Jump to content

User:Ret.Prof/Josephus on Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This userspace draft on Josephus on Jesus is not complete. The content was copied from Josephus on Jesus for work to expand and add further sources. The proposed edits to Josephus on Jesus will be submitted shortly. Please leave comments on talk page.



Josephus
A Roman portrait bust said to be of Josephus
Born
Yosef ben Matityahu

37 AD
Jerusalem, Roman Judea
Diedc. 100
Known forWritings about the historical Jesus
Spouse(s)Captured Jewish woman
Alexandrian Jewish woman
Greek Jewish woman from Crete
ChildrenFlavius Hyrcanus
Flavius Simonides Agrippa
Flavius Justus
Parent(s)Matthias
Jewish noblewoman




.




.


JOSEPHUS ON JESUS




Titus Flavius Josephus, who was born in Jerusalem about five years after the death of Jesus (37 CE), was an important Hebrew historiographer from that time period. [1] Josephus spoke Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. He resided in Jerusalem at the time of James the Just (the brother of Jesus) and was later sent to head the Jewish military forces in Galilee, where Jesus had lived for most of his life. This would make Josephus an important witness to the formation of Christianity. He eventually found favor in Rome where he composed a detailed history of the Hebrew people.

The writings of Josephus are considered important because they give us a detailed understanding of the culture or Sitz im Leben in which Jesus and his followers lived. Josephus also devoted important sections not only to Jesus himself, but to John the Baptist and James the Just who was the first leader of the Christian community in Jerusalem after the death of Jesus. Over the years the writings of Josephus have been the subject of intense scholarly analysis.

Part I: First Century Palestine, Josephus and Jesus

[edit]

Early Life and Background

[edit]
A page from a 1466 copy of Antiquities of the Jews

Josephus was born in Jerusalem circa 37 CE and died in Rome at about 101 CE. His father and mother belonged to families of the priestly aristocracy; consequently he received an excellent education, becoming knowledgeable about both the Jewish religion and Hebrew culture. At the age of sixteen, he studied with the Essenes, in the desert of Engedi, with whom he remained for 3 years, absorbing occult lore, and practicing the ascetic life. Because of his social position, he was expected upon his return to Jerusalem to join the Sadducees, but, impressed by the outward importance of the Pharisees and hoping to secure through them a position of influence, he attached himself to their party at the age of nineteen. He was also familiar with a Jewish sect led by James the Just. [2] [3] [4]

When war broke out, Josephus was chosen by the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem to be the commander in Galilee, the province where the Roman attack would first fall. Although defeated, he found favor with Titus and accompanied him to Rome. Here he lived the remainder of his days blessed by lavish imperial patronage that enabled him to devote himself to literary pursuits. [5] [6]

The writings of Josephus were designed to "explain and justify" Romans and the Jews to each other. The first work of Josephus was the celebrated "Jewish War" in seven books, originally composed in Aramaic and later expanded and translated into Greek. [7] Of greater importance for historical scholars is the "Jewish Antiquities", which contains the whole history of the Jews from the Creation to the outbreak of the revolt in 66 CE. Because this work contains much that would be offensive to orthodox Jews and Christians some scholars believe Josephus was an Ebionite Jewish-Christian. Nevertheless, the Flavian patronage insured that his books would be copied and preserved in the Roman Empire's public scriptoria. Scholars do not know for certain how many copies were made or to which cities they were sent but by the time of the Emperor Constantine, Christian scribes were also making copies which insured that the works of Josephus were spread throughout the Christian world. Josephus remains "the most reliable witness to Jesus" of any Jewish source. [8] [9] [10] [11]

The three passages

[edit]

"Flavius Josephus is one of the truly important figures from ancient Judaism." His historical writings are our primary source of information about the life and history of first century Palestine. He himself was personally involved with the different religious groups, important events, and controversies of early Christianity. [12]

James the brother of Jesus

[edit]

Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9

Icon of James, the first bishop of Jerusalem

And now Caesar, upon hearing of the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. When he had accused them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.

