ROSSIKE:


Josephus WAS born AFTER the 'ascension of Jesus' and was not an eyewitness to any of the events claimed in the bible. His book, Antiquities of the Jews, which claims to attest to Jesus' existence was penned in 94 AD! He therefore is not a credible authority. It is dishonest to claim he was ''contemporary'' to the events in the NT. There is nothing ''impeccable'' about his sources. His sources were sympathisers with the christian sect. A credible witness in the context of this topic must be an eyewitness contemporaneous to the events claimed in the bible. Not someone who depended on hearsay decades after the alleged events.

ROSSIKE:


I can't believe you mentioned Alexander. There is COPIOUS evidence of Alexander's existence from a variety of sources. Even though he lived nearly 400 years before Jesus was allegedly born we have statues of him. We know what he looked like. We know about his military rampage through Asia and north Africa. We know he was tutored by Aristotle. We know his father was Phillip II, a king. There are numerous documents, contemporaneous and otherwise attesting to his existence. So there is no way anyone would demand 'proof of Alexander's existence'. There is ample proof. NOT SO with the bible characters like 'Jesus'.

Sarassin:


Let us be clear. You stated that Josephus was born half a century after the death of Jesus, and you were wrong. The epoch which began with the birth of Jesus around around roughly 3BCE through the death of Jesus around 36CE, the development of the early Church till the fall of Jerusalem at the turn of the century would define the NT biblical period. The life of Josephus places him squarely within the time-line of events. I have not stated he was a witness to the life of Jesus or a witness to Christianity, we know also that the testimonium flavium was corrupted. What I am saying however, is that it is easy to cross-reference some of his historical accounts with biblical events to arrive at glimpses of some of the actors.

If you should know anything about Josephus,it is the fact that he was not Christian nor were his sources, in fact he was despised by fellow Jews for being a turncoat and assisting the Romans, he was meticulous to a fault, whatever he did not witness...he stated it was hearsay. It is from him we learn of at least a number of other Jesus’, self-styled messiah’s, messiah-ship was de-rigeur in first century Palestine.

lepasharon:
@rossike the pharoah mentioned in the bible was supposedly found to be king ramses

ROSSIKE:


So long as you admit that Josephus was not an eyewitness to any events recorded in the bible, we're fine. He was born after the alleged events and therefore his testimony cannot be relied upon to prove the authenticity of the NT accounts. Don't you find it odd that a character like 'Jesus', supposedly the Son of God, who allegedly performed stunning miracles such as walking atop a sea and raising the dead, and repeatedly drew huge multitudes of people to his sermons, was publicly crucified, and whose death was accompanied by supernatural phenomena like the sky turning dark etc etc, and then who allegedly rose from the dead and ascended into heaven three days later before onlookers, did not have a SINGLE contemporary account of either his existence or any of his activities, outside of the NT texts?

Even minor characters like poets and artisans had their lives recorded by the local intelligentsia of the period. How come this mighty ''Son of God'' relies on one solitary dodgy account by Josephus, who was not even contemporary to him, to prove his existence?


.........

InesQor:
Rossike you should remember that until recent times, religion and faith were practised in such a way that nobody cared about checking out evidences, or even about convincing others - and it was deliberately kept that way.

Personal conviction was sufficient for people, and because everyone had their own beliefs and superstitions, none of them were heavily investigated.

This might be why it is easier, in retrospect, to find ancient evidence for military and political rulers than for any religious figures whatsoever. Religious stuff always involved many clearly guarded secrets that were often handed down via oral traditions and along family lines.

ROSSIKE:


True.. and none of that is ideal is it?

ROSSIKE:
So if there is no evidence (him being a 'religious figure'), how do we know 'Jesus' existed? Are we merely to ''have faith'' that he lived despite the lack of evidence? If so, on what basis? Why? Because the colonialists said so? Because some pastor says so? Why?

Sarassin:


Actually the existence of Jesus is not proven by Josephus, even he makes it clear it was hearsay. I am curious as to what biblical events you are specifically referring to? The premise of your OP was to examine if “anyone” mentioned in the Christian bible existed, I have looked specifically at the NT because comparatively to the OT there is more information available about a wide range of first century NT era personages.

Josephus gives us a mention of Saulus entirely within the time-line of his life-span and that of others such as Simeone Niger and Lucius the Cyrene, what exactly do you disagree with here? afterall Josephus was not actually Christian and therefore was an unbiased commentator.

