Brian63

I'm reading ETDAV currently, and I have an inquiry regarding the passage in Antiquities supposedly written by Josephus.

The passage is this (quoted on page 187 of ETDAV):

McDowell then argues:

Somewhere I read (probably in the II library) that it is precisely because it shows up in the texts used by Eusebius (and no earlier texts) that its authenticity is in doubt, because he had started a "lying for Christ" campaign among 4th century Christians. There are other reasons for its questionable authenticity, including that the paragraph is out of context with what Josephus was talking about in the paragraphs above and below it, and the fact that Josephus was a Jew, so he would not be glorifying Jesus at all. I was astonished and disappointed that McDowell would not mention these, and I chalked it up to extremely poor scholarship on his part.

I am wondering though if there is a valid explanation for why McDowell would not have mentioned it. The only one that I can think of is that at the time of the writing of ETDAV (1970's) not all this information was available. So that is the question that I'm hoping you knowledgeable folk can help me with answering.

Do you know when it was discovered that Eusebius admittedly would lie for Christianity (i.e. was it centuries ago or merely in the last couple decades)? Is the debate pretty much settled among scholars that the passage was a later addition by Christians, or is it still going back and forth today? If it is settled already, was it settled before the 1970's? I'm trying to give McDowell SOME chance at appearing credible, because as it stands his poor research and presentation is incredible.

Thanks,

Brian

Kosh

Of course, since the earliest example we have
of it is from the 4th century, and Rome adopted
Christianity in the early 4th century, then there
was plenty of time for the text to have been
inserted when it would NOT have displeased the
Romans.

James AD

Concerning McDowell's credibility... When McDowell argues for the reliability of the gospels, he treats them as independent sources. He never even mentions the synoptic problem. Being derived from a common source, it's the differences that are revealing, not the commonalities.

B. H. Manners

If the two segments in Josephus referring to Christ were authentic it seems to me strange that he did not expound on Jesus more than he did.
I know according to legend that in the Jewish Revolt of 66-71A.D. the Christians in Jerusalem were warned to flee to Petra to escape the Roman conquest. Now, no one knows when this legend exactly appeared, but I would think things like this would have been noticed by Josephus if he wrote this about Christ, especially since the fall of Jerusalem was "prophesied" in Matthew 24.

Just so you know--The modern edition of William Whiston's 18th century translation of Josephus includes an argument in the appendix that Josephus was a Bishop of Jerusalem for the Ebionite Christian sect. Ebionites believed in Jesus as messiah but still thought the Old Law was to be obeyed. The argument is included as part of other topics and seems very weak to me.

Toto

Most scholars consider that passage was either inserted by a pious Christian copyist, or was originally a much less complimentary passage that was doctored up to look like an endorsement of Jesus.

I highly recommend Josephus and the New Testament by Steve Mason. Mason is a preeminent Josephus scholar and a very clear writer, and his book may clear up some puzzles about Josephus. Josephus' work has survived because later Christians used it for their own propaganda purposes. They also mythologized Josephus, making him into something close to a saint.

I would also recommend Peter Kirby's website, www.earlychristianwritings.com , except that I have not been able to get to it for some time.

As for Eusebius, considered by most historians an unreliable source, see Richard Carrier's assessment here.

edited to add: if you are reading Josh McDowell, you can find refutations in The Jury Is In in the secweb library. The discussion of Josephus is here.

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Vorkosigan

You too, Toto. I thought the trouble with EarlyChristianWritings was just me. Kirby is probably still on JM. Have you emailed him?

Michael

RyanS2

I haven't been able to get Kirby's site in a while either. I wanted to compare his arguments for it versus Doherty's arguments against it. Doherty's arguments against it are at:

http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm

Another one is G. J. Goldberg

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/home.htm

Sojourner553

this should answer your question!

(Taken from http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/JOSEPHUS.TXT which relies heavily on James H. Charlesworth, JESUS WITHIN JUDAISM--NEW LIGHT FROM EXCITING ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES):


(this may also be found as Section I Chapter 5 on the site http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html


Earliest Known NON-Christian Reference to Jesus

Josephus' two works provide an invaluable source of information on the
history of the Jews during the time of Jesus. Especially valuable to
historians are the great level of detail present on the events in Palestine,
whose accuracy has been verified by various archeological digs.

