Yes, Josephus Really Mentions Jesus
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- Skeptics often ask why contemporary historians fail to mention Jesus. The typical Christian reply is we have several who describe Jesus, notably including the first-century Jewish historian Josephus.
Here’s where hardcore skeptics will say: “Fake news! Josephus never really mentions Jesus. Of the two passages about Jesus found in Josephus, one is fake, and the other isn’t referring to Jesus at all.”
I have to say that I find this reply to be a bit odd. Even rabid critics of Christianity like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan believe that Josephus refers to Jesus. Where are these Jesus mythicists getting this stuff? In this video, I look at 5 common mythicists complaints against the genuineness of the mentions of Jesus in Josephus and why they fall short.
(Please pardon some of the audio issues)
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Blog post:
isjesusalive.c...
Help support me monthly: / isjesusalive
Sources:
The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition, Greg Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy, amzn.to/3coLQFz
Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Bart Ehrman, amzn.to/2NUWdGX
Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Robert Van Voorst, amzn.to/3pAPH6j
For a LOT more details read Tim O'Neill's excellent article: historyforathe...
Outro music:
Equinox by Purrple Cat | purrplecat.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock...
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
creativecommon...
If you're coming from GE's channel please read Tim O'Neill's in depth post before commenting. Tim is a historian and also an atheist, so it is hard to accuse him of bias.
And no trolling.
historyforatheists.com/2020/10/josephus-jesus-and-the-testimonium-flavianum/
And
historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/
Wait, what do you mean about Godless Engineer? Did he say something about Josephus' comment being faked?
but easily proven wrong!
@@ghostriders_1 The Testimonium is fake. It's an insertion by the 3rd century bishop Esebius. AND it SHOWS!! What? Josephus spends chapters upon chapters going through all the machinations and the groups during this period.. then gets to this chapter.. mentions PIlate and then this stupid blurb about Jesus and says.. he.. was... the .. Christ (Messiah).. then goes back to the Herodians and other factions of the period NEVER to mention Jesus again. EVER. Neither in his PREVIOUS works.. nor in HIS LATER works! I mean, if he believed Jesus was the Messiah.. then why did Josephus never mention this anywhere else? Also, so ingratiated was Josephus with the Flavius family that he became their family "historian" (read: Publicist/Lackey) and they conferred on him the family name! Also Josephus' works which were translated into Arabic PRIOR to the 3rd century do NOT contain the Testimonium.. so there's that. But even IF he did mention Jesus.. so what? It doesn't prove ANY of the claims of the NT were/are true, that the xian religion is true or that the claims made by xians about his divinity, mission, purpose, yadda yadda yadda are true. The fact is there is NO contemporaneous historian who wrote about HIM (not the movement, but HIM). Philo of Alexandria would have been the contemporaneous historian (okay, he was more of a philosopher than historian...) and he never MENTIONS him. And before people get in a tizzy about Tactius.. he wrote about the MOVEMENT and about the fact that they rallied around a crucified guy.. not about the guy at all. And one doesn't need a historical figure to have a HUGE cult following.. think Apollo, Hercules, Perseus, Harry Potter, Batman, Spiderman..
@@creativewriter3887 are you confusing me with somebody else? I know all of this & find it persuasive.
@@ghostriders_1 I may have.. SORRY
He mentions John the Baptist as well. The death of Herod Agrippa I is mentioned. Tacitus mentions Pontius Pilate and Jesus.
Tacitus was only repeating what he knew Christians to believe.
he was only repeating what he had been told about Christian beliefs. He was not corroborating them.
Herod Agrippa was the anointed one prophesied in scripture that would die just want to let you know
*Tacitus*
Publius Cornelius Tacitus was a prominent Roman historian and politician who rose through the political ranks to become Proconsul of Asia. As such he would have never got the title of Pontius Pilate wrong any more than Winston Churchill, also a historian and politician would have described David Lloyd George as being the President of the United Kingdom at the beginning of the “Great War”. Most of what is known about Tacitus comes from his lengthy correspondences with his friend the governor of Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, who I will mention in his own segment should one become necessary.
The “Tacitus” quote and its description of the persecution of Christians, using them as novelty streetlighting contradicts all other sources of information including “Acts of the Apostles” which shows that by the time of Nero’s reign Christians were free to worship openly as long as they “rendered unto Caesar” The thread that runs through “Acts” is of Jewish persecution of Christians and Roman punishment of Jews for their treatment of Christians, as well as the edict of Claudius issued in AD41, and that certainly accords with Roman policies on religion and religious tolerance before Constantine’s day.
The Edict of Caudius issued in around AD48 expresses Jewish rights, but includes an instruction for the Jews to respect similar rights for followers of other faiths _”Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, pontifex maximus, holding the tribunician power, proclaims: . . .Therefore it is right that also the Jews, who are in all the world under us, shall maintain their ancestral customs without hindrance and to them I now also command to use this my kindness rather reasonably and not to despise the religious rites of the other nations, but to observe their own laws.”_ and the letter to the Jews living in Alexandria goes into greater detail _”Wherefore, once again I conjure you that, on the one hand, the Alexandrians show themselves forbearing and kindly towards the Jews who for many years have dwelt in the same city, and dishonour none of the rites observed by them in the worship of their god, but allow them to observe their customs as in the time of the Deified Augustus, which customs I also, after hearing both sides, have sanctioned; and on the other hand, I explicitly order the Jews not to agitate for more privileges than they formerly possessed, and not in the future to send out a separate embassy as though they lived in a separate city (a thing unprecedented), and not to force their way into gymnasiarchic or cosmetic games, while enjoying their own privileges and sharing a great abundance of advantages in a city not their own, and not to bring in or admit Jews who come down the river from Egypt or from Syria, a proceeding which will compel me to conceive serious suspicions. Otherwise I will by all means take vengeance on them as fomenters of which is a general plague infecting the whole world. If, desisting from these courses, you consent to live with mutual forbearance and kindliness, I on my side will exercise a solicitude of very long standing for the city, as one which is bound to us by traditional friendship.”_
The “Tacitus” entry correctly identifies the fire of Rome as a flashpoint (pun not intended) of resentment, but it was not resentment of “Chrestians” but rather of the revolting Jews (Jewish Revolt AD64-AD70) and since the Christians had pivoted away from Judaism they were not looked on with the suspicion that fell on the Jews in Rome as a consequence of the Jewish revolt. In fact many Christians were recruited from among the Gentile (Pagan) populations of the first century Roman empire. It also runs counter to the letter from Pliny the younger to Trajan. As a person living in Nero’s Rome as a child Pliny the younger would have had definite memories of Nero’s novelty streetlamps had such actually existed.
At best, if authentic, “Tacitus” would only demonstrate the *existence* of Christians, not the accuracy of their claims or beliefs.
There are further problems with the Tacitus story. Tacitus himself never again discusses any potential Neronian persecution of Christians in any other of his books that form the Annals, yet there are several paragraphs covering Jewish arrogance towards non-Jews and Tacitus takes exception to the Jews carrying out live animal sacrifices of animals that are sacred to the gods of their closest neighbours, for example in “Histories 5.4” Tacitus states _”In order to secure the allegiance of his people in the future, Moses prescribed for them a novel religion quite different from those of the rest of mankind. Among the Jews all things are profane that we hold sacred; on the other hand they regard as permissible what seems to us immoral. In the innermost part of the Temple, they consecrated an image of the animal which had delivered them from their wandering and thirst, choosing a ram as beast of sacrifice to demonstrate, so it seems, their contempt for Hammon. The bull is also offered up, because the Egyptians worship it as Apis.”_
It is notable that no other authors, Pagan, Jewish, or even Christian know anything of the use of Christians to light the darkness either, indeed absolutely no ancient Christian apologists made even the slightest use of the story in their propaganda - an unthinkable omission by motivated partisans who were well-read in the works of Tacitus.
Like the Testimonium Flavianum, the “Tacitus” entry was unknown to Origen in AD248, and it was also unknown to Eusebius, the author of the Testimonium Flavianum. In fact Origen admitted in AD248 in his defence of Christianity titled “Contra Celsum” that there was no mention of Jesus outside of the gospels, and as late as the ninth century Photius the Ecumenical Bishop of Constantinople admitted that Josephus had never mentioned Jesus of Nazareth and also made no mention of the persecution of Christians under Nero.
Other Christians who made absolutely no reference to Tacitus include Marcion, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irnaeus, Polycrates, Tertullian Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Augustine of Hippo. All of those Christian apologists were desperate to find non-biblical sources demonstrating at the very least the existence of Jesus, and Eusebius had expressed his willingness to lie and fabricate “evidence” yet nobody knew of that supposed entry in Annals 15.44 before it was first referenced in the 14th century when Johannes de Spire first published his translation of the Annals of Tacitus in Venice. Robert Taylor (author of “Diegesis”, published in 1834) believed de Spire himself to have been the forger.
