Josephus

[MarxSchmarx]

From what I understand, Josephus is considered the main non-Christian source that supposedly shows Jesus exists. However, in recent years my understanding is that his descriptions are increasingly coming into doubt. What is the current interpretation of this?

[Revolution starts with U]

How do we know Josephus even existed?:confused:




:lol:

[Dumb]

Josephus has always been problematic as a "contemporary" source anyway - he wasn't even born until the latest date that Jesus was supposed to have been crucified (37 ce), and Josephus only wrote the text in question - The Antiquities of the Jews - when he was already 56 or 57. At that point, almost the entire New Testament was allegedly composed, and Jesus had allegedly died over half a century before.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

My understanding is that the commonly accepted Josephus texts don't even mention Jesus. There are (as I understand) two Josephus texts -generally regarded as forgeries which supposedly mention Jesus. One of these , the "Bulgarian Josephus" is from a monastery in that country and mentions Jesus as a short ugly man, another text has references to Jesus as a messiah. Both these are generally regarded as forgeries, the latter perhaps being added in by one of the "Church fathers" of the Second Century.As INAFP said, the dates don't correlate.

Its late and someone may be more knowledgeable about this than I. I am not a believer but it is interesting to speculate about what might have been going in during the time of "our Lord".

BTW There's an ad that's been in the Nation magazine for years about some book supposedly proving Jesus was made up or based on a Roman soldier or something.Anybody know about this?

[Revolution starts with U]

I've heard two theories; one that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier. The other that Jesus was Ceaser and Celopatra's son.
Not sure if either of those are what you're talking about.

[agnixie]

From what I understand, Josephus is considered the main non-Christian source that supposedly shows Jesus exists. However, in recent years my understanding is that his descriptions are increasingly coming into doubt. What is the current interpretation of this?

If by increasingly, you mean "since about the 18th century" - the one line about Jesus basically calls him the messiah, which would be massively out of character for Josephus.

Also the thought about Jesus as the illegitimate son of a roman centurion comes, IIRC, from the Talmud, and was retold in somewhat stronger terms by Celsus in his polemics (the "jesus as son of a prostitute" thing is from Celsus' version of the story).

[ComradeMan]

Tacitus Annals 15:44
ergo abolendorumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecitquos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante perprocuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursumerumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam quo cuncta undique atrocia autpudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correptiqui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingenshaud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humanigeneris convicti sunt.

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius) at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilatus), and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iudaea_Province), the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Suetonius- Lives of the Twelve Caesars

Iudaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [ Claudius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius) ] expelled them [the Jews] from Rome.

Compare with

Acts 18:2

There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them,

[Dumb]

The theory about Jesus being the son of a Roman soldier traces back to the Talmud, in which the Rabbis of that era claim Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier named Panderas (sometimes spelled "Pantheras" as well) and a Jewish lady named Miryam ("Mary" in Hebrew).

There are three instances in Antiquities of the Jews in which Josephus allegedly mentions Jesus or his associates: the Testimonium Flavianum (a certain forgery); Book 20 of Antiquities, mentioning "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (generally thought of as authentic, though it's argued now that "who was called Christ" was a later interpolation); and Book 18, which refers to John the Baptist: "Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist" (generally regarded as authentic in its whole).

[MarxSchmarx]

I am quite grateful to my comrades for illuminating a confusion I had. I know very little about the historiography around Judea at this time and was under the impression that Josephus was, among classical scholars, considered one among many non-Christian historians who however flawed were treated with the same respect as say Livy. I guess that is just contemporary Christian propaganda then for the most part?

[agnixie]

I am quite grateful to my comrades for illuminating a confusion I had. I know very little about the historiography around Judea at this time and was under the impression that Josephus was, among classical scholars, considered one among many non-Christian historians who however flawed were treated with the same respect as say Livy. I guess that is just contemporary Christian propaganda then for the most part?

He's actually generally good outside of christian apologia, the problem with him is, well, the three likely forgeries that are christian apologia.

[Kléber]

Josephus was a traitor who openly collaborated in the massacre and enslavement of his own people. Anything that he wrote is highly suspect.

Jesus most likely existed, but he wasn't the son of god, he was a Jewish zealot and/or hippie community organizer, martyred by the Roman state like so many dissident philosophers and rebels, whose legacy was claimed by diverse and numerous factions.

[agnixie]

Josephus was a traitor who openly collaborated in the massacre and enslavement of his own people. Anything that he wrote is highly suspect.

Jesus most likely existed, but he wasn't the son of god, he was a Jewish zealot and/or hippie community organizer, martyred by the Roman state like so many dissident philosophers and rebels, whose legacy was claimed by diverse and numerous factions.

Yeah, but he's sadly one of the few first hand sources for the period (obviously the romans are to blame there).

[hatzel]

The theory about Jesus being the son of a Roman soldier traces back to the Talmud, in which the Rabbis of that era claim Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier named Panderas (sometimes spelled "Pantheras" as well) and a Jewish lady named Miryam ("Mary" in Hebrew).

Yeah, we're sorry about that (http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/toled.htm)...interestingly enough, this story claims it was around 90BCE, various other mentions of 'Yeshu' in the Talmud (there are few, and they are brief and anecdotal) claim to refer to people living a couple of hundred years each side of the supposed time of Jesus. It's questionable whether our various Yeshus and the subsequent Yeshu, that is to say Jesus, had anything to do with one another, but I vaguely remember reading something somewhere that suggested that Jesus was just a mythological being created by merging these various (not always particularly complimentary) Yeshu-narratives in Jewish lore, centuries before Jesus supposed birth and ministry, before somebody, presumably in the Levant around 30-50CE, decided it would be a good idea to worship him. I don't know if I believe it as a theory, though...

[Lenina Rosenweg]

This is slightly off topic bit I saw the film version of "The Master and Margarita" I read the novel by Bulgakov. It has an interesting take on Jesus and Pontius Pilate which is very compelling. The film seems to be combination of pagan and Christian lore with existentialism.Its long but worth it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H61s7jRmT6M

[Astarte]

Yeah, we're sorry about that (http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/toled.htm)...interestingly enough, this story claims it was around 90BCE, various other mentions of 'Yeshu' in the Talmud (there are few, and they are brief and anecdotal) claim to refer to people living a couple of hundred years each side of the supposed time of Jesus. It's questionable whether our various Yeshus and the subsequent Yeshu, that is to say Jesus, had anything to do with one another, but I vaguely remember reading something somewhere that suggested that Jesus was just a mythological being created by merging these various (not always particularly complimentary) Yeshu-narratives in Jewish lore, centuries before Jesus supposed birth and ministry, before somebody, presumably in the Levant around 30-50CE, decided it would be a good idea to worship him. I don't know if I believe it as a theory, though...

Some seem to think Yeshua (Joshua(?)), was the Hebrew or Aramaic name of Jesus ... I have heard before, and I am not sure where, 'Yeshu' is sort of a slur, or slandering name for "Yeshua" - what is the Hebrew meaning of "Yeshu", anyway?

[agnixie]

Some seem to think Yeshua (Joshua(?)), was the Hebrew or Aramaic name of Jesus ... I have heard before, and I am not sure where, 'Yeshu' is sort of a slur, or slandering name for "Yeshua" - what is the Hebrew meaning of "Yeshu", anyway?

One of the going theories is that it's the Galilean pronounciation of it.