The Crucifixion - Details outside of the gospels

6,760 Views | 87 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by Silent For Too Long
DirtDiver
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:04a, 4/17/25
Prior to the Crucifixion of Jesus: Recorded 400-1000 B.C. by 3 authors who did not know each other.

  • My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?
  • They separate with the lip, they wag the head, saying, "Commit yourself to the Lord; let Him deliver him; Let Him rescue him, because He delights in him."
  • A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet.
  • They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.
  • But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed
  • My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors;
  • So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. Then the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them." So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the Lord.

Historical Corroboration

Testimonium Flavianum in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3. Josephus (AD 37 - 100)
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And 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 recounted wonders."

Thallus (CA. AD 5-60) Sextus Julius Africanus , History of the World AD 221 quoted Thallus
On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of History, calls, as appears to me without reason, and eclipse of the sun.

Tacitus (AD 56 - CA. 117) Annals
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."

Mara Bar-Serapion (AD 70 - Unknown)
"What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: Socrates the wise, and Plato the just, and the third, the most illustrious of them all, Jesus, who was the Christ. For the Jews' kingdom was completely destroyed, and they were driven from their land. The destruction of their city and the exile of their people were the result of their crime against the one who was the 'wise King.'

Corroboration from an opposing view
Sanhedrin 43a
"On the eve of Passover, they hanged Yeshu. And the herald went out before him for forty days, saying, 'He is going to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come and plead on his behalf.' But they found nothing in his favor and hanged him on the eve of Passover."


"but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name"
Reply Quote
4
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DirtDiver • 10:09a, 4/17/25
I don't think anyone seriously doubts Jesus lived and was crucified. But you're using some odd translations.

There's no scholar out there who thinks the passage in Josephus is original to Josephus. It was altered by Christians centuries later. Thallus almost certainly lived in the second century BC and the suggestion that he (or a pseudo-Thallus) were writing about the crucifixion is a later interpretation. Mara says nothing about Jesus being "the Christ."
Reply Quote
8
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:09p, 4/17/25
AG
Thallus also attests to the existence of Cronus and Zeus, so equally useful for believers of the ancient Greek pantheon!

I blame Eusebius for the Testimonium Flavianum. Origen quoted Josephus quite a bit but never mentioned it which would be odd if it were in his copy.

And in many of the other cases I think there's good reason to not treat them as non-Christian verification of historical events but instead merely verification that the Christians of the time were claiming those things to have happened. Useful, certainly, but not the same.

My personal take is that the New Testament writers simply projected their ideas about what a Jewish messiah would be like onto the life of the actual Jesus who it does seem reasonable to me to believe was a real person that lived, preached, and was executed in this time period. In doing so they made mistakes, strange choices, and references to the Old Testament that weren't previously understood to be messianic prophecies of any kind.
Reply Quote
7
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 4:09p, 4/17/25
Quote:
There's no scholar out there who thinks the passage in Josephus is original to Josephus. It was altered by Christians centuries later.
What is the evidence for its alteration and the date of the alteration? Who did it, when did they do it, where was it done, etc.?

I ask because it's so easy to make that assertion but, as far as I know, there's not a shred of evidence to support that assertion.
Reply Quote
1
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KingofHazor • 5:53p, 4/17/25
KingofHazor said:
Quote:
There's no scholar out there who thinks the passage in Josephus is original to Josephus. It was altered by Christians centuries later.
What is the evidence for its alteration and the date of the alteration? Who did it, when did they do it, where was it done, etc.?

I ask because it's so easy to make that assertion but, as far as I know, there's not a shred of evidence to support that assertion.


Josephus was discussed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries by Christian theologians. Not a single one of whom quoted the selection or mentioned it despite its clear pro-Christian composition. It also doesn't track with his language through the rest of the work. The very clear consensus, even amongst scholars who hold Christian beliefs, is that the discussion of Christianity is authentic with language added to make it explicitly pro-Christian.
Reply Quote
1
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 7:23p, 4/17/25
DSapper Redux said:
KingofHazor said:
Quote:
There's no scholar out there who thinks the passage in Josephus is original to Josephus. It was altered by Christians centuries later.
What is the evidence for its alteration and the date of the alteration? Who did it, when did they do it, where was it done, etc.?

I ask because it's so easy to make that assertion but, as far as I know, there's not a shred of evidence to support that assertion.


Josephus was discussed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries by Christian theologians. Not a single one of whom quoted the selection or mentioned it despite its clear pro-Christian composition. It also doesn't track with his language through the rest of the work. The very clear consensus, even amongst scholars who hold Christian beliefs, is that the discussion of Christianity is authentic with language added to make it explicitly pro-Christian.
So, in short, there is no evidence. Rather, scholars simply don't believe that Josephus, a Jew, would have written such words. As far as I know, however, every manuscript but one has those words in it. There is no objective evidence to support the scholars' supposition.
Reply Quote
4
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KingofHazor • 11:56p, 4/17/25
KingofHazor said:
DSapper Redux said:
KingofHazor said:
Quote:
There's no scholar out there who thinks the passage in Josephus is original to Josephus. It was altered by Christians centuries later.
What is the evidence for its alteration and the date of the alteration? Who did it, when did they do it, where was it done, etc.?