People have no problem believing Josephus was real, but when it comes to Jesus Christ its to difficult. It's a matter of faith, and some folks just don't have it. Those without that faith really need to take a a minute, and ask yourself if you believe that bible, if not why. Because it has yet to be wrong. The only possible way that 66 books, written by 40 authors over thousands of years could possibly be so accurate. It has to be a message from outside our time dimention. The name Jesus is found in that book. It's the only book that defies our sense of logic, and has survived this long without error. So, as per the good book, Josephus didn't die for your sins.
Christ is a religious figure, so that means he must not be real. Why? Because naturalism.
Because Josephus doesnt claim to be a miracle worker. That is why Jesus is not real. The Jesus that did not do miracles is real
Um.. Jesus never wrote anything, except that little thingy in the sand... whereas Josephus wrote FOUR massive multi-volume histories, was a turn-coat general during the Jewish War and became the Flavius family's sandal-licking lackey/historian/publicist. He wrote a lot. And what's ironic is that Jews didn't preserve Josephus (because they viewed him as a traitor and saw that he was foremost the Flavius family's publicist). non-Jews, philo-Jews, Xians did. And it was the xians who inserted that blurb in the 3rd century about Jesus.. never mind that he's not mentioned anywhere else in "Antiquities/the Jewish War" or in any OTHER works by Josephus BEFORE and AFTER this work.
I doubt the existence of Josephus. And Caesar, while I’m at it!
He most likely existed. That’s it. Why would anyone think he was divine? He was probably a liberal rabbi who upset the Pharisees and blundered into his own execution.
Your youtube channel has recently become my all-time favorite because of the incredible amount of time and research you put into each video. I have been reading mythicist like Richard Carrier and having a Christian youtube channel that can bat down his claims in five minutes has truly been a gift from God. Thank you and keep up the great work!
Thanks! That's real encouraging!
What claims were batted down? The only part of the writing that wasn't added later(fake) was clearly talking about a different Jesus and James. Jesus wasn't made high priest, and James's death is much different in Acts. Nothing about the story is even remotely close except the names, and it is explained who that person is in the dang book. Jesus of Damneus. Why do you theists flat out lie to make your BS sound true? The only thing in the entire text that can not be absolutely proven as either false or lies is the sentence "At this time there was a wise man called Jesus" That is the ONLY line that scholars agree on. The civil war comparison is flat out stupid. Early Christians would have given anything to have something like this as evidence if it were real, and would have been talked about NON STOP. In addition, no one ever questioned the existence of the emancipation proclamation, so who cares if Grant talked about it or not. This is a terrible, terrible example.
@@CC-jv4br the James in the Acts account is a different James. Not Jesus’ brother.
@@farmercraig6080 think you should go reread Acts
From wiki:
@@CC-jv4br No in Josephus account he is talking of Jesus brother, And in Acts, Luke is talking about James the brother of John. Acts 12:1-3 "About that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to afflict and oppress and torment some who belonged to the church.
2 And he killed James the brother of John with a sword; 3 And when he saw that it was pleasing to the Jews, he proceeded further and arrested Peter also. This was during the days of Unleavened Bread [the Passover week]."
Wait people actually believe Jesus didn't exist? That's just silly, he obviously existed, the miracles may be called into question but certainly not his existence
Yea. It's funny. Then tell them that no scholar, thiest or athiest, worth their salt takes zeitgeist or Jesus Mythicism seriously and watch them cope and seethe.
Read Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald. Mythicists are real, and they have made serious arguments that have yet to be addressed.
@@Ursusarctoshorribilis
ok, if you’re going to make a claim of “serious” arguments then at least cite the books or said arguments
Edit: preferably the arguments though 👍
Edit2: And I’m well aware Richard Carrier is seen as a joke of a scholar which is why I’m really interested in the serious arguments. I’ve never heard of this David guy though
@@bacon_208 He wrote a good summary of the Mythicist arguments in a book called Nailed; Ten Xtian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed.
@@bacon_208 If he's such a joke why can't anyone even addresss his arguments
Good analysis, but you forget one other point. Jerome, writing in the late 4th century, also cites the Testimonium Flavianum in his "On Illustrious Men." Thus, there is no way that the Testimonium Flavianum can be a medieval forgery.
Do you mean the "Antiquities" as written originally in Greek?
that just makes it an older forgery.
@@Ursusarctoshorribilis not if the copy that Jerome or Eusebius relied on was written in parchment. You do know how old parchment documents can be right?
@@edwardkim8972 Eusebius is likely the one who wrote the TF. You know that, right? He's the prime suspect.
@@Ursusarctoshorribilis sigh. You mean the same guy who was patroned by Emperor Constantine? If Eusebius did make it up then why didn't any of Constantine's critics and enemies ever mention that? Julian the Apostate was the last non-Christian Roman emperor after Constantine (and was heavily anti-Christian). He was a critic of Constantine too. Why didn't Julian or any scholar around Julian ever make that accusation? Because it would be a great way to discredit Constantine if Julian was to prove that the TF was completely fabricated by Eusebius. In the late 4th century there were still plenty of legacy copies of Josephus' work in both parchment and papyrus, especially in the libraries of the East. Your logic makes zero sense and shows a lot of ignorance of Roman politics and infrastructure in the 4th century.
I think it also needs to be said that early apologists didn't try to gather sources to prove Jesus EXISTED, only that he was the Messiah and rose from the dead. That he never existed wasn't a charge early ancient critics levied against the church... and that they didn't really should settle the matter.
If an argument only becomes convenient because the passing of time makes it easy to pretend the past didn't happen (the existence of Jesus) then the argument isn't one that has a lot of merit.
Exactly this ! His existence and cruxifiction was not a debate in antiquity.
Only modern pseudo intellectual mythicists deny this
@@BradBrassman name 1 that actually fits that description.
It's only natural for someone to assume that people in the past thought along the same lines as they do today, even if not very logical. Mythicists likewise assume that Christians apologists were defending or trying to prove Jesus's existence as a historical person because they do that today, or that Christian scribes forged passages into Josephus for that reason simply because modern Christians use that same passage... _for that reason._
It might not occur to them that Jesus's existence was not a topic of debate, or that they haven't any like-minded mythicists in ancient times.
@@BradBrassman There really isn't. There have been such claims by conspiracy theorists(like the infamous "Zeitgeist" video 10 or so years ago)and fringe pop history theorists, but no one has been able to produce any evidence of such, and these claims have been well refuted by a multitude of historians and others.
@@histguy101 right, the additions to Josephus are clearly the out of place biased editorializing of Jesus as messiah in the mouth of a non-Christian jew. It doesn't fit.
But that he existed at all and is mentioned by him, sans worshipful commentary, should should expected. The Jewish rabbinical writings even mention Jesus and justify his death as the death of a sorcerer... this admits both to his existence and to his role as a miracle working iconoclast and admits he was executed under controversial circumstances. All while trying to spin these facts in an opposite polemic... why not just say he didn't exist?
Im here because of your meme shared by elephant.
Great channel by the way
Lol. Thanks. Some memes just make themselves.
elephant? you mean "the" Elephant Philosophy?
The biggest question you have to ask yourself is, where would ancient historians get information about Jesus? Either they saw Him themselves (in which case they'd be Christians and their writings dismissed as religious propaganda), and even among non-Christians this seems to have been an affair limited, among the educated, to the Jewish high priests and the Roman officials, and the earliest Christians. If these historians who didn't meet Jesus nonetheless got information about Jesus, it would have to be from other sources. Josephus never met Herod Archelaus, and nobody else records the slaughter in the Temple at Passover, yet nobody claims this event was fabricated or that Archelaus was a myth.
There are no accounts, historian or otherwise, of anyone who ever directly met Jesus.
@@protercool8474 Except there are.
@@SamAdamsGhost From whom? Give me the name of one author who wrote of his or her meeting with Jesus Christ
@@protercool8474Matthew, Peter through Mark, and John.
@@SamAdamsGhost not a one of those is an Author, those are the names of the books. We don't know who wrote them, but we do know that 3 out of 4 authors were definitely not contemporary with Jesus. And the last? A single unknown author writing of God walking the earth, seems pretty made up to me. No religious historian takes the gospels as gospel.
3:30 also another thing to point out this argument doesn’t make any sense either because we have absolutely no evidence of Jesus mythicism before the 1800s, and also it wouldn’t have made any sense for them to have to quote a non-Christian source to support their view that Jesus existed, none of the people that Origen or Tertullian we’re dealing with disputed that Jesus existed so it would make absolutely no sense for them to use a non-Christian source to prove that when it was not in dispute.
*mythicism not mysticism, Christianity has a deep tradition mysticisim (Holy Mysteries). Mythicism denies Christ's existence which is ridiculous and not even a mainstream held belief and is almost-exclusively held by people who are wilfully ignorant/stupid or hate God.
The irony is, that there's likely more testimony for the existence of Jesus Christ than for some of the other ancient figures that the sceptics believe existed. But then, consistency is not one of their strengths!
Good point.
All we can do is give that reasonable defense, and the early followers of Jesus Christ faced the exact same challenge.
