3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Events_gener

• danieltillett 10y ago
  Josephus was not contemporary of Jesus. There is also the slight problem that the passages about Jesus in Josephus look to be later Christian interpolations [1]. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
  • azernik 10y ago
    From that article: "Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[13] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[14][1][2][15][16][17] Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist also to be authentic and not a Christian interpolation.[18][19][20]" Among historians and biblical scholars, there's very little question that a person called Jesus from the Galilee was executed by the Romans for treason of some sort or other. Aside from name, place of origin, and death, however, everything else is very hazy.
    • danieltillett 10y ago
      Jesus was a very common name at the time and Josephus mention at least 4 other Jesus's. I do agree that everything about the historicity of Jesus is very hazy.
      • ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
        As the above poster said, its a very mainstream view that some Josephus mentions are valid, some obviously not.
        • danieltillett 10y ago
          It is a very complex area, but the sections that are thought to be valid don’t really say much about Jesus. Even if they did, Josephus was not contemporary with Jesus. There really are no historical records of Jesus that are contemporary. The earliest are the letters of Paul and they were written decades after Jesus lived. Paul himself says he never met Jesus (except by revelation).
          • azernik 10y ago
            There are very few historical figures of that period (especially ones of such little contemporary importance) that we have a lot of really-contemporary written accounts of. By comparison, we have no contemporary accounts of Socrates, a much more prominent figure, in a much more literate subculture. But yes, agreeing with you again (hello from the other thread!) from the other end - the authentic bits tell us next to nothing about this character.
            • ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
              But this got into a discussion about Jesus' historicity, not his character.
    • gliptic 10y ago
      The whole field is mired in methods that don't work. A counterpoint is the book 'On the Historicity of Jesus' and 'Proving History' by Richard Carrier. It's not as easy to dismiss as many suppose.
      • ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
        People like Carrier who deny the historicity of Christ are the equivalent of creationists/ID-ists/climate change deniers in history. They are regarded as crackpots in history and biblical studies.
        • gliptic 10y ago
          Hah, no. Read his book. As I said, not so easily dismissed. Sure, historicity-deniers have been tainted by poor scholarship in the past, but this is nothing like that.
    • ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
      He also mentioned John the Baptist.
• imaginenore 10y ago
  So just like I said. No contemporary historian mentioned him. The rest is just writings by the followers of said religion. That's not evidence, that is hearsay by definition.