Back to Mormonis Researched Page

Concerning Josephus Mentioning Jesus

Kerry Shirts had said:

> > But Josephus ***did refer to Jesus***. (my emphasis)

Petibacsi replied: He did not. It was a much later interpolation, according to every scholar.

Now I want to examine this sort of claim. I *know* our critic does NOT study the scholars. I say I can and will demonstrate that our critic misreads the scholars, the evidence, and comes to some seriously faulty conclusions based on his non-research. It apparently is credible with atheists to just pontificate on what they do not believe in, apparently thinking the rest of us poor, weak-minded, faith believing Christians will quiver and quake and beg for mercy in fear of being refuted by logical powerfully scientifically minded atheists. Absolutely NOTHING is further from the truth. This atheist has made a claim. How does it hold up? Let an amateur historian decimate such silly conclusions based on the lack of understanding and knowledge of the historical issues dealing with Jesus, using what, apparently this atheist is incapable of using, genuine historical sources.

Raymond Brown - "101 Questions on the Bible", p. 66 (the Index says page 47, but is incorrect):

"Miracles must be dealt with, in my judgement, in the same way as the sayings of Jesus. If one goes behind the Gospels (and the evangelists surely believed that Jesus did miraculous things) to earlier tradition, one finds the evidence for Jesus as healer to be as old as the evidence for him as speaker of parables. Thus in terms of the antiquity of Christian tradition I find no reason to dismiss the miraculous from the ministry of Jesus. Indeed, one of the oldest memories of him may have been that he did wonderous things - a memory that may have been circulated not only among believers, but among non-believers. The Jewish historian Josephus has a famous passage on Jesus, at least part of which seems to be authentic. In the 90s he wrote (Antiquities 18.3.3; #63); 'He was a doer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure.' To my mind both those elements, doer and teacher, are part of the authentic tradition."

Brown, a world class Bible scholar, does not think Josephus is fake as our critic claims...

James H. Charlesworth, "Jesus Within Judaism", p. 92f, says:

"Josephus probably referred to Jesus, but Christian copyists added editorial comments." "we can be confident that there was a minimal reference to Jesus in "Antiquities" because once the clearly Christian sections are removed, the rest makes good grammatical and historical sense." (p. 93). "some words in Josephus seem authentic to Josephus, because he refers to a man named James as the brother of Jesus...Josephus identifies one person in terms of another; it is logical to expect the latter [Jesus] to have been mentioned already by him [Josephus]. (p. 94). "It appears likely that Josephus referred to Jesus, but certainly not in the form preserved in the Greek manuscripts."(p. 94). "Behind the Christian interpolations or redactions is a tradition that derives from Josephus. The Jewish historian did apparently refer to Jesus of Nazareth." (p. 96). "The Greek recension, minus the Christian interpolations, reveals how a first-century Jew probably categorized Jesus: He was a rebellious person and disturber of the elusive peace; but he was also a wise person who performed 'surprising', perhaps even wonderful works, and was followed by many Jews and Gentiles. The Arabic version [of Josephus] provides textual justification for excising the Christian passages and demonstrating that Josephus probably discussed Jesus in "Antiquities 18", but certainly not in such favorable terms." (p. 98).

Charlesworth, a world class scholar, refutes our critic's unscholarly claims also.

Hugh Schonfield, "The Passover Plot", notes that the old Russian edition of Josephus mentions the followers of Christ, "the wonder-worker", and further notes that comparing the Old Slavonic Josephus text with independent texts, such as Tacitus, we learn that by the execution of Christ, the sect, of which he was a founder of received a blow, which for a time checked their growth, but the dangerous superstition broke out again. (p. 225).

Schonfield is another serious scholar who refutes our critic.....

Paul L. Maier, "Josephus: The Essential Writings", notes:

Because of the Arabic recension of Josephus, mentioning Jesus without all the Christian veneer as well as being expressed "in a manner appropriate for a Jew", Prof. Pine (the translator of the Arabic recension) "justifiably concludes that it was in the original Josephan text." (p. 265).

Another scholar who refutes our critic.......