We are, however, despite access to in depth information on - everything, really - living in the post Enlightenment; the case for Christ has never been better - and yet Christianity has become a marginal phenomenon in my part of the world - Northern Protestant Europe.
Erik is a blessing, though; he fights the good fight. Hasn't given up, and neither will I.
Kind regards Kim
The problem is the testimony comes from the church community. Jesus was Jewish. Jews don't believe in heaven or hell, the devil, or demons yet in the gospels Jesus talks to the devil, casts out demons and says you must believe in him to get to heaven. This Jesus seems to come from a pagan background.
@@paullkaplan4140, try some basic research, for example the JEWISH Torah (old testament). Jesus was not saying anything they hadn't heard before.
There is absolutely NO testimony from anything outside of the bible and other church works. None nada no way. Find something , PLEEEZZZE!
@@kimjensen8207 Using the case for Christ is the very reason it is doubtful he actually lived. Using your bible and taking it court ALL FOUR GOSPELS disagree on the details of the crucifixion. Read it for yourself on how the testimony is different. As for the rest of the bible it is full of errors and contradictions. Do you remember in school and at some point you had a textbook where an error was found? After that the entire textbook was suspect.
His passage on John the Baptist is huge as well. It confirms the basic gist of what the Gospels say while differing enough to establish its independency from Christian tradition.
Just because a book might have some truths that doesn't mean all claims in the book are true. If someone wrote that Bill Clinton was the president of the United States and he walked on water some of that sentence is true and some of it is not. The same holds true of John the Baptist. Josephus being born almost 40 years AFTER the supposed events of Jesus and John is only relating what he heard not what he witnessed . Just because there were Jews before the myth of Jesus does not make everything the Jews claim is real as well. There is absolutely no evidence the Jews wandered for 40 years in the dessert and no reason to believe it possible or probable. The dessert simply is not that big to remain hidden . There is also no reason to believe the Jews were ever held as slaves in Egypt. One thing that is universally common when slavery is present is that both slave and holder pick up and each others language or words to some degree. There are no Egyption words in the Hebrew language and no Hebrew words in the Egyption language. Again the most problematic realilty for the claim that Jesus actually existed is the fact we still have the "movement " started by John the Baptist still existing with the people calling themselves the Mandeans located in Ethiopia. They trace their beliefs and lineage (not genetic) directly to John the Baptist. If Jesus actually existed , died and was resurrected the members of the baptist movement should have disbanded. They did not.
@@colinmatts he never said that. What he meant is that ancient historians such as Josephus show that the gospel writers get dozens and dozens of facts right with people, places, events, etc. So we can be pretty confident that they told other things right about the divine attributes of Christ that is not 100% provable but not disprovable either.
" No real jews would say these things "... except James, Peter, John, Jude, Timothy, Matthew, Mark, and several thousand unnamed jews who believed in Jesus.
With a name like that, you should be a 3rd string quarterback 😉
@@TestifyApologetics
Lol ! But... i am a third string quarterback. 🤕
@@HistoryandReviews
Lol... ok whatever.
@@HistoryandReviews there’s not real evidence for that view though.
That is was Matthew a disciple of Jesus, Mark a companion to Peter and wrote down his account, Luke a companion to Paul and the disciples and John a disciple of Jesus.
These are confirmed by the early church fathers. There are no disagreement on who wrote the gospels, each manuscript has the names of the author on them.
Josephus wasn't Christian. He was a court historian to the Flavian Emperors. Politically he pushed hard for the idea that Emperor Vespasian was chosen by God to rule Palestine, and that his fellow Jews should basically accept Vespasian as the Messiah. For him to call a peasant preacher the Messiah in a little historical aside is unthinkable. It's a very obvious addition/modification by a later Christian scribe.
What would you say to people who claim there are no contemporary sources of Jesus therefore he didn’t exist?
Why would we expect them to have? Jesus was a rabbi teaching in a backwater province of the Roman empire. Also, much of what we have from history had been lost. Also, 4 Gospels is actually a lot.
@@TestifyApologetics, That’s what I always say!
Almost no one on the planet dates them that late. The scholarly consensus puts Mark 65 to 70. Matthew 80 to 85. Same for Luke. John is 90. I think there are good arguments for early dating. Maurice Casey is an atheist NT scholar and he dated Mark to the 40s. Also they were quoted by Ignatius and Polycarp, showing they were in use. Paul quoted them too, which is even earlier.
isjesusalive.com/13-good-historical-reasons-for-the-early-dating-of-the-gospels/
@@TestifyApologetics, Yeah almost no one ever dated the Gospels to early to late second century that’s just wild. But I believe that the Gospels are early compositions. I believe Mark was written 57-60AD around that time, Luke written around 56-63AD, Matthew around that time as well and John 66-96AD.
There actually may be contemporary sources of Jesus. It is still possible that Pilate sent a report to Rome about Jesus after the crucifixion. Justin Martyr and Tertullian both mention a report that Pilate sent to Tiberius about Jesus.
Of course, I'm not saying it's probable, but certainly possible.
I heard someone say that the later additions to the testimonium flavianum were probably innocently added as glosses at the edge of the original manuscript. Being that back then there was no way to signify that this was a gloss or a footnote, a later scribe simply inserted the additions into the text itself.
Thank you for this channel, i found you through a cross examined blog. Never stop these vids man, these are so informative
he is lying to you in every video. you need to read richard carrier's blog.
Can you imagine if Josephus wasn't just a historian, but would go around as a musician in his offtime?
Josephus, the inventor of rap, and going by the name of Flavor Flavius.
The only drawback is if the gold chains that he wore weren't already heavy enough,
on that chain he wore a sundial as well.
"yeahh Boyyy!"
I know, I'm stupid,...
but it's funny right?
Lmaooooo
In Roman society it was traditional for a freed slave to adopt the family name of his ex-master. With Josephus that was the Emperor Titus Flavius Vespasianus. Flavius and the flavian dynasty is one of the most famous names in history.
I'm not a Christian but I do find the mythicist arguments against the testimonium flavium ridiculous, although they rarely mentioned the second mention along with James and the mention of John the Baptist. The second mention refers back to the first. Certainly the wording of the original Greek has changed over the centuries of copying. But there's actually nothing wrong with Josephus mentioning christ is not actually a problem. Not all Jews believed that the messiah was coming, that's moreso a later Christian development. Christos to a Roman and Greek audience just meant the smeared, literally. Josephus mentions multiple Jesus' throughout his works so this one is nicknamed christos. Also the antiquities is long and very very boring. It's not inconceivable that no Christian scholar had even read through all the way to find the brief mention. It's not like today where you can just search for terms in a giant index, these scrolls had to be found in a library, unrolled and then studied and they had no spaces between words...
Another historical source which refers to Jesus are the writings the Roman intellectual Tacitus, in ‘Annals of the Roman Empire’ (114-117 AD) refers to the way Nero blamed Christians for the great fire of Rome, persecuting them in the most awful ways , and mentions ‘Christus’ who in the reign of Tiberius was sentenced to death by Pontius Pilate. He was no Christian himself, referring to Christianity as a ‘pernicious superstition’ but confirms it as taking root in Rome itself.
There were lots of Jewish apocalyptic preachers back then. Jesus was not alone in that mission.
Given the number of those named Jesus in Josephus hard to determine which one in particular is being referred to
Ok, let's say the red print IS doctored. The remaining black print still proves Christ the man as Josephus CLEARLY mentions Jesus "a wise man and one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher. He won over many Jews and Greeks"
You forget, the very title of "Christ" is divine in Greek. Not as a wise man, a divine being as depicted in John. Josephus would never, either as a apostate pagan or a returned Jew make such a claim. Not even the claim of a semi-divine Messiah as made by Matthew and Luke.
Josephus as a Jew would have been familiar with the two powers in heaven teaching as a non-heresy within the second temple period. The disputed red text like, "if indeed one ought to call him a man" would make sense and the oddness of that choice of words would only seem that way today. I have to suspect that after thousands of years redefining monotheism, "Our Lord is one" also may not imply what monotheists think it does today.
I'm thinking that I agree. In the Shema prayer, the word Hebrews use is "Echad".
Our Lord is One
Adonai Echad
That word is often used to symbolize unity. Like in marriage, communities, military, and yes divinity.
If you read the way Josephus describes the other little Jewish cults of the time, the passage about the Chrisitans seems incredibly out of place. It's been obviously tampered with.
The profession of faith by a Jew since the time of Moses is that there is only ONE God and he is God. The claim of divinity in John and the word "Christ" in Greek is what caused the irrevocable split between Christianity and Judaism in the 90s CE, when Christians were forbidden access to the synagogues and cursed.
Yeah, but in all Arab sources, that were translated from the original Greek manuscripts ,these passages are gone. It is widely accepted among historians that all Latin versions of Josephus are based on Christian rewritings that were so embarrassed that Josephus didn't even notice Jesus and his followers that he didn't mention them (while lengthily mentioning the very obscure, and bizarre sect of the Essense).