I find your statement that Josephus is not a reliable witness entirely unjustifiable. Clearly biblical narrative is quasi historical therefore it would be foolhardy to state “Josephus was a witness to biblical events” but he recorded salient events of the first century as he saw it and did so meticulously If you wish to argue that Jesus did not exist then surely that is a different argument altogether as distinct from this one.

InesQor:
At the very least, the teachings ascribed to Jesus are morally positive and very relevant even till date.

Are you even done practising all of that, or their equivalents, before you begin to worry about whether he existed or not?

Or in our increase of knowledge and in the betterment of ourselves and improvement in human relations one with another, as we learn from those who have gone ahead of us, to make better decisions and do right by others, why does it matter who said what?

ROSSIKE:


Let's leave our personal morality levels for another thread shall we? This is about the authenticity of a document.

ROSSIKE:
It definitely matters who is said to have said what. Why should I believe you when you say the Son of God was born in your village and was killed by your people, without evidence? Do you realise the massiveness of such a claim? Go to the UK or Germany now and tell them your ancestors were the special chosen race of God. And that the only son of God was born in your village, and had ascended into heaven after he resurrected from the dead. They'd call a psychiatrist for you. But this is exactly what they've done to you, and you've accepted their story - with barely a whimper.

InesQor:

As I already said, the authenticity of the documents is neither important to those ergo postulated the documents, nor is it important to their primary audience.

My point about the morality thing is to further explain that your question is not as important as what the document actually serves to do. A religious text does not intend to serve the same purpose as a history text.

Actually you don't really need to believe it.

ROSSIKE:


Thanks for admitting the absence of intelligence in their decision.

ROSSIKE:
Christians view the bible as a religious and a historical text. No christian goes around saying ''oh we know Jesus never lived.. we're just in it for the moral lessons!''

ROSSIKE:
That's not what the evangelists and bible-heads say!

lepasharon:
@rossike the pharoah mentioned in the bible was supposedly found to be king ramses

ROSSIKE:


You say Josephus gives us a mention of Saulus, but that's all he does. There must have been hundreds of people named 'Saulus' there...there's no way to know who was talking about. Josephus never says 'Saulus' was Paul, who apparently according to the bible, raised the dead!

Since when did living in the same century as a character you claim existed become enough to prove the existence of the said character?

ROSSIKE:


So long as you admit that Josephus was not an eyewitness to any events recorded in the bible, we're fine. He was born after the alleged events and therefore his testimony cannot be relied upon to prove the authenticity of the NT accounts. Don't you find it odd that a character like 'Jesus', supposedly the Son of God, who allegedly performed stunning miracles such as walking atop a sea and raising the dead, and repeatedly drew huge multitudes of people to his sermons, was publicly crucified, and whose death was accompanied by supernatural phenomena like the sky turning dark etc etc, and then who allegedly rose from the dead and ascended into heaven three days later before onlookers, did not have a SINGLE contemporary account of either his existence or any of his activities, outside of the NT texts?

Even minor characters like poets and artisans had their lives recorded by the local intelligentsia of the period. How come this mighty ''Son of God'' relies on one solitary dodgy account by Josephus, who was not even contemporary to him, to prove his existence?


The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works:


Josephus
Philo-Judaeus
Seneca
Pliny the Elder
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Pliny the Younger
Tacitus
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Hermogones
Valerius Maximus

Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Appian
Theon of Smyrna
Phlegon
Pompon Mela
Quintius Curtius
Lucian
Pausanias
Valerius Flaccus
Florus Lucius
Favorinus
Phaedrus
Damis
Aulus Gellius
Columella
Dio Chrysostom
Lysias
Appion of Alexandria


Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm

ROSSIKE:


So long as you admit that Josephus was not an eyewitness to any events recorded in the bible, we're fine. He was born after the alleged events and therefore his testimony cannot be relied upon to prove the authenticity of the NT accounts. Don't you find it odd that a character like 'Jesus', supposedly the Son of God, who allegedly performed stunning miracles such as walking atop a sea and raising the dead, and repeatedly drew huge multitudes of people to his sermons, was publicly crucified, and whose death was accompanied by supernatural phenomena like the sky turning dark etc etc, and then who allegedly rose from the dead and ascended into heaven three days later before onlookers, did not have a SINGLE contemporary account of either his existence or any of his activities, outside of the NT texts?

Even minor characters like poets and artisans had their lives recorded by the local intelligentsia of the period. How come this mighty ''Son of God'' relies on one solitary dodgy account by Josephus, who was not even contemporary to him, to prove his existence?


