Do atheists have a problem with the works of Josephus as a creditable source for Jewish history?

Question

if yes, what do you base your reasons on and how creditable is it?

clearly some do not know or understand that his writings did not focus on Christ. He was a principal source for Jews

It is these types of rash answers and foolish thinking that causes people to make choices in life based on little knowledge and much assumption

SO FAR DASH IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO SEEMS TO EVEN KNOW WHO HE IS!!

Sheila: so history is not fact? Or only religious history? Do you even know his works and standing?

KLUTE: IT SORTA MAKES YOU LAUGH WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT

Thanks myth, that was what I was looking for. Very helpful

Answer 1

It's not just us atheists; the majority of theologians accept that Josephus' writings about Christ were altered by a later author who cited his work. Other excerpts are believed to have been altered, but that one is the most known.

Edit:
Dog: Josephus is a credited source in history. Learn a thing or two before making such an ignorant statement.


Edit2:
Everyone, though an apologist, Josephus is NOT a religious figurehead! He was a 1st century Jewish historian who wrote down much about his era.

Answer 2

I suggest you read "Misquoting Jesus," by Bart Ehrmann, it will give you a good introduction into the problems of ancient authors in general. There are real textual issues with Josephus. Broadly speaking, Josephus holds up pretty good, but the people who preserved Josephus were Christian and it does appear from the textual evidence that they edited Josephus. As a source of Jewish history, less Christianity, Josephus isn't too bad. It is important to remember that being an historian in ancient times was a different occupation than today. Like any literary author desiring to be read, Josephus did try and make things interesting, quite possibly by editing the factual record so that the boring would be interesting. This isn't unique to Josephus, but that a number of other issues really need accounted for when reading any ancient source.

Answer 3

Yes .... there is some problem with it.

A. There are significant signs to show that Josephus did not pen the part of christianity. It is too "christian" to be penned by a devoted Jew.

B. Josephus was born 37 years after the alleged Jesus died, let say he start penning his work at the age of 20, that would be 57AD, not to mention the christian part was added in about 93AD, 7 years before he died. Do you think heresay is a creditable source?

------

Oops .... I read the question wrongly ..... if it is for Jewish history, that seems to be quite a credible source. At least the part within his own lifespan. Like I said, other then the part where christianity is involved, the rest seems pretty authentic.

Answer 4

Myself personally I have a problem with all old texts that do not have at least one other varifyable source, be it Jewish Christian Greek or whatever.

Too many texts have been proved to have been altered at a later date and the text of Josephus is a perfect example. All of Josephuses early texts have a very short entry mentioning that a man named Jesus had lived, all the rest of the quote does not show up until about 200 years after the fact.

I have attached the quote below, the parts in brackets have been proven to have been added by Eusebius.

Answer 5

Largely, no, I don't have a problem with Josephus' work.

But there is evidence that portions purporting to discuss the historical figure of Jesus were forged and inserted at a later date by Christian apologists.

Basically, alleged statements by Josephus that "Jesus was the Christ...if he could be called a man..." could not be authentic, as Josephus was a Jew and would not have accepted Jesus' divinity.

If I recall correctly, most scholars regard these segments to be later forgeries because the passage regarding Jesus wasn't even mentioned by later writers citing Josephus' work until the 4th century or so.

Answer 6

Which atheists? Your question makes it seem like we're all in a club where we decide what everyone is going to believe and everyone thinks exactly the same thing. Being atheist is not like belonging to a church. We're all free agents. :-)

Josephus (Falvius Josephus) is accounted for in other documents besides the Bible, and he himself wrote a bunch of books about the Romans in sympathy with the Jewish people (of which he was one), so probably some atheists have no trouble believing he existed (although those that aren't history buffs tend to not really care).

Whether his writings were factual and accurate? Some of the stuff said to have been written by him, alas, wasn't. He was once thought to have written about Jesus, which somehow I suspect is where you're going with this. But that writing turned out to be forged. A Christian named Eusebius added that tidbit in the 4th century. (Josephus died in 102 CE, so he'd been dead a couple hundred years or more by the time Jesus was added to his writings.)

His writing is interesting historically but it's not going to help you prove that Jesus existed.

Answer 7

I'm not familiar with the works of Josephus, so I won't comment on that. However, I fully acknowledge the Bible contains quite a bit of historical information. It's just the concepts of God or anything supernatural that I reject.

Answer 8

Yes.

We have a problem with ANY unverifiable source.
Calling Josephus's accounts "history" is a stretch, even by Fox News's standards.

WHY?
We base all reasoning on verifiable facts...
Facts are credible.
All religious "history" is not.

Answer 9

Well considering he claims that he was the only survivor of a cave / suicide massacre it's really hard to be sure exactly what he was truthful about or lying about. I think it's possible that Jesus himself may have been a real person but I know he wasn't divine

Answer 10

Your question is akin to asking an adult if they have a problem with referencing Rudolph as a credible source for the ventures of Santa Claus.

Grow up.