Furthermore, Josephus describes himself as a pharisee and therefore it is unlikely that he would say that Jesus was the messiah. It is 100% a Christian forgery.
source?
Dude, bravo. Seriously, this is an amazingly in-depth and informative explanation of this debate. Well done, keep it up 👍🏼
Great video!!!! Thank you. Its funny how people believe in Ragnarok the viking, however, people don't believe in jesus. What are people scared of?
What is even stranger is people believing in simulation theory, and believing that this world isn't even real. But they can't believe in God..
The TF is a forgery, but Josephus certainly wrote about Jesus. He is The Egyptian. ✝️
Josephus says it, that settles it
A very solid exposition!
Jesus is mentioned in contemporary census records. He did exist. He does.
Sorry, wrong again. Judea did not become a part of the province of Syria to around 6 CE. At that time, only Roman citizens would have been submitted to a census. The non-Romans would have been enumerated and a tribute fixed upon the local leaders.
Calling Josephus a contemorary of Jesus is like calling me (born 1959) a contemporary of Gen. William Sherman (died 1891).
How so Josephus was born 4 years after Jesus death
You are crazy history says he was born 4 years after his death thats pretty close
@@carefullychristian8657 Josephus was forty years old at least when he wrote the "Antiquities". That puts him nearly on line with Matthew and Luke, earlier than John but after Mark (Marcus). None of the Gospels was written by an eyewitness.
Joshephus was adopted into the flavian roman family (hence his second name)
To write in all prophecies as complete and create the caesars into the messiah via allegory stories.
To be digested by the Jews as true.
Why would the romans create a messiah that tells people to spread this religion to the whole world including Rome writting in Greek to make it more easy to understand, but still torture and kill the christians and only accept christianity 2 or 3 centuries later?
@@vecturhoff7502 yes. 100 percent. They created a messiah to trick the Jews into thinking the messiah had come. When in reality it was caesar they were presented.
As for spreading around the vast empire. Most definitely. They can now rule a vast empire with words and thoughts alone.
@@vecturhoff7502 the Jews were the Romans biggest enemies.
Judea fell exactly like the bible prophecies. 3 walls of army seiged them for weeks.
It was prophecies, it was allegories.
@@vecturhoff7502 why would the capital of Christianity be in Italy. Far far away from anything biblical? Because they invented that, to rule and govern their empire. Especially making judea crumble.
It wasn't until 398ad (so 400 years after the supposed death) that Constantine the second made it punishable by death, to not conform to Christianity. Was only then it exploded over the next 1000 years. Up until 1900's, and then it started it's decline.
When people were no longer cast out of society, burnt and labeled as witches or murdered for not conforming.
Says alot about why it grew.
@@vecturhoff7502 in the next 50 years it'll will be third in the global audit of religious beliefs or no belief
Islam will be number 1, only due to higher birth rates
No beliefs will be second.
James was first cousin of Jesus, being the son of Clopas, Joseph's brother. He also was older than Jesus.
Josephus's organization was horrific by modern standards, and I'm sure you could find hundreds of passages that seem "out of place" in his writings. That's far from proving they were all forged.
yeah, literacy was different back in those times
Just started your Historial Reliability of the Gospels playlist 😊 Going to go through it while meal prepping 😋
Glad you find it helpful. I have so many more video ideas to add to that playlist, it's definitely still a work in progress!
Glad you're meal prepping because you must take this with a grain of salt.
@@Control_alt_delete You're
@@TestifyApologetics It's bullshit mythris
Sara 2 trillion galaxies,not stars,galaxies! THINK! USE YOUR BRAIN!!!?
You can see how brainwashed you are in your picture!
I notice that, when referring to the death of James, Josephus calls Jesus "the so-called Christ". In other words, it is a semi-derogatory reference to Jesus. This would fit well with someone who is a devout Jew referring to Jesus. It has the air of being a sneering, derisive reference than being respectful.
The skeptic assertion that the TF was a forgery created by Eusebius is untenable for the following reasons:
1) Eusebius was the historian that was commissioned by Constantine to write down church history. As an official Roman sponsored historian, he would not fabricate passages, especially passages where Josephus' works can cross checked by any number of Roman libraries that would still have extant copies.
2) The TF was alluded to by Origen in 240 AD. He does not quote it in full and mentions that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.
3) No Roman critic of Christianity ever doubted the existence of Jesus in their critiques of Christianity in the 2nd or 3rd centuries so no Church Father needed to mention the TF as a defense in their written materials. It was only after the Roman Empire legalized Christianity and protected it that the Church Fathers (Eusebius and Jerome) started to quote the TF in full.
4) Eusebius quotes the TF in full three times. Two in works that were of apologetics. Any critic of the TF could go to any sizable Roman library at the time and confirm (or refute) Eusebius' quotation of the TF. Given that Eusebius was a commissioned writer of Church history, an outright forgery would have been impossible. Eusebius, and other Christian writers could not afford the loss of credibility if they simply forged the TF in full. The infrastructure of Roman libraries were still in existence in the 4th century throughout the Roman Empire.
5) Jerome in the later 4th century quotes a Latin version of TF where it's nearly identical to Eusebius' Greek version, other than the part where "[Jesus] was the Messiah" can be interpreted to "[Jesus] was called the Messiah." This quote by Jerome might be closer to the original and would coincide with what Origen wrote in 240 AD.
6) This much attestation by both Eusebius and Jerome in a time where the Roman Empire's library system was still intact make a forgery impossible, particularly in an age where Christianity received Empire wide tolerance, but still had a lot of pagan opposition and skepticism. Eusebius and Jerome's use of the TF could easily be refuted by critics if it was a pure invention and this would lead to a loss of credibility for not only Eusebius or Jerome, but for any Emperor who wished to be a patron of Christianity. The risks and possible loss of credibility were powerful motivators to not fabricate complete passages during the existence of the Roman Empire and its academic infrastructure, which was still intact in the 4th century.
It has already been shown that Eusebius left out or changed things that didn't run with the Church's version of history. He glossed over the differences between Paul, Peter and James. Ignored how the Acts of the Apostles is contrary to what Paul himself wrote in his Epistles, ignored the forgery of the "Pastoral Epistles", skipped over the importance of women to the early Church, so important, Paul's unmodified Epistle to the Romans mentions several by name, even calling one an "apostle". There is a lot of Christian scripture that got "lost" along the way as the proto-orthodox who won the battles for the heart of Christianity became the orthodoxy. Then there is the claim that the bishop of Roman was the head of the Church, when in fact, leadership was shared among the Bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Damascus. Constantine didn't care about the historical accuracy of the Church and had no input or even cared about the writings by Eusebius. He wasn't a scholar. And no Roman governor or government employee was going to look very close at Christian scripture and writings when the Emperor was favoring the Christians, who won out in the end after the death of Julian the Apostate. He had named Christianity as a legal Roman religion, which made the Christian priests government employees like the pagan priests.
1 non sequitur for two reasons. it may have been his mentor who did it. he inherited his library. very few copies, if any, existed elsewhere. and once christianity became the officialy religion, older copies without that passage would be destroyed after being corrected. your assertion is baseless.
2 this is just a lie. what he says is that he was upset josephus never mentioned jesus at all. and again, if pamphilus is the source of the interpolation, it may have already existed at that point.
3 this is also a lie. christians destroyed most of the evidence of skeptics. Contra Celsus is a rare example to the contrary. We KNOW there were CHRISTIANS who were saying jesus wasn't real very early one, in fact, those are the original christians. 2 peter was forged to speak against them. Ignatius also writes about them.
"Stop your ears when anyone speaks to you at variance with the Jesus Christ who was descended from David, and came through Mary; who really was born and ate and drank; who really was persecuted under Pontius Pilate; who really was crucified and died in the sight of witnesses in heaven, and on earth, and even under the earth; who really was raised from the dead, too, His Father resurrecting Him, in the same way His Father will resurrect those of us, who believe in Him by Jesus Christ, apart from whom we do not truly have life." Ignatius, Trallians 9
"For we did not follow cleverly contrived myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; instead, we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased!” We ourselves heard this voice when it came from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. … [But now] false teachers among you … will exploit you in their greed with made-up stories. Their condemnation, pronounced long ago, is not idle, and their destruction [assured]." 2 Peter 1:15-2:3
if christians were saying it, nonchristians also were.
4 Irrelevant. again, the origin may not be Eusebius, but his mentor.
5 And? he is copying from eusebius. We have no independent manuscripts. Everything traces back to eusebius' copy.
6 All sorts of forgeries happened. They clearly aren't "impossible". This is just cope. How often is anyone looking at the single copy of any given obscure work? You act like the emperor was reading it and personally acquainted with it. Eusebius is a know liar and forgerer. Christian tampering and forgery was commonplace right from the very beginning of christianity. In the DSS we see they were in the middle of forging a new gospel and with the source text they were plagiarizing found with it.
