After all this time, why are people still trying to use Josephus as evidence for Jesus?

Question

The two statements in his writings concerning Jesus were proven to be forgeries added in, and not matching context, a century ago.

Answer 1

Sorry Dashes, what I've read several times is that there were scant mentions in his 'book' and not only were they believed to have been later insertions by most historians, they also contradict the fact that he claimed to be a Jew. As a Jew, he never would have written one statement that basically sounds like a Christian statement-something about JC being the son of God. I don't ever remember him saying anything about miraculous works...In fact, everything I've read seems to agree that these 'miracles' mentioned in the gospels were not even mentioned until AFTER the Council of Nicaea. (3rd or 4th century).
About the question, I was going through a neighborhood to look at lights the other night and there were a few houses that had signs saying 'Happy Bday Jesus'. If they can't get that straight, is it any wonder that they have trouble comprehending Josephus is unreliable?

Answer 2

My guess would be that they may not know that the writings about Jesus were forgeries. Also, Josephus's texts were used on a History Channel program about the life of Christ. So, with the popular media perpetuating the forgeries, it's not surprising that a lot of people believe that.

Answer 3

So where's the proof of any forgeries? Wouldn't these have come to light long before now? There has been plenty of opportunity to disprove Josephus' records. Nobody has yet.

Answer 4

If you doubt the existance of Jesus you are very misinformed. There are multiple letters form the early church and disciples of the 1st and 2nd centuries that mention Jesus and his teachings. To make it seem that Josephus is the main documentation about Jesus is not so. Josephus wrote a lot of history and only a couple of his entires are questioned, certainly not the subject of Jesus' existance. Overall Josepus is considered reliable.

No one has proved who was a forger in the writings of Josepus. Josephus was not a Chistian and because he was not quoted by some of his contempories does not prove what he said was not so. Does every major news reporter or author quote every contemporay source? No, they don't.

Answer 5

Some will cling to anything to justify their 'faith', even a lie or forgery. What a person does is based upon what they feel the NEED to do. Why would a Christian NEED to use a lie to make their faith real?

Basically, the NEED is to justify their 'laziness'. Some Christians use the concept that all they NEED is their 'bloody lamb' to clean up all the sin/evil they bring into the world. Without this 'bloody lamb Jesus', they would actually have to get up off their arses and actually BE a good person and clean up their OWN messes.

Answer 6

They weren't "proven" to be forgeries, that is just the academic consensus. And scholars don't try to use Josephus as evidence for Jesus - the guy hanging around outside the Burger King uses that argument. In academic circles, there is no need to appeal to Josephus as evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Answer 7

I don't know if they are forgeries. However, they have been interpolated so frequently that any semblance to the original has been lost. Even the Catholic Church admits that the passages can't be trusted.

Answer 8

Show us the proof.

(People are always making claims but never giving the evidence. Why should we believe you? It's funny that out of all of the volumes Josephus wrote that these would be the fake verses.)

Since the books were published in 98 AD, all you need to do is find an old copy where those passages are absent.

************************
So far, Justsyd is the only one who has attempted to offer some antiquity to the argument. From her link, the earliest doubter she could come up with was a guy who made an argument based on opinion, not on sources, living about 360 AD. The claim he made was that since Josephus was a Jew, he couldn't possibly have been a Christian. If that's what the argument is based on, you better distance yourself from it. All of the early Christians were Jews!

I have older evidence than that.

Eusebius wrote some time before 325 BC that Josephus' references to Jesus were absolutely authentic, and he quoted them in his book.

This is not necessarily proof of authenticity, but it does prove beyond doubt that if Josephus was forged, it was done about 300 BC or earlier, and historians of the 2nd and 3rd century were unable to detect and write about it.

This is how the writings of Josephus appeared in 325 AD:

"About the same time, there was a certain Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is proper to call him a man. For he was a performer of extraordinary deeds; a teacher of men, that received his doctrine with delight; and he attached to himself many of the Jews, many also of the Greeks. This was Christ. Pilate having inflicted the punishment of the cross upon him, on the accusation of our principal men, those who had been attached to him before did not, however, afterwards cease to love him: for he appeared to them alive again on the third day, according to the holy prophets, who had declared these and innumerable other wonderful things respecting him. The race of Christians, who derive their name from him, likewise still continues."

This is close enough to a duplicate of my Whiston translation of Josephus' Antiquities, book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3.

Answer 9

Incorrect...kinda. His statements about Jesus are deemed to be accurate according to nearly all historians and scholars right up until he starts mentioning miraculous events. That bit is what was added on. At most, it suggests that there indeed was a man named Jesus; nothing more.

Answer 10

Because they want to believe that. I agree. They were proved as forgeries, but people don't want to hear that.

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html