His work, ANTIQUITIES was written around the year 93 C.E., and includes
a section on Jesus and the early Christian movement. Unfortunately there
appears to be evidence that his text had been "revised", probably by some
later Christian copyist(s). I have included the whole text, while highlighting
those areas that were probably later additions to the original. (Note this
analysis borrows heavily from James H. Charlesworth, JESUS WITHIN JUDAISM--NEW
LIGHT FROM EXCITING ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES):

At about this time lived Jesus, a wise man, IF INDEED ONE MIGHT CALL
HIM A MAN. For he was one who accomplished surprising feats and was a
teacher of such people as are eager for novelties. He won over many
of the Jews and many of the Greeks. HE WAS THE MESSIAH. When Pilate,
upon an indictment brought by the principal men among us, condemned
him to the cross, those who had loved him from the very first did not
cease to be attached to him. On the third day he appeared to them
restored to life, FOR THE HOLY PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THIS AND MYRIADS
OF OTHER MARVELS CONCERNING HIM. And the tribe of the Christians, so
called after him, has to this day still not disappeared.

Josephus was a Jew living in Rome, who was writing his great histories
primarily for a Roman pagan audience. He would have had to have been a
Christian himself to make such statements as "He was the Messiah" and so forth.
Yet, as we have already seen in his JEWISH WARS, he harshly speaks out against
Jewish "[i]mposters and demagogues, [who] under the guise of divine inspiration,
provoked revolutionary actions and impelled the masses to act like madmen."
(See Chapter 3). Also, after he surrendered to the Romans, he proclaimed the
Roman general Vespasian (later named Roman emperor after his popular victory
in Palestine) as the expected Jewish messiah. Later, Josephus moved to Rome,
and under the patronage of Vespasian wrote his Jewish histories.

There is other evidence that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah,
Origen, the third century C.E. Christian leader wrote on his astonishment in
reading Josephus' works--how Josephus spoke so highly of James (the brother
of Jesus), while disbelieving Jesus was the Messiah.

Various scholars have shown that if certain "pro-Christian" passages are
removed, then the text reads more like a detached formal reporting of the
situation. If this analysis is correct, here is an example of what might
have approximated Josephus' original text:

"At about this time lived Jesus, a wise man...He performed astonishing
feats and was a teacher of such people as are eager for novelties. He
attracted many Jews and many of the Greeks...Upon an indictment brought
by leading members of our society, Pilate sentenced him to the cross, but
those who had loved him from the very first did not cease to be attached
to him... On the third day he appeared to them restored to life...
The brotherhood of the Christians, named after him, is still in existence."

Notice how certain phrases are really unflattering when examined carefully.
For example, the text states that Jesus was a "teacher" for such people who
are "eager for novelties." Also, the last sentence "The brotherhood of the
Christians, named after him, is still in existence", would appear to be more
appropriately written by someone who believed that this sect would NOT be in
existence for a long time.

Another reference to Josephus' passage on Jesus has been discovered in an
Arabic work, called the BOOK OF THE TITLE. The author Agapius was a tenth
century Christian Arab and bishop in Asia Minor, who read Josephus' work and
translated his early source into Arabic. The translation of his work from Arabic
to English, has Josephus say:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct
was good, and was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the
Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned
him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples
did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared
to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive,
accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets
have recounted wonders."

Notice that although it does NOT have the controversial phrases "if indeed
one might call him a man", "He was the Messiah", etc. This version also
talks third person (ie "They reported") on Jesus resurrection, and he was
"perhaps the Messiah". However it is obvious that any alteration here was
MINOR in comparison to the Greek version that is more famous. (Of course,
it is possible that there was NO deliberate alteration in this case, and any
minor differences were due to the process of translating the text from Greek
into Arabic!)

In cross-referencing these two translations, we see that it is highly
probable that Josephus had included an account of Jesus in his Jewish
histories. But although he spoke respectfully of Jesus, even regarding him
as a wise man--it is highly unlikely that he believed Jesus to be the messiah
or a divine being.

Josephus' other work, THE WARS OF THE JEWS was also originally written
in Greek. A version of it that survived in the Greek Orthodox Church
(in Russian and Rumanian) also contains passages referring to Jesus and
John the Baptist. Some of these passages clearly depict Jesus' divinity and
are therefore probably revisions by a later Christian editor (for reasons
mentioned earlier). These have been italicized to differentiate them from
the rest of the text.

Note especially how (in the non-italicized passages) the writer is
depicting more matter-of-fact events about Jesus. Also notice the overriding
concern how Jesus' ministry will stir the people to revolt against the
Romans! The section on Jesus is given intact here. It occurs immediately
after a discussion by Josephus on John the Baptist. (See Section II, Chapter
3). Note I have conservatively highlighted passages that could be possible
interpolations.