@@spiritsplice nope. That's all speculation. If it was anything other than the TF, then you wouldn't have to world build so much to support your thesis. You literally have to world build in order to support your beliefs vs. just assume other copies of Josephus was available in Imperial libraries throughout the Empire for contemporaries to simply cross reference Eusebius. Thus, Eusebius, who had Emperor Constantine as a patron, was living in a world where critics could simply go to an Imperial Iibrary in Antioch, Alexandria, Rome or Athens and call B.S. on him immediately. Given that likely fact... I'm calling B.S. on you!
@@edwardkim8972 Literally all of the evidence points to the TF being a forgery. None of it is by Josephus. Only apologists and grifters claim otherwise. You weren't aware of anything I mentioned.
It might not have been Eusebius. It could have been someone else, like his teacher, Pamphilus.
Hi Erik do you have anything on the claim Atheists make that Josephus didn’t mention King Herod The Great ordering the killing of every baby boy even though he wrote about Herod? Thx
Good question! I wrote about the topic here:
isjesusalive.com/historical-truth-or-holy-fiction-did-herod-really-order-the-massacre-of-the-innocents-or-did-matthew-just-make-up-a-story/
Hope it helps. I'd like to make it into a video someday.
Herod the Great was not a Hebrew, and some of his subjects claimed he wasn't a Jew. He was Idumean and had been supported to the throne by the Romans as a loyal buffer state with Parthia. Thus, Josephus could have portrayed him quite badly, yet seems to have been fairly objective. But had Herod commanded the murder of every boy of two years and younger in Bethlehem, I think Josephus would have noted it, given his description of the death of John the Baptist. And note, Herod did not command the killing of boys within Judea, only those within Bethlehem, which might have amounted to less than a hundred. Bad, yes, but in the scheme of things Josephus was writing about, perhaps not notable.
Josephus, like Tacitus, mentioned that some locals followed a Rabbi. That's all they said about him.
*Josephus*
The Testimonium Flavianum (TF) is not merely “not entirely authentic” it is in fact entirely not authentic. The TF appears in the course of one of three stories told by Josephus about Pontius Pilate. In all three stories (with the notable exception of the TF) Josephus heaps opprobrium on Pilate, portraying him as a self-motivated, and thus solely-to-blame, callous agitator against the Jews and desecrator of the holiest temple to the god of the Jews, only to suddenly paint him as a weak-minded puppet of the Jewish authorities for a few lines that could come directly from the Gospel according to Luke, only to just as inexplicably and instantly revert to describing a Praefect so enamoured of his own authority that he was replaced by Caligula for being too despotic.
the account of Pilate’s theft of temple money to fund an aqueduct is (with the exception of the TF) filled with specific details-the rioters shouting insults, the Roman soldiers going among the crowd in Jewish dress, the order to the demonstrators to disperse, the violence of the soldiers, and the bloody suppression of the riot. At each point Josephus reports not only what the various groups did, but why they did it, and what the causes and effects of their actions were. This account, like the other Pontius Pilate accounts, has a narrative structure. The aqueduct story sans TF is an account in which a situation is established and the characters interact, and there is a resolution. The account has a beginning, a middle, and an end. The other two Pilate episodes (the legionary standards episode and the Samaritan uprising) have the same structure, that is. The careful crafting of sequences of events and “cause and effect” is an essential part of Josephus’s skill as a historian. By contrast the Testimonium has no such plot. From its position in Josephus’s “Antiquities of the Jews” it does not qualify as a narrative at all. The Testimonium could not be understood except by someone who already knew, understood, and above all *believed* the gospel accounts of Jesus and the context of early Christianity, and more importantly it breaks into an already established account of Pilate’s anti-Jewish actions by portraying him as an easily intimidated puppet of the Sanhedrin It does not explain any of the specifically Jewish terms used such as “Messiah” or “Christ” which would be unknown to the target audience Josephus was aiming his “Antiquities of the Jews” to. The Testimonium gains its intelligibility not through its detailed reporting of novel events but by virtue of being a “repetition of the familiar” that is to say familiarity to third century Christian readers, as opposed to first century Romans. It is not just that the Testimonium is exposes its Christian evangelism by its adherence to the Gospels, it is that without knowing (and most likely also believing) the Gospels the passage is meaningless.
Likewise with the “Who is called Christ” phrase, there is no explanation of why somebody would call the brother of James “Oiled” which is what the word “Christos” means. To a first century Roman, wrestlers were anointed in oil before starting a contest. If you read the entire story in which the line appears certain facts become apparent. First the timeframe is set in that it occurred between the death of Fesus but before the appointment of Albinus, putting the events before AD62 but no earlier than AD61. In the account James (brother of Jesus) was stoned to death at the orders of the Sanhedrin under the leadership of the Sadducee high priest Ananus. As a consequence a deputation of concerned citizens intercepted Albinus as he was travelling to Jerusalem to assume office to make their complaint which Albinus upheld and ordered king Herod Agrippa to remove Ananus from office. As a result Agrippa subsequently appointed Jesus as high Priest. During the three paragraph narrative of the event, Josephus uses the term “Saduccee” and promptly refers back to a previous use of the word while also explaining to the reader what a “Saduccee” was. Josephus also goes into detail about the elder Ananus, his five sons, and their proud family tradition of being elevated to office as high priest. Josephus devotes three entire paragraphs containing plenty of information while reporting a relatively unimportant dispute in the Sanhedrin and yet you would have people believe that he would limit himself to a single paragraph of gushing adoration towards one of many claimants to messianic status, especially considering how dismissive his three paragraphs dedicated to Athronges the shepherd were.
Compare that account of how James died with the account by Hegessippus in which James’ death came about from a spontaneous incident in which he was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple. Like all good Christian martyrs he survived and rather than either begging for his life or just running away, he prayed for divine forgiveness for those attacking him before being clubbed to death by a Fuller (Laundryman). Hegesippus puts that death as taking place immediately before the siege of Jerusalem which took place in AD70. Since both James (Jacob) and Jesus (Jeshua) were very common names in that place and at that time it is more likely that the two sets of brothers were different people than that there was one set of time-travelling brothers. For example, I know of two pairs of brothers named Peter and Christopher, neither of them being the Hitchens brothers.
*Tacitus*
Publius Cornelius Tacitus was a prominent Roman historian and politician who rose through the political ranks to become Proconsul of Asia. As such he would have never got the title of Pontius Pilate wrong any more than Winston Churchill, also a historian and politician would have described David Lloyd George as being the President of the United Kingdom at the beginning of the “Great War”. Most of what is known about Tacitus comes from his lengthy correspondences with his friend the governor of Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, who I will mention in his own segment should one become necessary.
The “Tacitus” quote and its description of the persecution of Christians, using them as novelty streetlighting contradicts all other sources of information including “Acts of the Apostles” which shows that by the time of Nero’s reign Christians were free to worship openly as long as they “rendered unto Caesar” The thread that runs through “Acts” is of Jewish persecution of Christians and Roman punishment of Jews for their treatment of Christians, as well as the edict of Claudius issued in AD41, and that certainly accords with Roman policies on religion and religious tolerance before Constantine’s day.
The Edict of Caudius issued in around AD48 expresses Jewish rights, but includes an instruction for the Jews to respect similar rights for followers of other faiths _”Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, pontifex maximus, holding the tribunician power, proclaims: . . .Therefore it is right that also the Jews, who are in all the world under us, shall maintain their ancestral customs without hindrance and to them I now also command to use this my kindness rather reasonably and not to despise the religious rites of the other nations, but to observe their own laws.”_ and the letter to the Jews living in Alexandria goes into greater detail _”Wherefore, once again I conjure you that, on the one hand, the Alexandrians show themselves forbearing and kindly towards the Jews who for many years have dwelt in the same city, and dishonour none of the rites observed by them in the worship of their god, but allow them to observe their customs as in the time of the Deified Augustus, which customs I also, after hearing both sides, have sanctioned; and on the other hand, I explicitly order the Jews not to agitate for more privileges than they formerly possessed, and not in the future to send out a separate embassy as though they lived in a separate city (a thing unprecedented), and not to force their way into gymnasiarchic or cosmetic games, while enjoying their own privileges and sharing a great abundance of advantages in a city not their own, and not to bring in or admit Jews who come down the river from Egypt or from Syria, a proceeding which will compel me to conceive serious suspicions. Otherwise I will by all means take vengeance on them as fomenters of which is a general plague infecting the whole world. If, desisting from these courses, you consent to live with mutual forbearance and kindliness, I on my side will exercise a solicitude of very long standing for the city, as one which is bound to us by traditional friendship.”_
The “Tacitus” entry correctly identifies the fire of Rome as a flashpoint (pun not intended) of resentment, but it was not resentment of “Chrestians” but rather of the revolting Jews (Jewish Revolt AD64-AD70) and since the Christians had pivoted away from Judaism they were not looked on with the suspicion that fell on the Jews in Rome as a consequence of the Jewish revolt. In fact many Christians were recruited from among the Gentile (Pagan) populations of the first century Roman empire. It also runs counter to the letter from Pliny the younger to Trajan. As a person living in Nero’s Rome as a child Pliny the younger would have had definite memories of Nero’s novelty streetlamps had such actually existed.
