gnosis92

flavius josephus wrote of massada which is being studied by archaelogy today.

i heard there are some discrepencies between what josepheus wrote what happaned in massada as opposed to what archaelogists have discovered today.


i do not know the nature of these discrepencies however i think it might be worth considering, since the nt was written by authors in background to josepheus, with the same historical intent as josepheus.

if josepheus is "wrong" or got a lot of details wrong about massada, which he was contemporary, what does this say about perhaps the nt?

ChandraRama

Given the Josephus's need to please the Roman authorities, the text is understood in the light of it. The important thing is that there is no other historian who wrote all that thing about the first century Judea. All others have been destroyed or lost. If there were other texts, certainly it is a great tool. But when one reads the Josephus with his specific bias in mind, the text would certainly be useful.