The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works:


Josephus
Philo-Judaeus
Seneca
Pliny the Elder
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Pliny the Younger
Tacitus
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Hermogones
Valerius Maximus

Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Appian
Theon of Smyrna
Phlegon
Pompon Mela
Quintius Curtius
Lucian
Pausanias
Valerius Flaccus
Florus Lucius
Favorinus
Phaedrus
Damis
Aulus Gellius
Columella
Dio Chrysostom
Lysias
Appion of Alexandria


Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm

Sarassin:

I am inclined to go with the historian. As an example, Josephus records that Quirinius, (Roman Senator) ordered a tax registration in the year 6CE, fully Ten years after the death of Herod, Roman records agree with him.The Gospel writer Luke however places the birth of Jesus and the “census” of Quirinius during the reign of Herod, which is quite impossible, historically Luke got a lot of his facts badly wrong.

Scholar8200:
Kindly note this, Luke 2:1,2
2 In those days[b] Caesar Augustus issued a decree[/b] that a census should be taken of the entire world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.

Meaning the decree came from Augustus and everybody relocated but the actual census did not commence at the same time but after a while under Quirinius. Remember that Roman empire was like the world power then hence there will be a considerable space between the decree and execution! The world was involved and you will agree with me that verse 3 will take a while; not just a village was involved. And the fact that Joseph & Mary had to flee to Egypt after the birth of Christ shows that the time lag, perhaps due to the logistics involved, was the general expectation.

Sarassin:



I don't agree with your summary. Josephus gives us dates and placement, we know that a tax registration was ordered by the Romans and Quirinius mandated to carry it out in the year 6CE, Roman records attest this. We know also that ten years prior to this edict by 6BCE, Herod had died.

If we accept the narrative of Luke, then the birth of Jesus would be dated no earlier than 6CE which is the year we know the census was ordered and Mary was expecting at that time, further if we accept your explanation that the registration was delayed by a few years....then Jesus could possibly have been born much later.

Matthew however firmly places the birth of Jesus under the reign of Herod, we know that Herod was dead by 6BCE, therefore allowing for the fact that he ordered all children under the age of Two murdered, according to Matthew the birth date of Jesus would have been no later than 4BCE.

Therefore at the time Luke claims Jesus was born, during the time of Quirinius, Jesus, according to Matthew would have been at least 12 y ears old and possibly older if we factor in your explanation. Both accounts cannot be right in my view, unfortunately both could be wrong.

Scholar8200:
The record I have from wikipedia shows rather that Herod died 4 BCE,not 16 BCE.
Herod died in Jericho.[16] Since the work of Emil Schürer in 1896[43] most scholars have agreed that Herod died at the end of March or early April in 4 BCE.[44][45]

Evidence for the 4 BCE date is provided by the fact that Herod's sons, between whom his kingdom was divided, dated their rule from 4 BCE,[46] and Archelaus apparently also exercised royal authority during Herod's lifetime.[47] Josephus states that Philip the Tetrarch's death took place after a 37-year reign, in the 20th year of Tiberius (34 CE).[48]

Josephus tells us that Herod died after a lunar eclipse.[49] He gives an account of events between this eclipse and his death, and between his death and Passover. An eclipse[50] took place on March 13, 4 BCE,[17] about 29 days before Passover, and this eclipse is usually taken to be the one referred to by Josephus.(culled from Wikipedia)
Hence this sets the records straight and justifies both Matthew and Luke.
Mary gave birth to Jesus while Herod was alive around the time the decree was being executed in 6BCE(this corrects my assumption in the first post); Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt and were there till 4 BCE when Herod died. Joseph and Mary left Egypt for Nazareth where Christ had His childhood. I had not checked the issue of dates b4 my first reply.

Sarassin:



I have not given 16BCE as the date of passing of Herod, I gave 6BCE as the earliest possible date Herod would have passed since Josephus stated “Herod had been dead fully Ten years” before Quirinius was mandated to conduct the registration in 6CE.

Herod may well have died in 4BCE it goes to buttress my point. Note that the date Josephus gives for the census/registration is 6CE not BCE it is not in dispute, Roman records confirm this. The problem is Luke states that Mary was “expecting” at the time Quirinus began to conduct the registration in 6CE therefore, assuming Luke is right then necessarily Matthew is clearly wrong and vice-versa. Matthew places the date of birth of Jesus to at least 6BCE (allowing for the two year gap during which Herod ordered all toddlers killed)

Luke dates the birth of Jesus to around 6CE (when Quirinius conducted the census)
Matthew dates the birth to around 6 BCE (before the death of Herod at 4BCE)

10 years apart.