Manfred Barthel, "Was Wirklich in der Bibel Steht", (What the Bible Really Says), notes:

"As far as the Roman occupying authorities were concerned, Jesus was simply one of a great many agitators and troublemakers, too insignificant for the bureaucrats to bother with." And this he says after noting that NOTHING is known of Jesus' major life events, his trial, no letters from the blind man he healed, Jesus is ignored, yet notice how Barthel does not conclude that Jesus therefore did not exist! (p. 298).

Our critic is refuted by another scholar.

Geza Vermes, "The Dead Sea Scrolls in English," notes:

"The so-called 'Testimonium Flavianum", they maintain, is a Christian interpolation into the genuine text of Antiquities, (although others, myself included, think that part of the text is authentic). (p. 34).

Geza Vermes, who is one of the world's serious, finest scholars refutes our critic's claim.

E.P. Sanders, "The Historical Figure of Jesus", notes:

"The sources for Jesus are better than those that deal with Alexander [the Great]. The original biographies of Alexander have all been lost, and they are known only because they were used by later - much later - writers. The primary sources for Jesus were written nearer his own lifetime..." (p. 3).

"The Christian scribes probably only rewrote the text [Testimonium Flavianum]. It is highly likely that Josephus included Jesus in his account of the period.Josephus discussed John the Baptist and other prophetic figures, such as Theudas and the Egyptian. Further, the passage on Jesus is not adjacent to Josephus' account of John the Baptist, which is probably where a Christian scribe would have put it had he invented the whole paragraph. Thus, the author of the only surviving history of Palestinian Judaism in the first century thought that Jesus was important enough to merit a paragraph, no more, no less." (p. 50).

Yet again, a scholar refutes our critic.....

Obert C. Tanner, Lewis M. Rogers, Sterling W. McMurrin, "Toward Understanding the New Testament," notes:

"A second reference to Jesus appears near the end of the "Antiquities" in a comment on Jesus' brother James. Here Josephus refers to Jesus "who was called Christ". MOST SCHOLARS have been inclined to believe that this passage is authentic." (p. 51). They go on to show their sources as Joseph Klausner, and they say - "Klausner regards the first Josephus statements in Antiquities as authentic in part - in their basic references to Jesus as a wise man - but having a later Christian interpolation."Klausner considers the second reference concerning James the brother of Jesus called Christ, as to be entirely authentic. (p. 51)

Three more very fine scholars refute our critic here.....

John P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew", Vol. 2, notes:

"Finally, there is the independent attestation of Josephus in the authentic core of his "Testimonium Flavianum"... there is a careful development of thought in this presentation. Josephus first gives Jesus the generic title of 'wise man' (sophos aner). Then he unpacks that title by enumerating what would be its major components in the eyes of a Greco-Roman audience: (1) Jesus worked 'startling deeds' (paradoxia), a word Josephus also uses of the miracles worked by the prophet Elisha (Ant. 9.7.6 #182). (2) Jesus taught people who were searching for the truth. (3) Jesus' miraculous deeds and powerful teaching attracted a large following of both Jews and Gentiles. In short, Jesus was a charismatic leader whose special powers of miracle-working and teaching were acknowledged and ratified by his followers.... this bundle of assertions gives exactly the same configuration of Jesus' ministry as do the Gospels." (p. 621f).

Meier, another world class scholar destroys our critic's claim altogether.

Otto Betz, "Was John The Baptist an Essene?", in Herschel Shanks, ed. "Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls", notes: "...the first-century Jewish historian Josephus who refers to Jesus but tells little about him." (p. 206).

Another scholar acknowledges the Josephus passage.....

Robert Eisenman, "James, the Brother of Jesus", Notes:

"It is hard to escape the impression from the manner in which Josephus describes James in the extant notice as 'the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ' that he had referred to Jesus previously..." (p. 65).

After discussing the obviously Christian interpolations in Josephus, Eisenman notes:

"This is not to say at this point Josephus did not mention Jesus, only that the extant notice was not what he originally wrote." (p. 66). In the Slavonic Josephus, "Jesus is referred to only as 'the miracle-worker..." (p. 403).

So we have yet another scholar who refutes our critic's claims......

Here, then, are at least ***ANOTHER*** dozen sources dealing with this Josephus issue which our critic simply tosses off without any serious thought or analysis. No wonder he thinks Jesus didn't exist. With such sloppiness portrayed in his thinking and research, is it any surprise at all to see him rave thusly?