by Pleasuredome 26 Replies latest watchtower bible
the works of josephus have been used to back up the gosples, but how can we be sure that those works of josephus wasn't tampered with by the vatican? this is something i hadn't looked into before and i found this site which raised a few questions about the josephus texts.
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/awmob/awpaul/chr210MANCensoringJosephus.html
has anyone done any research on this?
I'd be very cautious of his chronological statememts.
Josephus couldn't count from 1 to 10 without missing a number. I'm only using him in my arguments with JCanon because of Canon's opening statements in the 'Why AlanF' thread.
I've finished reading his complete works. Josephus himself seems to have had some loyalty issues of his own, and he also seems to have made the most of his opportunistic nature through the opportunities the Romans granted him to write about Jewish history. All in all, his work is very valuable, as ancient "historians" go.
Those couple of passages that reference Jesus and James are very curious. Since those passages provide a small internal contradiction in Josephus' writings, most scholars now think that either one or both were probably added later, or more likely slightly edited, at least in the primary Jesus passage. There is some evidence that a "less generous" Jesus passage was already there, and it's therefore hard to figure out just how much was added and what was there originally. "If he can even be called a man" is typically considered spurious by all new scholars for the last 100 years. But it's mostly conjecture, common sense, and guessing. It's been done to death on several Websites.
If an addition had been made to be give a more generous reference to Jesus, we can be very glad, it's what would have saved the entire set of books from certain destruction by the Christians. (Some of the early Church Fathers who were very proud of their book-burning capabilities.)
There's another angle, too: that it's not impossible that Josephus added the complimentary phrases about Jesus as a way to explain the current beliefs about Jesus that had already reached Rome very early in the 2nd century. It doesn't mean that he, Josephus, believed them.
Gamaliel
The works of any historian reflects the prejudices and views of that individual. In the case of Josephus, he had betrayed his Jewish brothers in their conflict with Rome and "joined the enemy." However, that doesn't mean that all he wrote was untrue or prejudicial. It just means that we should be careful in accepting everything written. Never-the-less, some invaluable information is contained in his works especially in Antiquity of the Jews and The Jewish War.
It doesn't mean that he, Josephus, believed them.Gamaliel
Josephus seems to be the answer to the christians dream yet there is something christians are not familiar with.
Those "words" of Josephus concerning Jesus were NOT in Josephus early writings and did NOT show up till the 4th century. Why do many believe this?
Not a single writer BEFORE the 4th century.....whether it be Irenaus, or Clement, or Tertullian, in all of their defenses against the pagans ever used these supposed words of Josephus for back-up and they would have done so, had those words from Josephus existed.
Even 'Origen' ....3rd century church father, who was one of the greatest defenders of christianity who drew from all sources and ESPECIALLY of Josephus, ......NEVER made mentions of those supposed words of Josephus.
It is obvious that those words were added by the rotten lying church fathers, who were famous for pledgerizing, making up things, and flat out lying , to accomplish their ends.
Gumby
gumby said: Even 'Origen' ....3rd century church father, who was one of the greatest defenders of christianity who drew from all sources and ESPECIALLY of Josephus, ......NEVER made mentions of those supposed words of Josephus.And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.
Origen - Matthew X, XVII
For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth - that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ) - the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.
Origen, - Against Celsus I, XLVII
Nice quotes from origen there hooberus.
I didn't see where he quoted the paragraph in question from Josephus.
Gumby
Thank you Hooberus. You beat me to the punch. Those words of Origen can be read in his Commentary on Matthew in 10:17 at
http://www.earlyChristianwritings.com
Scroll down to Origen and click. Then scroll down again to Roberts-Donaldson English translation: Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Go down to 10:17 and there you will find it.
Gumby,
According to Gamaliel's post there are 2 passages in Josephus' Antiquity of the Jews that reference James and Jesus.
You are speaking of the first and Hooberus and I are speaking of the second.
Testimonium Flavianum is where that "special" paragraph is from.
How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?
The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian and he wasn't!
If Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than one paragraph, a casual aside in someone else's (Pilate's) story?
In fact, Josephus relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed 'Egyptian Jew' messiah.
It is striking that though Josephus confirms everything the Christians could wish for, he adds nothing not in the gospel narratives, nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already.
Gumby