Scholar8200:
Sorry I didnt notice. Hence, my assumption in the penultimate post stands correct, meaning:
Augustus gave the decree, Herod was alive when the decree was made, Joseph and Mary(being set for delivery) headed to Bethlehem, Jesus was born (around 6-4BCE), they went to Egypt, Herod died while they were away (4 BCE), they returned to Nazareth and Jesus grew there; 6CE, Quirinus was mandated to execute the decree (this historical postscript has nought to do with the events afore stated. Luke only specified that the decree though given earlier, was actually effected later by Quirinus) Observe the quote below
Luke 2:1,2
2 About this time Caesar Augustus, the Roman emperor, decreed that a census should be taken throughout the world. 2 (This census was taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria.)

.

Sarassin:


I am afraid the problem still persists, There is no evidence that Herod was alive when the decree was given by Augustus. In actual fact Quirinius was instructed to dispose of Archelaus’ (Herod’s son) estate and to impose taxation on the Jews which led to a great ruckus.
In the New Testament, the Gospel of Luke account of the birth of Jesus links it to this census[1] but also locates it during the reign of Herod the Great,[2] which ended a decade earlier.[3] The account in the Gospel of Matthew

Luke 2:2 makes it clear that Quirinius was Governor of Syria and conducted the census, We know from Josephus that Quirinius arrived Judea no earlier than 6CE. Luke 2:5 makes it clear Mary was expecting, meaning that possibly the birth of Jesus could have been as late as 7CE. Herod was long dead and buried by the time Mary gave birth....according to Luke.

Scholar8200:
I appreciate your patience here. Note that,
The Census of Quirinius was the enrollment of population of the Roman provinces of Syria and Judaea, for tax purposes, in 6/7 CE. The Census was taken during the reign of Augustus (27 BCE – 14 CE), when Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria, after the banishment of Herod Archelaus from the Tetrarchy of Judea and the imposition of direct Roman rule.(culled from Wikipedia)
I believe the foregoing shows that the census could have been decreed at a time when Herod was alive (since he died 4 BCE, 23 years into the reign of Augustus). Hence Quirinus was enlisted as an executor of the decree already given,much later ie. when Archelaus had succeeded his father not before. This also justifies Matthew's position in the sense that Herod was still alive after the birth of Christ but he later died and Archelaus his son succeeded him.

Note that Luke 2:2 was placed in parenthesis meaning it was included as an historical footnote (and can be omitted in reading sans disruption of line of thought) to show that the census was executed at a time in the future when Quirinus had became a ruler. The implication is that at the time the scenario in Luke 2 was playing out, he was yet to be appointed. This is further confirmed by Luke 1:5
5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judæa, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia:

Sarassin:


I am happy to concede the possibility that the decree of census by Emperor Augustus was made during the lifetime of Herod Antipas, but it changes nothing if we accept Matthews version of the birth narrative that places the birth of Jesus in the lifetime of Herod.

I see no justification to state that Luke 2:2 implies a future action (census) there is nothing to suggest that Quirinius had not been appointed at the time events were playing out. Luke already places Quirinius in-situ, on the scene and he nails it down by stating in 2v5 that Mary was expecting, during the period. What period was this ? this is the period Joseph and Mary depart Nazareth for Bethlehem, the reason for this departure ? to attend a registration conducted by Quirinius who arrived in Judea circa 6CE

Luke 1v5 merely compounds the monumental error Luke committed by placing the census of Quirinius in the lifetime of Herod.

Scholar8200:
Do consider the bible quotes that were the last sentence in my last post. Let's summarise them: John's conception took place while Herod was reigning (Luke 1:5) Jesus' conception took place around 6 months after John's (Luke 1:36). Mary left Elizabeth's place 3 months pregnant (Luke 1:56) all this took place in the year 6 BCE. Since Herod died 4 BCE, then we can safely conclude that: 1. Matthew was right; Herod was alive when Jesus was born;

Luke's record was right because the reference to Quirinus in vs 2 did not render vs 1 redundant, rather it was parenthesised meaning it was only a PS showing that the decree, though enacted earlier, was carried out at a much later time after herod's death thus clarifying the fact that the decree mentioned was not carried out immediately after it was made though the parents of Jesus had relocated.

No. Rather it underscores the reason why 2:2 is in parenthesis viz not as a continuation of Vs 1 but just a historical postscript. Furthermore, understand that Luke was not writing to the unlettered but to a royalty [Luke 1:3] whose intelligence about these things cannot be manipulated.