At best, if authentic, “Tacitus” would only demonstrate the *existence* of Christians, not the accuracy of their claims or beliefs.
There are further problems with the Tacitus story. Tacitus himself never again discusses any potential Neronian persecution of Christians in any other of his books that form the Annals, yet there are several paragraphs covering Jewish arrogance towards non-Jews and Tacitus takes exception to the Jews carrying out live animal sacrifices of animals that are sacred to the gods of their closest neighbours, for example in “Histories 5.4” Tacitus states _”In order to secure the allegiance of his people in the future, Moses prescribed for them a novel religion quite different from those of the rest of mankind. Among the Jews all things are profane that we hold sacred; on the other hand they regard as permissible what seems to us immoral. In the innermost part of the Temple, they consecrated an image of the animal which had delivered them from their wandering and thirst, choosing a ram as beast of sacrifice to demonstrate, so it seems, their contempt for Hammon. The bull is also offered up, because the Egyptians worship it as Apis.”_
It is notable that no other authors, Pagan, Jewish, or even Christian know anything of the use of Christians to light the darkness either, indeed absolutely no ancient Christian apologists made even the slightest use of the story in their propaganda - an unthinkable omission by motivated partisans who were well-read in the works of Tacitus.
Like the Testimonium Flavianum, the “Tacitus” entry was unknown to Origen in AD248, and it was also unknown to Eusebius, the author of the Testimonium Flavianum. In fact Origen admitted in AD248 in his defence of Christianity titled “Contra Celsum” that there was no mention of Jesus outside of the gospels, and as late as the ninth century Photius the Ecumenical Bishop of Constantinople admitted that Josephus had never mentioned Jesus of Nazareth and also made no mention of the persecution of Christians under Nero.
Other Christians who made absolutely no reference to Tacitus include Marcion, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irnaeus, Polycrates, Tertullian Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Augustine of Hippo. All of those Christian apologists were desperate to find non-biblical sources demonstrating at the very least the existence of Jesus, and Eusebius had expressed his willingness to lie and fabricate “evidence” yet nobody knew of that supposed entry in Annals 15.44 before it was first referenced in the 14th century when Johannes de Spire first published his translation of the Annals of Tacitus in Venice. Robert Taylor (author of “Diegesis”, published in 1834) believed de Spire himself to have been the forger.
So thankful for all your videos. They don’t waste time getting down to the point. But they also are detailed enough to deliver all the relevant information.
Incredibly helpful for anyone trying to grow in understanding of apologetics and the reasons for our faith.
How did Josephus know about Jesus in the first place?
Josephus was born in Jerusalem in AD 37, which is 4 years after the most likely date for the crucifixion. He would have been familiar with the growing Christian movement there, lead by James. And by the time Josephus wrote Antiquities, at least 3 of the 4 gospels (probably all four) had been written.
@@onvavoir78 but according to catholics james was not jesus' biological brother, and josephus' passage doesn't prove that jesus was god or the resurrection, it can maybe be presented as evidence that some people believed that there was a guy named jesus and not more than that + on top of that, many scholars believe that at least some of the passage was a forgery. i never hear anyone in the mythicist vs historicist debates quoting josephus... they always go to paul
You really think Christianity started with some guy who never existed? That's the most ridiculous conspiracy theory I've ever heard
Even if Ehrman is right. Josephus does write about "James, the brother of Jesus" who gets stoned to death.
He initially fought against the Roman Empire during the First Jewish-Roman War as general of the Jewish forces in Galilee, until surrendering in AD 67 to the Roman army led by military commander Vespasian after the six-week siege of Yodfat. Josephus claimed the Jewish messianic prophecies that initiated the First Jewish-Roman War made reference to Vespasian becoming Roman emperor. In response, Vespasian decided to keep him as a slave and presumably interpreter. After Vespasian became emperor in AD 69, he granted Josephus his freedom, at which time Josephus assumed the Emperor's family name of Flavius...
Flavius Josephus fully defected to the Roman side and was granted Roman citizenship. He became an advisor and friend of Vespasian's son Titus, serving as his translator when Titus led the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD...
"The converts themselves were banned from society as outcasts and so was their historiographic work or, in the more popular historical novels, their literary counterparts. Josephus Flavius, formerly Yosef Ben Matityahu (34-95), had been shunned, then banned as a traitor."
- Wikipedia
The existence of jesus has never been in question in the same way the existence of the sun that rises everyday. Why all this debate on jesus existence all of a sudden. 🤔
Thank you for sharing this. I stumbled upon this video by typing "Josephus" in the search bar. I have been struggling with Josephus and his authenticity because he fails to bring up the Golden Calf. Why do you think this might have happened?
Glad you found it helpful. I haven't heard of the whole Golden Calf controversy other than a paper I was able to find on the topic which I can't get access to. Can you give me a short breakdown on the problem?
@@TestifyApologetics So there isn't much I can say about it. The only thing that I can say with certainty is that he doesn't bring it up in his Antiquities. I speculate now that I have read something in Story of the Jews Volume 1 by Simon Schama that since his audience was Roman that he didn't want to cause any additional issues. However I don't really know how omitting this would cause any issues per se. If you find anything more out I would love to hear what you have come across!
@@TestifyApologetics What is the paper's name?
The audience Josephus was shooting at were the Greeks and Romans, some of whom denied that the Jews were ever civilized. Josephus wrote to, first, show that the Jews were civilized, and two, had been civilized for at least 500 years before the Romans and slightly before the first written copies of the Iliad and Odyssey. He was writing a social and political history, not a religious one. He knew well enough that the Greeks and Romans thought the Jewish religion was somewhat odd.
It's extremely bizarre for Josephus to have really written that Jesus was the real messiah among many prominent pretenders; that he rose from the dead, and was "a doer of wonderful works", yet he only got a few sentences mentioned in Josephus' multi-volume works. He never told us what any of these "wonderful works" were, or what the results or reactions were when the one and only true messiah came back among them after being dead for 3 days! The presence of the true messiah in the middle of a century of messianic revolt was treated as if it were completely impertinent to that messianic revolt.
well he wouldn't know in detail as he was born after Jesus so Josephus wouldn't have known the exact miracles but would have known that Jesus was a known wonderworker, Usage of Josephus is not confirming the divinity of Christ but of his physical existence.
In THE JEWISH WAR, Josephus clearly said Vespasian was the Messiah.
It’s obvious that it’s a stoic being described…..VIRTUE/WISEMAN and GOOD CONDUCT are all used as thematic in stoicism
Obvious? You think it is that strong?
@@TestifyApologetics The STOICISM beliefs in physical sacrifice to preserve honor is also the obvious reason why one of his disciples was made to resemble JESUS and crucified. When the REAL JESUS continued preaching 3 days after, it gave the appearance that he arose from the dead 💀 since it was alleged that he was publicly crucified. This was by design…..HE WAS INDO/EUROPEAN descent so he would have been darker in skin complexion than the Greek/Roman philosophers
Using Tacitus to “prove” the existence of Jesus is fundamentally misusing what Tacitus was writing about.
The more important thing, however, is that Tacitus does not say one single thing about the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.
But which one?
What reason/s is there for Josephus not being a Messianic Jew??
Nicodemus was a devout Jew yet acknowledged Jesus is the Messiah.
Joseph of Arimathea -a member of the Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus! did a noble thing for Jesus.
'Testify' has elsewhere effectively shown: "Christian copying doesn't equal Christian editing".
The gospel went to the Jews first...
Seems to me what Jo wrote had all the signs of a fledgling Messianic Christian ....what evidence do we have that he isn't?
A Messianic Jew wouldn't have become apostate, sacrificing to the Roman gods and the Imperator. Josephus became apostate soon after meeting Vespasian and returned to Judaism in his late life after having written the "Antiquities".
But does Josephus mention the historical Paul? Or that Paul wrote letters to the churches? Or that Paul persecuted Christians? Or King Arestas in Damascus? Or the presence of Christians in Judea, Galilee and Syria? Does anyone mention these? Did Paul even Exist?
I don't think much of any scholars don't think he's real
The Apostles mentions Paul
He was there - and for a much longer time than people knew or still know…
1:47
"No real Jew would have said these things about Jesus"
*1st century Messianic Jews and modern-day Messianic Jews has entered the chat*
Josephus was of course neither a 1st century messianic, not a modern messianic
Would this be the same Josephus who wasn't even born until after Christ is said to have departed? Carry on.
Why is that a big deal? If I told you the Soviet union collapsed but I was born after that does that mean I'm wrong?
Yes, he mentions it, but he also contradics the accouns in Gospels. Probably the entries praising Jesus was added by someone else much later, probably around 400CE when the disagreements about Jesus was at its highest level.
wild take that needs a source
@@CringerZ A lot of historians believe it. He places Jesus in the Jewish war. You sort that out,
Great video! Keep up the good work!
richard carrier has a point when he says that the gospels copied from josephus, there are many similarities
lol
Thank you for sharing this.
