ApostateAbe

Yes. Josephus wrote quite a bit on John the Baptist, and he wrote a little about James, the brother of Jesus. Both Josephus and Philo wrote about Pilate, though he was just "some Roman magistrate." And we have the Christian writings themselves, including many letters apparently written by Paul. Since they were incorporated into the Christian canon, they would not be "extra-biblical." So, maybe your objection should be,

"Is there extra-biblical independent attestation for any of the important characters relevant to Christian origins besides some Roman magistrates and John the Baptist?"

Though I wouldn't suggest it. We have no choice but to make the best sense of Christian origins with the scarce and untrustworthy selection of documents we have.

show_no_mercy

Josephus, Ant 20.9.1

Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου

Please identify the "some".

No, it's pretty obvious that the words aren't original to Josephus. The only two times that Josephus refers to a "christ" are the two references to the Jesus of Christianity. He doesn't even use that word to describe Vespasian, who he actually did think was the messiah (christ) predicted in Jewish scripture. Josephan language use is evidence against it being original, whereas Christian-colored glasses are what makes it original.

Why don't you have a look at what the word meant to Josephus' audience. It most certainly didn't mean "anointed one". It's in the link above. Josephus has a habit of explaining peculiar Jewish customs to his audience because they obviously aren't Jewish. Why wouldn't he also explain the Jewish idiosyncratic definition of "christ"? Do you think that Euripides was talking about Jesus?

Juststeve

Mercy:

Josephus uses the word Christ but in different ways. In the Jewish Wars he flat out says that Jesus was the Christ, something he probably didn't say and something that bears every sign of the hand of a Christian scribe. In antiquities he merely identifies the brother of James as the one called Christ. In as much as there were lots of guys named Jesus identifying Jesus as the one called Christ makes a lot of sense. The passage is more about James than Jesus and Jesus is only mentioned to designate which James he was talking about.

Steve

Steven Carr

No Christian in the first century ever put his name to a document saying he had heard of them.

They do not exist - outside the Gospels , which are unprovenanced, anonymous and plagiarise each other.

This is why Mark Goodacre was not able to say what counts as attestation of existence.

I think he can smell a can of worms without opening it.

spin

You continue to assume these problematic sections of AJ were written by Josephus, when there is clearly an ongoing context for them from christian origin. While there is no direct reason for a christian to write the conflicting information about JtB into AJ, there is for the harmonious Jesus references.

The Testimonium Flavianum has been questioned for centuries, though in recent times for arbitrary logic it has been reanimated, though said reanimation is seen to be bogus under inspection. (See my blog here on the issue.) The brief phrase about James has been worked over for its word order suggests what it doesn't provide: putting Jesus first, a marked change in word order requires a recent mention of Jesus to refer back to, but needing to qualify the Jesus says that there is no recent mention.

This second Jesus reference appears to be a marginal comment noting that this James was for the commenter the one who was the brother of Jesus and a later scribe included it the best he could. The first is a clear cuckoo in the nest, which appears to have purposefully been inserted into a context it doesn't belong in.

Why do you insist on citing the AJ Jesus references as though they are kosher, when they don't allow you to think they are?


spin

spin

And, honestly, whose translation does? Perhaps it reads that in Mt 1:16 as well.


spin

spin

This is true whether there was a Jesus or not. Hence you aren't saying anything.

You have been presented with evidence to the contrary and you have stayed silent on the issue, before, after a pause, coming back as though nothing had been said against these references. We start to feel as if we are in a scene from "Memento".

(On the christ reference in Tacitus, see my blog.)


spin

spamandham

Can we at least agree that 'the gospels' really is 'the gospel' since Luke and Matthew are just rewrites of Mark, and John appears to be later still yet dependent on the synoptics?

Now looking at Tacitus and Josephus regarding Jesus, are either of those references at all in conflict with the Gospels? Hell, the "he was the Christ" reference in Josephus is practically a fifth mini gospel.

The point that spin is making, is that there are identifiably two different traditions regarding JtB. There is only one identifiable tradition regarding Jesus.

Pilate at least has contemporary documentation of his existence. That isn't true of Jesus...and I don't think (but am unsure) that it's true of JtB either.

Doug Shaver

I'm not claiming any kind of immunity for the evidence. I'm claiming only a lack of contrary evidence. I have seen not the slightest reason to suspect that Josephus's reference to John is a forgery. All I've ever seen is "Christians could have done it, so they must have done it." That is not enough. Of course they could have. I would not be all that surprised if they did. But possibility is not evidence of actuality.

Juststeve

Spam:

I think your efforts to collapse all four gospels into one is simplistic and wrong. It is clear I think that Luke and Matthew are dependent on Mark for much of their material but it is equally clear that both contain material not in Mark. With regard to this material sometimes Matthew and Luke agree, sometimes they don't. This has led many to the conclusion that Luke and Matthew each had at least three sources, Mark was one, a common source was two, and an independent source for each of Matthew and Luke to account for the information on which they disagree. Only someone who wants to disregard the gospels as evidence at all costs would claim that there is only one source for the synoptics. Mythers like to do that.

John clearly appears to be based on a stream of tradition quite independent of Mark. There are fundamental difference best explained by John having different sources of information that Mark. Johns Jesus makes multiple trips to Jerusalem during a ministry of at least 3 years. Mark has him crucified the first time he goes to town. Mark places the cleansing of the Temple in the final week of Jesus' life and suggest that it was that act that led to the conspiracy against Jesus. John places the cleansing two rears before the crucifixion and attributes the conspiracy to another event altogether, one absent from the synoptics. John and the synoptics even disagree about the date Jesus was crucified. This is strong evidence that John was relying on evidence independent of that used by the synoptic writers. Therefore I count the gospels and two fully separate sources with additional independent sources behind Matthew and Luke.

Steve