Josephus on Jesus

[Copernicus]

Angellous, I'm simply not interested in exchanging insults with you. When you contribute something of substance, I'll respond to it.

 

[Zardoz]

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Angellous, I'm simply not interested in exchanging insults with you. When you contribute something of substance, I'll respond to it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

OK, but I was limiting my remarks to the OP, which I think is easily refuted.

Given that you do not understand the OP, I seriously doubt it -- unless, of course, you equate 'Josephus was not a real historian like Tacitus' as a refutation -- but we'll see.

The problem with Josephus is that he, like other contemporaries, was writing well after the events in question. So the OP reduces essentially to the claim that Jesus probably existed because Josephus believed he existed.

First, let's restate the OP:

A decade ago Kirby wrote:

But assuming that at least the shorter reference is authentic, what can we conclude from this? It shows that Josephus accepted the historicity of Jesus. Simply by the standard practice of conducting history, a comment from Josephus about a fact of the first century constitutes prima facie evidence for that fact. It ought to be accepted as history unless there is good reason for disputing the fact.

and I continue to maintain that this and Acts is more than sufficient grounds for the presumption of historicity (but not, of course, divinity) simply on the basis of abductive reasoning.

Now, on to your 'refutation.'

I do not see that as sufficient evidence for historicity.

Would that be evidence to prove historicity or evidence to presume historicity?

One needs to have some understanding of what Josephus used as source material, since he himself was not a witness. Did he check his sources in any way? Tacitus was a contemporary who gains more respect from modern historians precisely because he did make an effort to verify his historical claims (albeit not necessarily his brief--and controversial--references to Christ). Josephus was something of an amateur historian with a known tendency to exaggerate or embellish some of his claims.

So let's try a two-part experiment:

1. Select what you consider to be the three best modern historical works on the period, and then
2. tell us which, if any, fail to use Josephus as a primary source of information.

The presumption here, of course, is that you've actually read something approximating relevant scholarship, and we all know that this presumption so far remains baseless. So let me demonstrate in advance what you'll confront if and when you venture beyond your silly 'refutation'. Take a look at the ancient claimants section of the livius.org site. Scan through each and tell us how many entries rely solely on Josephus.

Do you seriously claim that the most reasonable assumption for each is that they did not exist because Josephus, after all, is no Tacitus?​

Finally, tell us:

• Do you presume that James is entirely fictional?
• Do you presume that James being referenced as the brother of Jesus is false?
• Do you presume that the Jerusalem sect is fictional?

... and why?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Would that be evidence to prove historicity or evidence to presume historicity

(I shudder to think...)

He's already shot the baby and threw it out with the bathwater...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's interesting, by the way, that Lendering writes (in part):

It should be stressed that Josephus is, according to ancient criteria, an excellent historian. Authors like Polybius of Megalopolis and Lucian have published treatises on the writing of history, and Josephus lives up to the standards they set. He knows the country he is describing, he has experience as commander of an army, and he understands the issues of the war. Moreover, he interviewed representatives of both sides. This is more than can be said about his younger contemporary Tacitus, who is usually regarded as a greater historian. As we will see below, modern scholars have criticized Josephus, though. [source]

Copernicus is free to have whatever opinion on Josephus he chooses but the fact remains that not all opinions are created equal and his pseudo-intellectual ad hominem attack on the poor guy is as vacuous as it is pretentious. Oh, well ...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Copernicus is free to have whatever opinion on Josephus he chooses but the fact remains that not all opinions are created equal and his pseudo-intellectual ad hominem attack on the poor guy is as vacuous as it is pretentious. Oh, well ...

Becareful not to "insult" him or he'll take his ball and go home.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Becareful not to "insult" him or he'll take his ball and go home.

For the record, I was characterizing the ad hominem argument, not it's champion.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

not all opinions are created equal and his pseudo-intellectual ad hominem attack on the poor guy is as vacuous as it is pretentious. Oh, well ...

The irony of it all is that there are historians with a positivist philosophy of historicity, but *most* of these folks still balance positivism with the fragmentary nature of the evidence....

 

[angellous_evangellous]

For the record, I was characterizing the ad hominem argument, not it's champion.

Hense the quotes "insult".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

*kicks can*

 

[Biblestudent_007]

Modern scholars are in a different historical period than Josephus. There's a difference

 

[angellous_evangellous]

*eats can*

 

[Otherright]

Modern scholars are in a different historical period than Josephus. There's a difference

Yes, that's right. Now scholars have more tools and continue to build on the successful techniques of their predecessors.

 

[Copernicus]

I do not see that as sufficient evidence for historicity.

Would that be evidence to prove historicity or evidence to presume historicity?

Evidence to presume historicity. It is bad enough that at least some of Josephus' text appears to have been tampered with by Christians anxious to provide historical evidence, but all you can really presume from this text is that someone--probably Christians--provided Josephus with his "facts". We do not know where his information came from. But why would Christians feel the need to embellish or interpolate anything at all, if they already had sufficient evidence to presume historicity?

So let's try a two-part experiment:

Select what you consider to be the three best modern historical works on the period, and then
tell us which, if any, fail to use Josephus as a primary source of information.

This "experiment" has nothing at all to do with the validity of my argument, which you have not even attempted to refute. You keep returning to two themes: appeal to authority and argument from mockery. Both are fallacies. I have given my reasons for rejecting the claim in the OP. Acts and Josephus alone are not sufficient for a presumption of historicity. Josephus faces the same criticism as Suetonius, Pliny, and Tacitus, authors that have also been offered as evidence for a "presumption of historicity". The only evidence of historicity that these men provide us with is the historicity of Christians, not the man around whom the Christian legend centered.

Finally, tell us:

Do you presume that James is entirely fictional?

No. Nor do I presume that Jesus is entirely fictional. You haven't been paying attention.

Do you presume that James being referenced as the brother of Jesus is false?

No. That reference is part of the legend. As I have already said, I consider Acts the best evidence of the historicity of Jesus, because Paul claims to have actually met with James. He may be the original source for Josephus' claim, for all we know. On the other hand, Paul also said a lot of things that strike me as false or delusional. He could have made up the story. It would not be the first time in the history of mankind that somebody has invented a plausible fiction in support of a religion.

Do you presume that the Jerusalem sect is fictional?

... and why?

I make no presumption that it was real or fictional. I do not take everything Paul wrote as probable truth.

BTW, I know that Tacitus is a sore point with you, although he was clearly heads above other so-called "historians" of his time. It sure would be nice if the Christian scribes had preserved the missing years from his Annals--AD 29, 30, and 31. I bet that those years contained a lot of corroboration for the existence of Jesus. They must have misplaced that section...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Jay - I'm putting together a course "How to do history poorly."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm done. Copernicus has bested me ...

 

[outhouse]

all I see is Josephus coming from a pauline community, where pauls words and teachings would have been known.

I will never trust pauls word as to me he seem's lke a scumbag and josephas is in that same boat as well.


I think at best Josephas is weak, im not alone with this even among scholars and historians.


The only way I see even the weak evidence within Josephas is by adding what we already know as a preface

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm done. Copernicus has bested me ...

:foryou:

He bested your cohort as well.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

all I see is Josephus coming from a pauline community, where pauls words and teachings would have been known.

I will never trust pauls word as to me he seem's lke a scumbag and josephas is in that same boat as well.


I think at best Josephas is weak, im not alone with this even among scholars and historians.


The only way I see even the weak evidence within Josephas is by adding what we already know as a preface

As a matter of curiosity, by what standard do you judge Paul to be a "scumbag"?

I've called him a "weirdo" and never heard the end of it.