"The Ministry and Crucifixion of Jesus

"It was at that time that a man appeared--IF "MAN" IS THE RIGHT WORD--
WHO HAD ALL THE ATTRIBUTES OF A MAN BUT SEEMED TO BE SOMETHING GREATER.
HIS ACTIONS, CERTAINLY, WERE SUPERHUMAN, FOR HE WORKED SUCH WONDERFUL
AND AMAZING MIRACLES THAT I FOR ONE CANNOT REGARD HIM AS A MAN; YET IN
VIEW OF HIS LIKENESS TO OURSELVES I CANNOT REGARD HIM AS AN ANGEL EITHER.
EVERYTHING THAT SOME HIDDEN POWER ENABLED HIM TO DO HE DID BY AN
AUTHORITATIVE WORD. Some people said that their first Lawgiver had risen
from the dead and had effected many marvelous cures; others thought he was
a messenger from heaven. However, in many ways he broke the Law--for
instance, he did not observe the Sabbath in the traditional manner. At
the same time his conduct was above reproach. He did not need to use
his hands: A word sufficed to fulfill his every purpose.

Many of the common people flocked after him and followed his teaching.
There was a wave of excited expectation that he would enable the Jewish
tribes to throw off the Roman yoke. As a rule he was to be found opposite
the City on the Mount of Olives, where also he healed the sick. He
gathered round him 150 assistants and masses of followers. When they saw
his ability to do whatever he wished by a word, they told him that they
wanted him to enter the City, destroy the Roman troops, and make himself
king; but he took no notice.

When the suggestion came to the ears of the Jewish authorities, they met
under the chairmanship of the high priest and exclaimed: "We are utterly
incapable of resisting the Romans; but as the blow is about to fall we'd
better go and tell Pilate what we've heard, and steer clear of trouble, in
case he gets to know from someone else and confiscates our property, puts
us to death, and turns our children adrift." So they went and told Pilate,
who sent troops and butchered many of the common people. He then had the
Miracle-worker brought before him, held an inquiry, and EXPRESSED THE
OPINION THAT HE WAS A BENEFACTOR, NOT A CRIMINAL OR AGITATOR OR A WOULD-BE
KING. THEN HE LET THEM GO, AS HE HAD CURED PILATE'S WIFE WHEN SHE WAS
AT THE POINT OF DEATH.

Returning to his usual haunts he resumed his normal work. When the
crowds grew bigger than ever, he earned by his actions an incomparable
reputation. THE EXPONENTS OF THE LAW WERE MAD WITH JEALOUSY, AND GAVE
PILATE 30 TALENTS TO HAVE HIM EXECUTED. ACCEPTING THIS BRIBE, he gave
them permission to carry out their wishes themselves. So they seized him
and crucified him in defiance of all Jewish tradition.

In the time of Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander many of the
Miracle-worker's followers came forward and declared to the adherents of
their master that, although he had died, he was now alive and would free
them from their slavery. Many of the common people listened to their
preaching and accepted their call--not because they were men of mark,
for they were working men, some only shoemakers, others cobblers, others
labourers. BUT THEY WORKED MARVELLOUS "SIGNS"; IN FACT NOTHING WAS
BEYOND THEIR POWER.

Seeing the unsettlement of the people, these excellent procurators decided
after consulting the scribes to arrest the men and put them to death, for
fear that the movement, though of no consequences at the moment, might
end in a major upheaval. BUT IN FACE OF THE "SIGNS", THEY HESISTATED AND
DARED NOT TAKE ANY ACTION, CONVINCED THAT NO MEDICAL TREATMENT COULD
ACCOUNT FOR SUCH MARVELLOUS CURES, AND SURMISING THAT IF THESE WERE NOT THE
WORK OF GOD HIMSELF THEY WOULD SOON BE SHOWN UP. So they gave the men
complete freedom of action. Later, however, they were persuaded by the
scribes to send them to Rome or Antioch to be tried, banishing others to
distant countries. (R.T. HERFORD, CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD AND MIDRASH (NEW
YORK: KTAV, 1903), p 37, quoted by JESUS OUTSIDE THE GOSPELS, R. Joseph
Hoffman, (Prometheus Books) 1984, pp55-9

Some interpolations seem obvious: For example, if Jesus could cure Pilate's
wife "when she was at the point of death" it seems strange that a mere bribe
could convince him to later have Jesus crucified. It is also interesting to
note the heavy references to revolutionary activity: The Jewish authorities
are concerned that THEY will be punished by the Romans if Jesus' activity
stirs up the people into a revolt--Josephus also mentions how Pilate was
known to "butcher" the common people in the interests of keeping the peace.

The "excellent" procurators (or Roman governors) decide to arrest Jesus'
followers, again to prevent a possible future revolt. As we shall see
in the next chapters, these references to revolt have been almost completely
removed in the gospel accounts of Jesus--this despite the fact that
historians today know that this revolutionary background was probably
the most important factor in the environment against which Jesus lived and
preached!

The gospel writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John generally present
Jesus as a SPIRITUAL leader, who wasn't recognized by the Jews as the
Messiah because they were so absorbed into looking for a POLITICAL leader or
king. In this way, the revolutionary background in Palestine against which
Jesus lived and preached is greatly downplayed!