The James in this passage is most likely James the first bishop of Jerusalem who is also called James the Just. Josephus is referring to an incident that happened in year 62, just a couple of years before the Jewish uprising, when the powerful religious leader in Jerusalem, the high priest Ananus, misused his authority. The Roman governor had been withdrawn, and in his absence, Ananus unlawfully put to death a person named James, whom Josephus identifies as “the brother of Jesus, who is called the Messiah (Antiquities 20.9.1). Here, unlike many pagan sources, Jesus is actually called by name. And we learn two things about him: a number people thought he was the Messiah and he had brother named James. These points are spoken of in Christian sources, but it is important to see that Josephus is also aware of them. [13]

Obviously such passages offended Jewish scholars who marginalized the works of Josephus. Christians were offended by the fact that Peter and Paul were not mentioned. Particularly offensive was the term "brother of Jesus called Christ", as Jesus having a brother undermined the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. However, early Christians believed that the words "the brother of Jesus called Christ" were authentic, as was the entire passage. The "embarrassment" was dealt with by saying that "brother" does not mean 'brother" but friend. Therefore James was not the brother of Jesus but a friend or maybe a cousin. [14] [15]

The context of the passage has led some scholars to conclude that the date of James' death could be no later than the summer of 62. [16][17][18]. Also much of what is said in this passage is recorded by the chronicler Hegesippus.[19] [20][17]


John the Baptist

[edit]

Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 5

The Baptist scolds Herod. Fresco by Masolino, 1435

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.[21]

Josephus refers to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist by order of Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee and Perea.[22][23] The context of this reference is the 36 CE defeat of King Herod, which the Jews of the time attributed to misfortune brought about by Herod's unjust execution of John.[24][25][26] This reference to John the Baptist is widely seen by scholars as confirming the historicity of the baptisms that John performed.[22][27][28][29]

While both the gospels and Josephus refer to Herod Antipas killing John the Baptist, they differ on the details and the motive. The gospels present this as a consequence of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias in defiance of Jewish law (as in Matthew 14:4, Mark 6:18); Josephus refers to it as a pre-emptive measure by Herod to quell a possible uprising.[30][31][32][24] Also Josephus identifies the location of the imprisonment of John as Machaerus, southeast of the mouth of the Jordan river. The gospels mention no location for the place where John was imprisoned. However, the 36 CE date of the conflict with Aretas IV (mentioned by Josephus) is consistent with the approximate date of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias estimated by other historical methods.[33][34][23]





Testimonium Flavianum

[edit]

Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wonderous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.

This quotation of Josephus, translated into English by Bart Ehrman, is known as the Testimonium Flavianum (meaning the testimony of Flavius Josephus) and it is found in the best manuscripts of the Antiquities. This long reference to Jesus is extremely important for it shows that by the year 93 - during the sixty or so years from the traditional date of Jesus's death - a Jewish historian of Palestine had acquired solid historical information about Jesus of Nazareth.

Josephus would have derived his information while he lived in Jerusalem and Galilee where the Oral Gospel Tradition was in wide circulation. There is nothing to suggest that Josephus had actually read the Gospels or examined Roman records (of which there were none). There was,however, a developed oral tradition in First Century Palestine that could be traced to Jesus himself. [35] [36]

Josephus describes the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the Roman authorities.[37][38] The Testimonium is likely the most discussed passage in Josephus.[39] Of the three passages found in Josephus' Antiquities, this passage, if authentic, would offer the most direct support for the crucifixion of Jesus.

Part II: Authenticity

[edit]

Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to James the brother of Jesus. [40] [41] The same can be said for the section referring to John the Baptist. [42][22][43][44] Today the scholarly focus is on the Testimonium Flavianum. The debate centers around Textual criticism (sometimes still referred to as "lower criticism"). This is the study or examination of the text itself to identify its provenance or to trace its history. It takes as its basis, the fact that errors inevitably crept into texts as generations of scribes reproduced each other's manuscripts by hand.

Josephus had access to many scribes. As they copied the Antiquities of the Jews they made mistakes; some scribes may have added clarifications called interpolations. The copies of these copies also had the same mistakes or interpolations. As scribes introduced deviations into their copies, a ripple effect would result: copies of their copies would pass on these discrepancies as well as new ones. Scholars note these mistakes or interpolations tend to form "families" of manuscripts.

