Why do you reject the writings of Flavius Josephus on "the so-called Christ" as evidence of Jesus's existence?

Question

Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian circa A.D. 66:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise 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 so-called 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. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
"Testimonium Flavianum" in Antiquities xviii 3.3
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appe.html
http://www.bible.ca/b-new-testament-documents-f-f-bruce-ch9.htm

I am aware that there has been some scholarly dispute over certain portions of the passage (see first link for details) I have deleted the sections in dispute from my above passage - what remains is still evidence of Jesus's existence from a hostile source.

Answer 1

Very few historians would dispute the existence of Jesus the man. It's the claim of divinity, and that of resurrection which poses a problem. Pliny the Elder mentions that the sects of Christians originated from a "certain" Jesus that was crucified under the reign of Tiberius.

Answer 2

I don't know where you found this crap about James. It doesn't qualify as evidence of anything. You said yourself it was an act of an anus. I never doubted the existence of Jesus. I do have reason to doubt that he had a brother Jim Christ. But it could make for a funny movie. Jesus lived and died. I don't believe they made him up. He never claimed to be God. That decision was made after his death. Without his input.

Answer 3

Because they were forged. They are written in a style different than the rest of his works, and he died a devout Jew, skeptical of Jesus. "He" doesn't call him the "so-called Christ"; the text says "He was the Christ." Since Josephus denied Jesus was the messiah, why would he have written this?

Many of the manuscripts also omit the passages (there are two others).

Edit: ALL of the passages refering to Jesus in Josephus' works are considered to be forged by most scholars.

Answer 4

We don't question the possibility that a con artist named Jesus went around trying to convince people that he was the messiah. After all, with all those Jews around believing that their savior was coming any minute now, it was bound to happen.

Jesus: "What'cha doin'?"

Jew in crowd: "What we always do. Wait'n for the messiah."

Jesus: "Hey! That's me... ummm... I get crown and a palace, right?"

Once again, we don't dispute the idea that a guy named Jesus went around claiming to be the Jew's messiah. There are historical accounts of lots of people claiming that. What we dispute is the Xian belief that he's really the son of an imaginary god. That's all.

Answer 5

When I was in college, we used Josephus as a historical text to set the scene, so to speak, as if you read his writings, he always puts himself in such high regard. Look at the settings and backdrops to see how life was lived in the ancient middle east and leave his aggrandizement alone.

Answer 6

If a person wants to reject that particular passage (even though it is found in the oldest of the manuscripts), there is still proof that Jesus existed with Josephius' writings.

He is also mentioned in a passage where Josephius writes about John the Baptist and his beheading by Herod. (Note Herod was a personal friend of Josephius, and he often visited Herod at his palace and private home.)

He also mentions Jesus in connection with his account of the stoning of James the Elder, brother of Jesus.

So even if the first passage has been "altered", there are two other passage that I have never seen a single scholar dispute that state that Jesus was a historical person.

Answer 7

there isn't any credible scholastic arguments against the existence of the man Jesus and no serious debate over whether or not he lived and died a man nearly 2000 years ago.

conversely, there is also little doubt that he was anything more than just a man.

Answer 8

The entire passage referring to Jesus is disputed.

Answer 9

The original Josephus work doesn't mention Jesus at all!

Answer 10

No, actually, the entire passage has been considered added later. Not just the bit you took out.

Many Biblcal scholars have admitted that it is what likely happened.