Ted Hoffman

If it is authentic, does that, in itself, prove that there existed a historical Jesus? Is Josephus' the only person who could have known and written about Jesus?

What is the wisdom in ignoring the dozens of other writers ALL of who dont mention Jesus at all in the first century and instead choosing to bank on Josephus?

Especially after admitting that Antiquities 18 was interpolated. What are the chances that the interpolators were satisfied with interpolation of Antiquities 18 ALONE?

Its unlikely that Eusebius did the interpolation himself, so whoever did it, why should we confidently believe that he (mustave been a he) only chose Antiquities 18 and closed the book?

Please help me to understand.

Soul Invictus

Sorry for my question, but what are the Antiquities?

Ted Hoffman

Jewish historian Josephus (37 C.E. - circa 100 C.E. ) wrote the book Antiquities of the Jews aka Antiquities -
<a href="http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/BC/FlaviusJosephus/" target="_blank">Here is the complete book</a>

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Cretinist

Josephus could still be reporting inaccurately. It could quite possibly be some info he got from some rabbis who knew about Christians and used some of their folklore to co-explain some events.

Ted Hoffman

Now you are talking. But you must explain why we should believe that as a possibility.
However, I must ask, why should we rely on Josephus so much? after all he admits what he wrote was handed down (sounds like Luke in introduction to Acts) and he said he got info from the sacred texts (the Talmud?) Antiquities 20 Chapter 11.
Where did he get his info from?

King Arthur

The Talmud did not exist during Josephus' time. Josephus is more than likely referring to the majority of the TaNaKh (i.e. the Christian Old Testament).

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Ah, King Arthur, whats your position on the matter - if Antiquities 20 were authentic would that be enough to prove there existed a historical Jesus? If not, what more would be required?

King Arthur

Prove? No. Lend some credibility to the existence of a historical Jesus as mentioned in the New Testament? Yes.

Though I suppose there could have been more than one James who was the brother of some other Jesus who was called the Christ and whose story was very similar to that told in the Christian New Testament, the probability seems low. It sounds to me like the New Testament and Josephus are probably talking about the same person.

The fact that other authors that we know of from that time period don't mention him does not seem a huge surprise. Josephus, himself, talks of other supposed "Christs" if I remember right. Jesus was probably seen by the upper class as a nobody stirring things up. Many peoples opinions probably followed the opinions of the Pharisees and people of Jesus' hometown as mentioned in the New Testament. He was probably a blip on the radar screen of Israel. The miracles that he worked were probably not that much different than other "miracle workers" and magicians of the ancient world, so he probabbly wouldn't have raised enough attention to be written about by many. Even his "raising of the dead" might have been explained away and denied by many, just like it would be today.

When speaking of history, one can only speak in terms of high and low probabilities. I think there is a high probability that a Jesus very similar to the one in the New Testment existed.

Ted Hoffman

Aaah, King Arthur, I think I largely agree with you.

But is "a historical Jesus" Christ (the Logos)?
If not, of what theological significance is the historical Jesus?

When you say:
It means, if we could travel back in time and we find a man called Jesus who is masquerading as a magician, with a brother called James, we would pick him and say he "must" be the historical Jesus?
If he was a hapless magician, why would the Romans kill him? And why would the Jews hate him so much if there were so many magicians around then?

Radcliffe Emerson

Read the book Excavating Jesus by John Dominic Crossan.
It goes into some very plausible reasons why Rome would have executed Jesus.