Manuscripts can be compared and arranged into "textual clusters" based on similarity of "mistakes or interpolations". Textual criticism studies the differences between these families to piece together a good idea of what the original looked like. The more surviving copies, the more accurately can they deduce information about the original text and about "family histories". [45] Today, textual critics and historians remain divided as the Testimonium Flavianum controversy continues. [46]

Traditional position

[edit]

On one extreme is the traditional position, which maintains that the material about Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum is authentic in its entirety. The arguments in favor of authenticity are as follows:

  1. Support for the authenticity of the Testimonium is found in an analysis of its vocabulary and style which is consistent with other parts of Josephus. [47] [48]
  2. The Testimonium lays primary guilt for the crucifixion on the Romans rather than the Jewish authorities. This is very different from the way early Christians wrote of the death of Jesus. It was common for Christian writers to blame the Jews for the Crucifixion. [49] [50]
  3. The description of Jesus as "a wise man" is not typically Christian, but is used by Josephus when describing Daniel and Solomon. [51] [52]
  4. Likewise early Christians did not refer to the miracles of Jesus as "paradoxa erga" (amazing or astonishing deeds) the same wording used by Josephus for the miracles of Elisha.[53] [54]
  5. The description of Christians as a “tribe” occurs nowhere in Christian literature, while Josephus uses the word for national or communal groups as well as the the Jewish “race”. [55] [56]

It can be fairly said that there is no evidence against the passage on the ground of Textual criticism; the manuscript evidence is as substantial as it is for anything else in Josephus. [57]

Finally, the scholarship of William Whiston, remains influential in what continues to be the best-selling English work on Josephus. Although, a minority view, it is supported by such notable historians as Adolf von Harnack, who argued every word of the entire passage was authentic. The passage would make perfect sense, if Josephus were an early Jewish-Christian Ebionite. Indeed, Whiston pointed out that not just the passage but the entire book reflects an Ebionite author using a copy of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. [58] [59] [60]

Mythicist position

[edit]

On the other extreme are the mythicists. They totally repudiate the Traditional position positing that modern criticism comes down in favor of interpolation and maintain the entire passage was made up by a Christian author and was inserted into the writings of Josephus. [61] [62] Their arguments against authenticity are as follows:

  1. This Testimonium is clearly not authentic because it makes the claim that "He [Jesus] was the Messiah." A Jewish historian would never make such a claim. Nor does it fit easily into the context of Book 18 of the Antiquities. [63] [64]
  2. More striking is the fact that no Christian authors appear to have written of this passage until the Church Father Eusebius in the year 323. Since no Christians wrote of the Testimonium, in the second and third centuries it must be an interpolation and not authentic. [65] [66]
  3. Mythicists also object to the wording. Josephus would not call Jesus “wise” nor would he say he taught the “truth.” Jews would never write about Jesus in such a fashion. [67] [68]

These three arguments, then, are the basis for the complete rejection of this passage. [69] [70]

Mainline

[edit]

Most mainline scholarship tends to fall between these two extremes. To maintain every word of the passage is exactly as Josephus wrote is not supported by textual criticism. Mistakes and alterations crept into all texts of that time period. By the same token, the mythicist position is equally untenable. [71]

Textual critics note a scribe changing "He was called the Messiah" to "He was the Messiah" is the type of alteration they have witnessed in other ancient texts. Josephus, even if he were an Ebionite, would probably not make such a biased statement in what was supposed to be an "objective" work. Clearly, the "Traditional position" is not strong. However, recent scholarship has been even more severe on Mythicists. Leading British scholar Maurice Casey (2014) states that mythicists "cannot cope with the evidence as it stands, and constantly seek to alter it by positing interpolations." Often they show no sign of any significant knowledge of Aramaic, nor demonstrate a convincing grasp of critical scholarship. Casey even questions their 'claim' to be scholars! Leading American scholar Bart Ehrman (2012), points out that as a historian "evidence matters." He goes on to say "that mythicists as a group, and as individuals, are not taken seriously by the vast majority of scholars in the fields of New Testament, early Christianity, ancient history, and theology." Such harsh statements might be expected from conservative Christian scholars but both Casey and Ehrman are liberal non-Christians! [72]