Only the gospel of John makes a DIRECT reference to this political environment.
When the Pharisees found out that Jesus had miraculously raised Lazarus from
the dead, the gospel writer John wrote how they and the chief priests openly
worried about being punished by the Romans for any appearance of
revolutionary activity:

"'What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him
go on thus, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come
and destroy both our holy place and our nation.'" (John 11:47-8)

Silence of other Contemporary Writers on the Existence of Jesus Christ

As we have seen, Josephus wrote on the life of Jesus in his ANTIQUITIES
and WAR OF THE JEWS. However, the subject of Jesus does not consume much
of the author's attention. His ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS is comprised of some
twenty volumes. Close to forty chapters are devoted to the life of just one
king. Yet Jesus is not given much more space than obscure robbers and
rebellious leaders in Josephus' ANTIQUITIES. It would seem that Josephus never
dreamed of the monumental importance that would later be attached to his
small entry on Jesus of Nazareth. (John E. Remsburg, THE CHRIST, Prometheus
Books, New York, 1994).

Other contemporary writers of Josephus (living either during the time or a
century later after the death of Jesus) were basically silent on the
miraculous happenings purported by the gospel writers. Even important Roman
writers such as:

*Petronius
*Seneca
*Pliny the Elder
*Pliny the Younger
*Juvenal
*Martial
*Plutarch
*Tacitus
*Seneca

have little or nothing to say on Jesus himself. Tacitus and Seneca DO have a
brief reference to the existence of "Christians" who worshiped a crucified
leader called the Christ. (See Chapter 9) These statements were only made
in passing, and to explain current events.

Even Philo (c 20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.) never referred to Jesus in any of his religious
writings. It would seem that Philo nor other contemporary pagan writers had
even heard of Jesus during his lifetime or shortly after his death. (References
only occurred as Christian followers became a large enough group for others
to take notice.)
***************************

P.S. for an analysis of Josh McDowell's "A READY DEFENSE" see:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/RESPONSE.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/RESPONSE.TXT</a>

Sojourner

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Radcliffe Emerson

Eusebius may have had the text in the 4th century, but in the oldest text by Josephus they have, that passage doesn't match the handwriting of the rest of his works, or so I've read in the past.
Besides, if Jesus really were a Messiah, I'd think Josephus would go on about it a little more than just a mention.

Sojourner553

"I'm trying to give McDowell SOME chance at appearing credible, because as it stands his poor research and presentation is incredible."


McDowell obviously ignored any evidence that went against him.


Eusebius admitted he lied. You know that right?

* * *
(This analysis is from Richard Carrier):

Eusebius is infamous for saying that it was necessary to lie for the
cause of Christianity. In his Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31, listing the ideas
Plato supposedly got from Moses, he states:

"That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who
need such an approach. [As said in Plato's Laws 663e by the Athenian:] 'And
even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is not as he considered it,
and as just now the application of logic held it, if he dared lie to young men
for a good reason, then can't he lie? For falsehood is something even more
useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that
everyone willingly keeps to all justice.' [then by Clinias:] 'Truth is
beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.'
You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew
scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting
angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those
who need such an approach. "
. . .
"Regarding Eusebius' use of this and other passages in book 12, Edwin Hamilton
Gifford says "In Books X-XII Eusebius argues that the Greeks had borrowed
from the older theology and philosophy of the Hebrews, dwelling especially on
the supposed dependence of Plato upon Moses." (Introduction, Preparation for
the Gospel, 1903). So in a book where Eusebius is proving that the pagans got
all their good ideas from the Jews, he lists as one of those good ideas Plato's
argument that lying, indeed telling completely false tales, for the benefit of
the state is good and even necessary. Eusebius then notes quite casually how the
Hebrews did this, telling lies about their God, and he even compares such lies
with medicine, a healthy and even necessary thing."

(3) Discovery of Jesus' Cross

Constantine's mother, Helena played an important role in locating
early relics. Being blessed with "prophetic powers", Helena set off on a
religious archeological expedition to the Holy Land in 326 C.E. with the
Christian chronicler Eusebius at her side. Jerusalem had been a Roman pagan
city since 132 C.E. (ie after the defeat of the Jews in the second Jewish
Revolt.) Helped partly by local Christians in the area, Helena used her
powers to divine the EXACT location where Jesus was born (now the site of
the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem), Jesus' trail in carrying his cross
(celebrated as the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem) and the site of the crucifixion
(now the site of the Church of the Holy sepulcher in Jerusalem.)

According to the Christian writer Socrates Scholasticus, Helena also
discovered Jesus' cross while in Jerusalem. She was said to have located
during this time, not one but three crosses lying side by side. To determine
which one of the three was the authentic cross of Jesus, she reportedly
applied a piece of each cross to a dead body. One of them raised the man
from the dead, and was thus discovered as the "true" cross. (Sulpicius
Severus, CHRONICLE 2.34.4)


Sojourner

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>