Jo said, if you could call Jesus a man, Jesus was the Word, only well healed knew this so I ask, what is the original Word?
The later, doctored version does.
Barring a few dishonest Christian editors? I think that answers the broader story.
The church fathers didn't see any apologetic value in Josephus's note about Jesus because they didn't see any reason to defend the fact that Jesus actually existed.
Josephus wrote this in 93 AD. It proves nothing.
@teastrainer3604 He wrote that in 93AD, so his uncles probably told him the story of how they witnessed the crucifixion of a pacifist claiming to be the "Messiah." Josephus was a HISTORIAN, not an eye-witness!
Your statement proves nothing
No, it wasn't there. Origin even complained that josephus said nothing about jesus.
Yeah. Skeptic here. And I'm a Skeptic because of these reasons
1: the writing styles of the time of the letter you are referring to is not in line with the style of the writing of the subject matter. It appears to be a later edited edition.
2: until the recent times, it was considered fake by almost all 'scholars. Not the 4th century, but the 1800s
2, Josephus is Jewish, under Roman rule and care. It would have been suicide to write anything about a rebellious person in a good way.
At the time, christ was not something that anyone would use for a failed messiah, nor use the Greek word to describe him.
4. Obviously it's a Christian writing edit, as,there are no collaborative writing for this topic.
5. Christianity is opposite of the teaching of the jew, which Jesus was if he existed.
The documents of Josephus does give mention of Jesus of Nazareth, and another mention of Jesus called the Christ. Everyone reading this, however, must remember a very important aspect of ancient documents. The originals do NOT exist. What has come down to the present are hand written copies of the original. They did not have xerox machines. Does anyone know how many scribes over how many decades were involved in rewriting the documents. . . . It had better occur to all readers that are interested in truth, that a scribe rewriting a manuscript can insert some new words and wording when ever they do the copy. The historian is super concerned about this issue of veracity and accuracy. I am.
I really like that your videos are under 10minutes. Other channels need like 30 minutes to 1hour to make the same claims. Christians need this Josephus passage to be true because there is almost nothing else (which in itself is telling). That's why they bend backwards to make the text fit. If you approach it from a perspective whether it is probable (not possible!) that Josephus wrote in flying colors about Jesus Christ the Messiah - then it is a hard sell.
Don’t forget Tacitus and the early creed.
@@Nameless-pt6oj you mean Tacitus’ Chrestians or that he got some information from Pliny.? Well, doesn’t matter, both statements only put Christians/Chrestians on the map and have nothing to do with a historical Jesus. Even Bible scholars avoid Tacitus nowadays.
I like the long form videos
Jesus said he wasn't a political messiah? He intimated he was king of the Jews, which was disturbing the peace with the local Jews. He turned over the tables in the temple. These are the things that got him crucified. Jesus predicted to some of his followers that he would return in their lifetimes ... but didn't which equates him as a failed messiah. Josephus was a Jewish historian who sided with the Romans during the Jewish War so there is little wonder he didn't mention Jesus. The failed messiahs mentioned are in his history because they failed. The Testimonium just screams interpolation.
The mention is very suspect. What historian would call Jesus a messiah? Clear manipulation of historical records by the catholic church.
I got a suggestion, tom holland the historian has theorised that the reason why that christianity is losing following in the west is that the church basically won and that radical and unbelievable things like universal morals and human rights. So what it needs to do is focus more on the radical supernatural stuff that the people cannot get from other places.
Don't you get it ? All the references to Jesus by Josephus or Roman Historians must be interpolations or nythicism fails. What about the claim that no contemporary historian mentions Jesus ? Well, they don't mention the High Priest, the most inmportant person in the land, so I guess that proves he did not exist.
Wrong. Go back and read the passages referring to Herod the Great and the building of the Second Temple. And Josephus was writing a history of the Hebrews not of Judaism.
@@michaelsnyder3871: Exactly what am I wrong about? And what is the title of his book again ?
you forgot that Josephus never physically met Jesus and didn't know the details about Jesus but that Josephus knew that Jesus was a known wonderworker who had many followers and got crucified.
Even pontius pilate mentions the rabbi to his reports on caesar 😂😂😂
Josephus is not a contemporary, he was born after the supposed death of Jesus. The Arabic is derived from the known Greek passage, as demonstrated by Alice Whealey.
Richard Carrier watching this: 😡
He should?! He wrote it.
Can I get a link to the Arabic manuscript?
Lady af
Don't bother. We now know it is useless.
"Among the things we have confirmed now is that all surviving manuscripts of the Antiquities derive from the last manuscript of it produced at the Christian library of Caesarea between 220 and 320 A.D., the same manuscript used and quoted by Eusebius, the first Christian in history to notice either passage being in the Antiquities of Josephus. That means we have no access to any earlier version of the text (we do not know what the text looked like prior to 230 A.D.), and we have access to no version of the text untouched by Eusebius (no other manuscript in any other library ever on earth produced any copies that survive to today). That must be taken into account."
"six things in all have changed since opinions were last declared on this subject:
Reliance on the Arabic version of the Testimonium must be discarded.
Attempts to invent a pared-down version of what Josephus wrote are untenable.
The Testimonium derives from the New Testament.
The Testimonium doesn’t match Josephan narrative practice or context.
The Testimonium matches Eusebian more than Josephan style.
Previous opinions on the James passage were unaware of new findings, and therefore require revision.
It’s important, because most of the expert opinions people cite as supporting the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum, were based on assuming the Arabic fragment supported that conclusion. So the fact that it was proved not to in 2008 means all those cited opinions are now worthless. They are not only uninformed, they were in fact misinformed. The Arabic editions do not derive from an original text of Josephus as once claimed. We now know they are just paraphrases of Eusebius."
Yes, Josephus Really Mentions Tucker Carlson
Josephus thought Vespesian was the Messiah. I wonder if he placed Jesus under the Vespesian family in terms of Meesianic creed. When Josephus describes the events in Jewish Wars and you have Rebels like Eleazar, Simon and John, there does not seem to be any of Jesus’ followers anywhere in this conflict and these followers would have been significant since their goals and values were in direct contradiction to he vast majority of Jews in Jerusalem and they wouldnhave not been well recieved. The Christian persecution would have been done by Jews not by Romans. I think the Testimonium Flavianum was written by Josephus to make Jews believe in Jesus which in the Gospels predicts that Titus Vespesian (Son of Man) would come and encircle Jesrusalemnwith a wall and raize the Temple. I still think this reference is fictional, but providing historical basis for the Jesus character to provide the oracle about Titus coming over and destroying the Temple. What Jew could read this and not conclude that God has switched sides with the Romans? Josephus reference doesnt prove Jesus, it only proves that Josephus wanted Jews to believe that the prophet that predicted Titus arrival was a real man but beneath Titus
Titus and Vespasian, and later Domitian were Josephus's patrons. They set him up in Rome and paid him a salary. They were also still in power when he was writing. There are Panegyric elements in his writings about Vespasian in Jewish Wars because that's just what you've got to do in Josephus's shoes.
Josephus's passages about Jesus are in his later works, after the death of Vespasian, Titus, and possibly even Domitian. They're in the latter sections of "Antiquities," and he's believed to have lived until 100-110.
If Josephus wanted Jews to believe in Jesus, he would certainly have spent a lot more time writing about him than an off hand paragraph, and while his "Wars" was for Jews and Greeks/Romans, his "Antiquities" was for Greeks/Romans.
Yesterday my newspaper mentioned Barbie and Ken.
Sorry Dude- the best you can prove by this passage is that this is what Christians believed about Jesus since Josephus wrote many years after the fact. This combined with the reality that many scholars feel this is an interpolation anyway, as evidence for Jesus it is pretty thin gravy- Rich
How do you know he was getting this info from Christians
If Josephus was getting his info from Christians, then the best historian of 1st century Palestine thought the Christian accounts were reliable sources.
If Josephus didn't get his info from Christian sources, he had independent sources about Jesus.
You can pick which option fits your biases better.
What this does doesn’t go into enough is the very important detail that like most writings about Jesus, this was also written well after his death and based on passed verbal stories . Stories that those who wrote it knew they would have a major effect on the religion itself ! How anyone can call that reliable is either being knowingly disingenuous, or ignorant to the common sense point! Not impossible, just unreliable. Something Bart Ehrman also talks about
Yeah, these references by Josephus, if they are authentic, are made at the same time the gospels are being written. A generation or so after Jesus' death.
I am sure you will then accept Bart Erhman's own research would then be as equally invalid givennit was written 2000 uears later?
@@kiwisaram9373Thank you for demonstrating an actual understanding of logic!
It's crazy that none of these people realize that mythicism concerning Jesus is the result of modern scholars studying what genuinely are "copies of copies of copies of copies." Those who had the originals never questioned Christ's existence, so why should we?
