or concern about the this phenomena, Jesus Christ, is extremely strange and appears to place the concept of the Christ sometime in the 2nd century.

It is my view that if Jesus Christ was moving with crowds of 5000, as stated in the Bible, on a regular basis, and was known throught the region, it is reasonable that Josephus would have come in contact with this sect. 'The Wars of the Jews' book 2 chapter 8 cover three sects and almost the entire chapter deals with the sect called the Essenes, no mention of any Christians whatsoever, also Antiquities of the Jews' book 18 ch 1 section 2-5, again no mention of Christians.

It appears to me, after reading the works of Flavius Joseph, that the historicity of Jesus Christ is in serious doubt, and actually the concept of the Christ may have been inspired from the writings of Josephus.

What happened to the followers of Jesus Christ in the 1st century? Why did they vanish from throughout the region, and there were at least 5000, according to the Gospels?

krosero

AA, just something to think about: I don't know what form of mythicism you subscribe to, but whatever it is, if Josephus did not mention early Christianity, then the religion must have been too small for Josephus to notice.

You've asked before why Josephus does not mention the Christian religion or its ideas and theologies. But that is a question that must be asked of any mythicist model: why doesn't Josephus, for instance, mention anything about Jews who believed that the Messiah had been crucified in the heavens (ie, Earl Doherty's idea)?

As I say, it's because Christianity must have been too small for Josephus to notice.

And if a movement is so small that Josephus won't notice it, then how on earth can he have heard about its founder? I mean, once you've heard about the founder, you've likely heard about the movement. If you've heard about the movement, you've likely heard about the founder. If you haven't heard of one, you likely haven't heard of the other.

So my suggestion is this: if by your own assertion Christianity was too small for Josephus to detect, then it may very well have had a founder -- someone highly regarded within the movement itself, but completely unnoticed by the outside world.

In short, if you yourself hold that the movement was too small for Josephus to hear about, you can hardly continue making anything out of the fact that Josephus does not mention Jesus himself.

By the way, there is an alternative reason for the silence of Josephus (if you see a silence): that Josephus did not want to talk about Messianic movements; that he knew about Christianity but chose consciously not to mention it. That argument, of course, means that nothing can be made of Josephus' particular silence about Jesus; he simply did not want to mention the movement or its founder. For this argument, see Peter Kirby's article on the TF, and search for "Goguel."

Kevin Rosero

rlogan

You've managed to evade some of the most important implications of such reasoning.

First, that the gospel accounts of Jesus having any kind of following and doing anything of note are false, and this itself has to cast extreme doubt on whatever is said about Jesus in the gospels.

Josephus not only mentions a wide variety of personages in his writings, but many (about two dozen) are actually named Jesus. One leads a bunch of rabel (fishermen and such) against Romans. One has no following whatsoever, and is just a crank running around Jerusalem yelling 'Woe unto Israel". The whole spectrum.

So you've got to paint your "historical Jesus" and the entire movement with a very special kind of invisibility at the same time you are completely destroying the validity of any statements about them in the gospels.


I think there is one good question in there, and that is why Josephus does not mention any Jewish sect believing in a spirit-world Christ.

I can't speak for Earl, but I am not a believer in the "Jewish sect" canon to begin with. I do see the "validation" of the new religion with an ancient heritage appended to it, and the use of Jewish scripture, yes.

But if you are going to look for one, the most likely place to start though is disillusionment from the temple destruction and diaspora.

krosero

Well, it's good to get this response from you. But a little clarification: I am in fact familiar with the implications you refer to; you and others have made these points before. I do recognize that if I held Josephus to have said nothing about Christianity, I would need, as you say, to paint Jesus and Christianity as "invisible" to Josephus -- or else find a reason why he might choose not to talk about it. I don't hold that Josephus was silent about Christianity, though right now I'm considering how much weight I should give to the argument that he had a reason not to mention Christianity, ie, a hesitation to talk about messianic movements.

