Quote:
Originally Posted by Alter2Ego
Original Position:
Where are you getting "most historians and scholars" from? You are giving this forum your personal opinion.
My personal opinion that most historians and scholars say this is based most directly on the
wikipedia article I just cited:
Quote:
Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while most scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the life and execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or alteration.
This article cites 8 different scholarly sources for this claim. This includes Paul L Maier saying the view that this passage is "entirely authentic" is "hopeless." John P. Meier saying that "'He was the Messiah' is clearly a Christian profession of faith. This is something Josephus the Jew would never affirm."
Bart Ehrman says "This testimony of Jesus has long puzzled scholars. Why would Josephus, a devout Jew who never became a Christian, profess faith in Jesus by suggesting that he was something more than a man...Many scholars have recognized that the problem can be solved by looking at how, and by whom, Josephus’s writings were transmitted over the centuries. In fact, they were not preserved by Jews, many of whom considered him to be a traitor because of his conduct during and after the war with Rome. Rather, it was Christians who copied Josephus’s writings through the ages. Is it possible that this reference to Jesus was beefed up a bit by a Christian scribe who wanted to make Josephus appear more appreciative of the “true faith”?"
Robert Van Voorst says "This debate over the authenticity of this passage [in Josephus] has continued for hundreds of years, partly because the evidence can be--and has been--argued both ways. Although a few scholars still reject it fully and even fewer accept it fully, most now prefer one of two middle positions involving a conjectural reconstruction of this passage."
You're welcome to check the other citations.
Quote:
Right. You spent time 10 years ago trying to dispute my OP, that the Jesus Christ of the Judeo-Christian came from heaven--and you failed 10 years ago. So you have now returned to have another go at it.
Right, as I said, you don't know how to handle anything other than combative disagreement. Your OP argues for the existence of Jesus. I agree that Jesus existed, as I have noted both here and from that thread ten years ago. You ignore my plain statement and make up an argument with me by pretending that your OP is about Jesus coming from heaven rather than his existence as a historical figure.
Quote:
By the way, as stated by one source, in 1972, Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem made it known that he had discovered a different manuscript of Josephus' writings, which was in the tenth-century Melkite historian Agapius. In that manuscript, at Antiquities 18:63, Josephus wrote of what eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection had said:
"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day."
As the source comments regarding the above Josephus quotation:
"Here, clearly, is language that a Jew could have written without conversion to Christianity."
https://www.namb.net/apologetics/res...hus-and-jesus/
Not only is Josephus' quotation from Antiquities 18:63 credible, in this new version, he again says Jesus, who was crucified, was likely the Messiah (bolded in pink).
You are literally misinterpreting what you quote right here. This version of the passage is translated as saying "perhaps he was the Messiah," which is not saying that he was "likely the Messiah."
And stepping back from my argument from authority, yes, the existence of manuscripts with different versions of this passage from Josephus, and the fact that these manuscripts were primarily copied by Christians, is another reason to not view this passage as fully authentic.