That's exactly why he wrote Mariamne of Herod account
Calling someone "historical" doesn't make it true. You need to prove the fact of someone's existence before calling them "historical".
He just did in the video. Delete your comment.
Every video of yours is debunked apologetics. You know you are lying to everyone.
The entire passage in the TF is a christian insertion. That was definitively proven a decade ago. The arabic version is useless.
"Among the things we have confirmed now is that all surviving manuscripts of the Antiquities derive from the last manuscript of it produced at the Christian library of Caesarea between 220 and 320 A.D., the same manuscript used and quoted by Eusebius, the first Christian in history to notice either passage being in the Antiquities of Josephus. That means we have no access to any earlier version of the text (we do not know what the text looked like prior to 230 A.D.), and we have access to no version of the text untouched by Eusebius (no other manuscript in any other library ever on earth produced any copies that survive to today). That must be taken into account."
"six things in all have changed since opinions were last declared on this subject:
Reliance on the Arabic version of the Testimonium must be discarded.
Attempts to invent a pared-down version of what Josephus wrote are untenable.
The Testimonium derives from the New Testament.
The Testimonium doesn’t match Josephan narrative practice or context.
The Testimonium matches Eusebian more than Josephan style.
Previous opinions on the James passage were unaware of new findings, and therefore require revision.
It’s important, because most of the expert opinions people cite as supporting the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum, were based on assuming the Arabic fragment supported that conclusion. So the fact that it was proved not to in 2008 means all those cited opinions are now worthless. They are not only uninformed, they were in fact misinformed. The Arabic editions do not derive from an original text of Josephus as once claimed. We now know they are just paraphrases of Eusebius."
"Even our savior shill bar erhman says..."
Cringe af bro.
how does any of this prove that TF is not from Josephus?
Josephus= Gaius Calpernius Piso, a Roman. So, still no contemporaneous record of Jesus.
Luke 1:1-4 NIV
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, [2] just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. [3] With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, [4] so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
The Gospel of Luke is considered to be historically accurate, with evidence from archaeology and other sources corroborating the events described.
you do realize this is from a man of roman descent who was very close with the story right? making these things very easy to make up & helpful for the roman gov & the growing christianity at the time to back
this is tin foil hat
@@TestifyApologetics look into the apostles/disciples and what they actually followed before going into christianity, the proof is all there with sun worship, paul & constantine are the most blatant as well w the catholic church & their “secret” library.. sun worship is a great way for control
Testify of Testify...serving the lord and confounding those who are against he faith!
Allah Akbar! Same thing.
Thallus, also by i think it was nero blamed the christians for the great fire of rome, also they were being persecuted before then. 64ad for nero.
Both the Jews and Muslims recognize Jeusus existed even if they dont think he was the Messiah.
Christ produced miracles before the Pharisees, and rather than be impressed they worried how this would affect their power and plotted to kill him.
Even his own apostles fought with doubt and backsliding.
It never was an intellectual issue. Its always been a moral issue. They dont want to follow Christ, so any excuse will do.
The Pharisees were not the power in Judea at the time of Jesus. They were one of three Jewish sects. The sect with power was the Sadducees, who were the Levite priests of the Temple. This is only one of the errors the Gospel writers after Marcus made because they wrote their Gospels forty years and more after the death of Jesus.
@michaelsnyder3871
The pharisees were considered the academics and prestigious elite of the time. The point is they were hypocrites, knowing the law by not living it.
The sadducees are described as theological liberals; knowing the word but not believing in the ressurection, angels and not truly knowing scripture, while Ciaphas the high preist is the one who passes judgement on christ, rending the robes of high preist in a dramatic gesture but violating levitical law in doing so.
He also unknowingly prophesied that it was better for one man to die that a nation might be saved, despite being a sadducee, theologically liberal, God still used him.
And a note; most history is recorded centuries after the fact. The gospels can be found in the epistles of Paul which are recorded even earlier than the gospels were.
What about John Meier’s version of the TF?
Meier's version seems totally legit to me. It's actually in the linked blog post in the description.
Josephus was not born til 37 ad so what ever he wrote about jesus was not from being there ,so he got it from someone else.
He mentions the HISTORICAL JESUS, JESUS BEN ANANIAS
Very cool, a Richard Carrier talking point
@@TestifyApologetics never knew he claimed that as well
Josephus mentioned Jesus... so what? He heard some made up stories and wrote them down.
All this means is someone named Jesus existed; nothing more.
It was a pretty common name.
@@micahlindley7515
Still is a common name in Hispanic families.
all this means that there was someone called Jesus who was a known wonderworker and had many followers like the biblical texts describe
@
Wonder worker is a vague, subjective, contextual, and individual opinion.
Why does it matter?
The original is your first paragraph without the red words. Along with Tacitus, this doesn't tell us much about the divinity of the christ and it is open to interpretations, it portray jesus as a wise man but for sure jewish and roman author are biased and won't see jesus as divine, josephus and Tacitus won't prove more than jesus lived and crucified. We looking for unbiased source from very early century that portrays jesus as devine, the only thing we have is Paul and that is not external.
@Alex Assali, Josephus actually spoke of Jesus quit neutrally and Josephus affirms Jesus worked miracles. I don’t know what you are looking for. No non biased, non Christian source is going to portray Jesus as divine. If that were so, that would make the source biased and make the source a Christian source.
@@purposedrivennihilist7983 yes. I am saying these sources doesn't tell me much about jesus divinity, it tells me jesus lived and he was a great rabbi and he was crucified. I would expect one jewish or roman source that says: "There was a wise man which had followers who believed he was god or son of god..." . We have to admit that there is no evidence and that this concept of divinity was inferred by early christians at later stage. After all jesus didn't say directly he was god and waited for descibles to say he is god but this is according to bibles and Bart argues there was interpolations. We just don't have anything outside the bibles. Also, josephus didn't say miracles, he said amazing deeds.
Josephus affirms he exists and what he was known for. I'm not trying to prove what you're saying. For that I would need to defend the reliability of the gospels. If you're interested in hearing about that, subscribe or check out my blog. I intend to make videos go into those kind of details.
@@TestifyApologetics yes. Fair enough, we have to prove the Pauline creed historicity, there is no other way
@@alexassali3628, He calls Jesus miracles amazing deeds correct.
1:55-2:50 What kind of an analogy is that? For your example to hold water you would have to show a Josephus document with no jesus mentioned (an actual Mona Lisa) existing prior to the jesus Josephus doctored passage(and then a copy of the Mona Lisa with said moustache). And then you site a 10th Century document?
900+ years after the fact? Well I'm convinced. Come on.
3:42 If Origin knew about this passage (since he owned a copy of Antiquities) he would have used it in his arguments. It would of been an auto slam dunk to quote this source. Come on.
4:10 Jerome mentions Testimonium in writings dated 392-93ce, but Eusebius(the most likely injector of this jesus passage) lived around 260-339ce so how does this show it was not added? Come on.
4:30 Why was he not harsh? Any thing you say is pure speculation here. Come on.
4:38 Wise? Again anything you say is pure speculation here. Come on.
6:23 And if he did write this? @94bce. Most of the gospels were in circulation around this time so how did you rule out him copying from the gospels? Come on.
The James passage I'm still looking into, but so far your track record does not look good.
Again this is just an argument from silence, Origen would’ve had no reason to quote Josephus to support Jesus‘s existence since none of the people he was dealing with disputed that fact, also there’s no evidence of Jesus mysticism prior to the 1800s. Also he does. Josephus uses Greek terms that Eusebius would have not use at that time so the idea that he interpolated the passage is just ridiculous. So are you gonna give me the actual counterpoints or are you just gonna continue to make baseless assertions?
@@pleaseenteraname1103eusebius was greek?
@@pleaseenteraname1103how do u know eusebius wouldn’t have used the greek terms josephus used?
@@pleaseenteraname1103is it so that the greek language was so evolved by eusebias’ time that words/writing styled joesphus used in his writings would have been out of existence for eusebias? did eusebias have any access to the extinct greek of josephus’ time??
@@ant8874 OK cause I want to correct a mistake I made. Eusebius did use Konie Greg my bad.
No he doesn't, proven insertion by either Eusibius or his bishop.
Put there by medieval scribe.
As in many parts of the Bible, there were forgeries pretty much everywhere and in many manuscripts. Read about Galeno’s story. 7 of Pablo’s “epistles” we’re not written by the same author. The gospels embellishing Jesus’ life more and more as time passed. Even the Old Testament has a lot of forgeries.
Now, it is very well known to scholars that the way the part written in about Jesus in Josephus’ book, it is not his style of writing. It is too casual when Josephus’ stile is much more precise with details, glaringly missing in those paragraphs. Obviously a forgery.
You really need to read scholars’ books, instead of listening to apologists if you really want to know the truth.
Now, did a man called Jesus existed? Probably but the stories about him are not true.
Right, neither are the ones written about Julius Caesar 🙄
My dear this has been inserted .... MUCH LATER !!!!!
prove it