My post above is not an agreement that Josephus was silent; it was a suggestion for aa, or anyone who holds that Josephus was silent, to think about, namely that the "silence of Josephus" makes Christianity truly small and marginal. The argument that Christianity was small and marginal is not, as is sometimes implied, an invention of historicists or any kind of traditionalist; it's an argument born of skeptics, non-traditionalists, mythicists, etc., when they first argued that Josephus was silent about Christianity.

Is that not something you would agree with?

We can see the same thing if we consider Tacitus: if someone holds (as I do not) that his note about Christ and the Christian movement is an interpolation no less than the notices in Josephus, then Christianity was truly a marginal movement (by the early second century), and neither Josephus nor Tacitus was likely to have heard particularly about the founder of the movement, if they haven't heard about the movement at all.

And in the case of Tacitus, there is no argument, as far as I know, that he was hesitant to say anything about a messianic movement. Therefore the reason he was silent was that Christianity was, well, marginal in his time; he hadn't noticed the movement and certainly could not have noticed who its founder was (or who its founders were).

Just asking for clarification: are you proposing looking for Christianity as an outgrowth of disillusionment with the temple's destruction? I didn't quite follow your last paragraphs.

Kevin Rosero

rlogan

As it stands, throwing that out is apologia and I mean that kindly. Because what apologia does is manufacture "just so" stories as opposed to putting out evidence.

Maybe Jesus was left-handed and Josephus has a thing about southpaws. A person can make up whatever just-so story he wants, but that is apologia unless it is positive evidence that leads you there instead of the need to come up with excuses.

I can't really speak for others, but there is a range of beliefs on what the silence in Josephus and all other historical tracts means, yes. The one thing that cannot be argued is the veracity of the gospels.

I am contemptuous of that class who knows quite a bit regarding the historical record and manufactures a convoluted myth about the "historical Jesus" to explain away every problem they encounter.

One of the matters Josephus would have occasion to write about, and that would also play a role in the "biography" of Christianity, were it a Jewish sect with a Jerusalem church, is what their position was during the revolt.

By the time of Eusebius, this phony "history" was concocted. It has the Christians fleeing to a city called Pella after an angel warns them. But there is no archaeological evidence. No mention of it previous to Eusebius. No tradition in Pella itself.

So it is fabrication. Not just "too small to be noticed".



The first bona-fide mention is by Pliny in his letter to Trajan. He knows of no founding Jesus.

I was only saying that if one is looking for a Jewish origin that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple would be an excellent motivating disillusionment with orthodoxy. In this case you would not see Josephus or anyone else writing about Christians until it had grown for some years after.

But I do not adhere to "Jewish origin" despite seeing so clearly the use of Jewish scripture in the construction of Jesus.

ynquirer

Do you really believe that endless repetition of the cliché that the TF is nothing other than total, irremediable interpolation would convince anyone but you? You had better be a little faithful to evidence and see whether there is such a thing as Josephus’ silence on Jesus and Christians.

hatsoff

Kevin did not give you a just so tale to swallow. He offered a number of examples as to why Josephus may have been silent to show the presumptuousness of the MJ argument. And he is correct. There are any number of explanations, and none of them have any particular merit above the others--including the idea that Jesus did not exist. The fact is, if TF is in fact a total interpolation, we still have no idea why Josephus may have excluded information about Jesus and Christianity.

Anyway, I think it's pretty silly to call TF a total interpolation. While anything is possible, that idea runs counter to the evidence, both internal and external, in my opinion.

Copernic

RLogan writes I agree with this sentiment.

Why is it do we give special credance to a particular guy named "Jesus"?

Does it not surprise us that Josephus encounters dozens of these people running about? During the Roman occupation and destruction of Jerusalem, people were claiming to be the next Messiah, calling themselves "Yehoshua" or "Jesus" meaning "Yehova Saves".
Biblical characters had names that implied their role, whether this name was self-annointed, given by an "angel", or serving the purposes of the writers.