http://www.google.de/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22mythicists+who+claim+to+be+scholars%22#hl=en&q=%22mythicists+who+claim+to+be+'+scholars'%2C+though+I+would+question+their+competence+and+qualifications%22&tbm=bks

http://www.google.de/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22By+mythicists+they+cannot+cope+with%22#hl=en&q=%22critical+scholarship%22+%22Mythicists+they%22+%22cannot+cope+with+the+evidence+as+it+stands%2C+and+constantly+seek+to+alter+it+by+positing+interpolations%22+%22no+sign%2C+however%2C+of+any+significant+knowledge+of+Aramaic%22+%22nor+demonstrates%22+%22convincing+grasp+of+critical+scholarship.%22&tbm=bks

http://www.google.de/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22as+a+historian+evidence+matters%22#hl=en&q=%22as+a+historian+I+think+evidence+matters%22+&tbm=bks

http://www.google.de/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22mythicists+as+a+group%22#hl=en&q=%22mythicists+as+a+group%2C+and+as+individuals%2C+are+not+taken+seriously+by+the+vast+majority+of+scholars+in+the+fields+of+New+Testament%2C+early+Christianity%2C+ancient+history%2C+and+theology%22&tbm=bks



The internal arguments for lack of authenticity by Mythicists are weak, however there is evidence to suggest that the passage "has undergone glossing." The majority of scholars today prefer a middle position and it is likely that the core of the passage actually does go back to Josephus himself. (See Appendix below) [73] [74] [75]


Conclusion

[edit]

Summary

[edit]

Appendix I

[edit]

Appendix II

[edit]

http://www.google.de/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=Mythicists+have+argued%2C+however%2C+that+the+entire+passage+was+made+up+by+a+Christian+author+and+inserted+into+the+writings+of+Josephus#hl=en&q=%22Mythicists+have+argued%2C+however%2C+that+the+entire+passage+was+made+up+by+a+Christian+author+and+inserted+into+the+writings+of+Josephus%22

http://www.google.de/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22Josephus+it+is+far+more%22%22#hl=en&q=%22Did+Jesus+Exist%3A%22+“It+is+far+more+likely+that+the+core+of+the+passage%22+%22does+go+back+to+Josephus+himself.”+-Fox




The JB and James are considered reliable sources. The TJ is now an area of intense scholarly activity marked by a renaissance of Josephus studies that will likely continue well into the 21st Century. [76]


http://www.google.de/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22passage+about+Jesus+since%22#hl=en&q=%22+Since+Osiander+and+Scaliger+in+the+sixteenth+century%2C+scholars+have+debated+the+authenticity+of+this+passage.%22&tbm=bks

