Luke's account on Quirinius and the census

[guy]

Actually the only part that been tempered in Josephus books are his mentions of Jesus, John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus.

 

There are some interesting discussions on the internet about the authenticity of Josephus's writings. This is plagarized from Peter Kirby who has an interesting internet site Early Christian Writings. This is one of Josephus's passages he critiques:

 

Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

 

Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation

[Ingsoc]

Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man,if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

 

The problem with this passage is that it's a Chriastian declaretion of faith and goes against all that we know about Josephus religious beliefs.

[Andrew Dalby]

That comes a question: is the Bible a religious book based only on Christian belief, or a historical record? In another words are biblical facts = historical facts?

Coming back to this a bit late, I just wanted to comment on Miguel's question there. Preface: I write as a historian.

 

Your question needs to be rephrased a bit because the Bible is not, in origin, one book. If you want to know how to deal with Biblical texts as historical source, you have took at each text separately. A good Biblical commentary will help you do this, because it'll have a separate introduction to each book, giving views and controversies about when it was written, by whom, how much later editing may have happened, and what the sources for that book may have been. Especially for the Gospels, you'll find lengthy discussion about each one in turn. And it's very useful to look through that material, I'd say.

[Ursus]

That comes a question: is the Bible a religious book based only on Christian belief, or a historical record?

 

 

I believe it is a religious work based on Jewish and Christian sentiments, with the former not accepting the claims of the latter. Perhaps you're referring to the New Testament alone, which places things in a different perspective.

 

As far as historical veracity of the Bible as a whole, it is mixed. e.g., The Egyptians used domestic conscripts to build their pyramids. There is not much archaeological evidence to support large numbers of Hebrew slaves in Egypt. Exodus has about as much historical validity as the Aeneid.

 

I look at it like this: myth usually has some very distant historical connection as a basis, or we wouldn't call it a myth. When stories are set in Never-Never lands, we call them fairy tales. But the actual myths themselves are probably better as allegory than history.

[cleopatra]

Josephus's writings were saved do to th Christians who savored his books while the jews wouldnt have anything to do with them, so they were translated and copied over the years by Christians, which makes people believe that this

passage about Jesus might have been fabricated or that it is a later addition.

In 1971 an arab manuscript from the tenth century was published where Agapius, an Arab Christian scholar, quotes from memory the same passage in Josephus, but as you can see, it is somewhat different:

[

i]"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he 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. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders"[/i]

This might suggest that Josephus did write about Jesus, minus the Christian belief parts included in the Testimonium Flavianum.

About the Bible being an accurate history source: John, 20: 30-31 - says that the aim of the evangalists is to spread the word of Christ and strengthen the beliefs of Christians. Its not meant to tell or record history, nor is it a scientific biography of Christ (we actually dont know anything personal about him from the Evangalists - what he looked like, what he liked to do, ect ect, only his teachings are recorded. Because of this, you cant regard the Evangalists as portraying accurate history, as this wasnt their purpose (and this isnt me saying, its John). So,historical facts found in them, such as dates and names and stuff, are by chance and its not surprising that there are contradictions between them - the Evangalist wanted to spread the Christian belief by writing the Gospels, and he had no reason to double check historical facts, as this was not his purpose.

Edited June 18, 2007 by cleopatra

[Ingsoc]

This might suggest that Josephus did write about Jesus, minus the Christian belief parts included in the Testimonium Flavianum.

 

It's still dubious in my eyes, let's remember that Jesus wasn't the only Jew at that time who proclaim himself as the messiah and if you check the rest of his books you will see the Josephus is viciously attacking all other would be messiahs while his portray of Jesus is a positve one.

[guy]

guy said:

Error

Edited August 6, 2020 by guy