Were one to ask Josephus if he ever heard of the Messiah, or a man named Jesus, he may have smiled and said "Yes I met a bunch of them, they were all over the place, causing problems for the Romans or yelling out that "the end was nie!"

J

aa5874

If no mention is made of 'Christians' by Josephus, then there would be more than one hypothesis, I will list two and see how these stand up to scrutiny:

• 1. The sect of 'Christians' was too small

• 2. There was no sect of 'Christians'

[LIST]


Hypothesis (1) is examined, before the so-called death of the Christ, his entrance into Jerusalem, Matthew 21:8-12, And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way.
And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried saying, Hosanna to the Son of David.....
And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved saying, Who is this ?
And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee'.

And now to impose his authority and his popularity, Matt 21:12, And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seat of them that sold doves.

If anyone never knew Jesus,then from that day he would have been known, in Jerusalem, by every one.

After the death of the so-called Christ, we see the book of Acts make mention of the followers called Christians. Acts 2:41, 'Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 4:4, 'Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

Acts 5:14-16, 'And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women,
Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets.....
There also came a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem........'

Acts 6:7, 'And the word of God increased; and the number of disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly, and a great number of priest were obedient to the faith'.


Now from these passages, hypothesis (1) fails, according to the NT, Christianity was growing at an alarming rate, sometimes 3000 in a day, after the death of Jesus Christ

For hypothesis (2) to be valid, there should be no mention of Jesus Christ in the 1st century by extra-biblical contemporary writers, and this appears to be the case. Hypothesis (2) has validity.

Of course there could be other hypotheses, but the claim that followers of Jesus Christ was insignificant, or so small that Josephus would not have noticed appears to be invalid, if the NT is to be believed.

krosero

Hatsoff read my argument correctly (I think because he had no contempt -- for my argument -- interfering with his reading): I was not throwing out an apologia; I was merely reporting that I was in the midst of considering a certain argument. It is always legitimate to consider why any author might write about certain topics or might be silent (or reticent) about them. Just look at what they've written; just look at the evidence.

Why use such an argument from ridicule as Josephus' attitude toward left-handedness? There is nothing in the works of Josephus to tell us what he thought about left-handedness (as far as I know). There is plenty in his works to tell us what he thought about messianic movements and what his patrons might have thought about calling someone the Christ. That is the "positive evidence" you were demanding; you can work from it, and reasonable people can come to reasonably different conclusions.

I for one do not find the argument from that evidence (excusing Josephus' silence about Christianity) to be very strong, because there are ways for anyone to write about controversial things and not associate himself with them at all; but the argument is something to think about. That's what I was telling you above: I was considering a certain argument about why Josephus was silent, not because I wanted the argument but because it had been made and I regarded it as worth considering.

Spin has an argument that Josephus would not have mentioned "Christ" in Ant. 20, making an interpolation there likely -- and that is another argument that I need to look into more. Because it's a reasonable argument that reasonable people can look at. Would you like to tell him that his argument is a "just-so story" no better than speculations about Jesus' dominant arm?

Since you have returned to expressing your contempt there is nothing more to say. Your contempt for certain arguments keeps you from reading them correctly, as I demonstrated above in this post. And I'll demonstrate it here, too: I said already that skeptics are FAR AHEAD of traditionalists in making Christianity marginal, and yet you return here to the blank assertion -- as if nothing contrary had been said -- that it is traditionalists who are painting Christianity as small and negligible. Quite to the contrary, they are far behind skeptics in this matter. If they hold that Josephus' two notices are authentic, then they have a LARGER and less marginal Christianity than you have, for instance.

To use adjectives you have used before: it grows tedious and boring to try to explain your arguments to someone who regards them as worthy of contempt from the get-go. Perhaps we'll have better luck at another time or on another topic.

Kevin Rosero