References

[edit]
  1. ^ We have three detailed early histories that cover Palestine during the time of Jesus:
  2. ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. pp 57-59
  3. ^ New Catholic encyclopedia, Volume 7, Edition 2, Thomson/Gale Pub, 2003. pp 1047-1048
  4. ^ Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of Bloomsbury Academic, 2010. pp 120-121
  5. ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2014. Online
  6. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. p 81-82
  7. ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 253
  8. ^ Craig A. Evans (ed), Encyclopedia of the historical Jesus, Routledge Pub, 2008. pp 605-606
  9. ^ Brad E. Kelle & Frank Ritchel Ames, Writing and Reading War: Rhetoric, Gender, and Ethics in Biblical and Modern Contexts, Vol 42, Society of Biblical Literature symposium series, Society of Biblical Lit. Pub, 2008. p 191-192
  10. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. p 82
  11. ^ New Catholic encyclopedia, Volume 7, Edition 2, Thomson/Gale Pub, 2003. p 1048
  12. ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. p 57
  13. ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. p 59
  14. ^ John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, Univ of South Carolina Press, 2004. p 156
  15. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. pp 83-84
  16. ^ Painter 2005, pp. 134–141.
  17. ^ a b Mitchell & Young 2006, p. 297.
  18. ^ Harding 2003, p. 317.
  19. ^ Painter 2004, p. 126.
  20. ^ Bauckham 1999, pp. 199–203.
  21. ^ Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews Book 18, 5, 2 Text at Wikisource
  22. ^ a b c Evans 2006, pp. 55–58.
  23. ^ a b Bromiley 1982, pp. 694–695.
  24. ^ a b White 2010, p. 48.
  25. ^ Dapaah 2005, p. 48.
  26. ^ Hoehner 1983, pp. 125–127.
  27. ^ Murphy 2003, p. 2003.
  28. ^ Jonas & Lopez 2010, pp. 95–96.
  29. ^ Chilton & Evans 1998, pp. 187–198.
  30. ^ Van Voorst 2003, pp. 508–509.
  31. ^ Meyers, Craven & Kraemer 2001, pp. 92–93.
  32. ^ Jensen 2010, pp. 42–43.
  33. ^ Gillman 2003, pp. 25–31.
  34. ^ Hoehner 1983, p. 131.
  35. ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. pp 59- 65
  36. ^ Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο: ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων. εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.[1] About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. (Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.
  37. ^ Flavius Josephus, Whiston & Maier 1999, p. 662.
  38. ^ Schreckenberg & Schubert 1992a, pp. 38–41.
  39. ^ Feldman & Hata 1987, pp. 54–57.
  40. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. p 83
  41. ^ Representing the contrary view, Richard Carrier argues that the words "the one called Christ" likely resulted from the accidental insertion of a marginal note added by some unknown reader. He proposes that the original text referred to a brother James of the high priest Jesus ben Damneus mentioned in the same narrative, a New Testament scholar and former Baptist minister, argues that by the late first century when this text was written, it is possible that a mythological Christ may already have been historicized. He adds that Josephus may have used the word brother or brethren in the fraternal sense and that James was only a follower of Jesus and not his actual sibling. Robert M. Price. The Christ Myth Theory and it's Problems, Atheist Press, 2011, p.132.
  42. ^ A few scholars have questioned the passage, contending that the absence of Christian tampering or interpolation does not itself prove authenticity.
  43. ^ Flavius Josephus, Whiston & Maier 1999, pp. 662–63.
  44. ^ Feldman 1992, pp. 990–991.
  45. ^ Paul D. Wegner, A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible, InterVarsity Press, 2006. p 83
  46. ^ Joel B. Green & Max Turner, Jesus of Nazareth Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994. p 95
  47. ^ Craig A. Evans, The Historical Jesus, Volumne 4, Taylor & Francis Pub, 2004. p 391
  48. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. p
  49. ^ Craig A. Evans, The Historical Jesus, Volumne 4, Taylor & Francis Pub, 2004. p 391
  50. ^ Jörg Frey & Jens Schröter, Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen, Volume 254 of Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Mohr Siebeck Pub, 2010. p
  51. ^ Josh McDowell & Bill Wilson, Evidence for the Historical Jesus, Harvest House Publishers, 2011. p 38
  52. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. p 89
  53. ^ Josh McDowell & Bill Wilson, Evidence for the Historical Jesus, Harvest House Publishers, 2011. p 38
  54. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. p 89
  55. ^ Josh McDowell & Bill Wilson, Evidence for the Historical Jesus, Harvest House Publishers, 2011. p 38
  56. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. p 90
  57. ^ F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003. p 112
  58. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. p 89
  59. ^ William Whiston,The Works of Flavius Josephus, Vol 2, J.B. Smith Pub, 1858. p 461
  60. ^ William Whiston, The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus Start Classics, 2014. p 89
  61. ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. p 61
  62. ^ Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account, Bloomsbury Academic, 2010. p 10
  63. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. p 91
  64. ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. pp 59-60
  65. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. p 91
  66. ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. p 62
  67. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. p 92
  68. ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. p 63
  69. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. p 92
  70. ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. p 63
  71. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. p 93
  72. ^ John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, HarperCollins, 2010. p 14
  73. ^ Craig A. Evans (ed), Encyclopedia of the historical Jesus, Routledge Pub, 2008. pp 605-606
  74. ^ New Catholic encyclopedia, Volume 7, Edition 2, Thomson/Gale Pub, 2003. p 1049
  75. ^ F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003. p 112
  76. ^ New Catholic encyclopedia, Volume 7, Edition 2, Thomson/Gale Pub, 2003. p 1050
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ret.Prof/Josephus_on_Jesus&oldid=1223365856"