I ask because it's so easy to make that assertion but, as far as I know, there's not a shred of evidence to support that assertion.


Josephus was discussed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries by Christian theologians. Not a single one of whom quoted the selection or mentioned it despite its clear pro-Christian composition. It also doesn't track with his language through the rest of the work. The very clear consensus, even amongst scholars who hold Christian beliefs, is that the discussion of Christianity is authentic with language added to make it explicitly pro-Christian.
So, in short, there is no evidence. Rather, scholars simply don't believe that Josephus, a Jew, would have written such words. As far as I know, however, every manuscript but one has those words in it. There is no objective evidence to support the scholars' supposition.


What's the oldest manuscript? Scholars of ancient history often have to work from close analysis of the received text, scraps from the period, and what others said about the text. Again, no scholar aside from people engaged in apologetics who need the text to be real believes Josephus actually wrote that passage. Nothing about it adds up.
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DirtDiver • 8:10a, 4/18/25
AG
Before the crucifixion came the last supper, of course. Fun thread on DaVinci's painting;

I'd read most of this stuff before but the Lamentations 3:31-33 speculation is good/new to me:

Sure, maybe a stretch, but I like it. Happy Easter everyone.
Reply Quote
1
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 8:59a, 4/18/25
I don't believe that the passage quoted by the OP includes the disputed language, but I'm a terribe proof reader so may have missed it. It appears that the disputed words are those highlighted in bold and italics below (the overwhelming majority of scholars don't dispute the Josephat authorship of the remaining words):

Quote:
"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."
First, it's important to note that I'm not arguing for the Josephus' authorship of the highlighted language. Rather, I dislike simply citing the "majority of scholars", or the "consensus of scholars", and the like on controversial topics on which special knowledge or expertise is not required. Scholars on ancient historical matters very often substitute their opinions and conjecture for facts. An appeal to scholarly consensus is simply an unpersuasive appeal to authority. And the only survey of scholars on this topic showed that a minority (who are not "apologists") do support Josephus' authorship of even the disputed language.

It's also important to note that the primary reason scholars doubt that Josephus wrote these words is because it's their opinion that a non-Christian Jew would not have written them. That's it. No hard evidence, just simply opinion. A few scholars have appealed to linguistic style to buttress their arguments, but have failed to convince even other skeptics of Josephus' authorship.

Today, when hard lines have been drawn in the sand about the claims surrounding Christ, it seems impossible for a non-Christian Jew to have written those words. However, we simply don't know what the environment was when Josephus wrote the passage or what his intent was. I agree that it is extremely unlikely that he wrote them, but all hard evidence that we have today is that he did. The skeptics of his authorship have no evidence or even conjecture on who made the changes, when the changes were made, or where they were made. The evidence in its favor is that all extant manuscripts contain those words and they were also quoted by Eusebius (I believe).
Reply Quote
2
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KingofHazor • 10:35a, 4/18/25
AG
You don't find it even a little bit odd that there is absolutely no known mention of Josephus having written anything like that about Jesus prior to Eusebius who was writing about 225 years later? Origen explicitly stated that Josephus did not accept Christ in one of his works, which would be a bit of an odd thing to say if his version of Antiquities of the Jews contained the line "He was the Christ".
Reply Quote
4
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 12:03p, 4/18/25
Rocag said:
You don't find it even a little bit odd that there is absolutely no known mention of Josephus having written anything like that about Jesus prior to Eusebius who was writing about 225 years later? Origen explicitly stated that Josephus did not accept Christ in one of his works, which would be a bit of an odd thing to say if his version of Antiquities of the Jews contained the line "He was the Christ".
Of course I do. As I said above:

Quote:
First, it's important to note that I'm not arguing for Josephus' authorship of the highlighted language.

All I am arguing is that it's not cut and dried that Josephus did not pen those words. Again, scholars substitute their opinions for facts. Significant questions do exist regarding Josephus' authorship, but those questions do not "prove" anything.
Reply Quote
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KingofHazor • 12:59p, 4/18/25
AG
Then that's an odd position to take in the first place. No expert is saying it is absolutely, 100% proven that Josephus did or did not write anything in particular. In general, that's just not the type of language that is used when discussing historical events. Especially ones that happened long ago and that there is little contemporary records of. Consider the text we're talking about. The earliest copies we have of it were made about 1000 years after it was originally written. Everything we know about it has to be couched in terms of degrees of certainty.

So if your "gotcha" is that we can't 100% prove the Testimonium Flavianum wasn't in the original text then, yeah that's true. Good for you, I guess? That doesn't mean there isn't very good reason to believe it wasn't, either.
Reply Quote
1
DirtDiver
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 1:52p, 4/18/25
Sapper Redux said:
I don't think anyone seriously doubts Jesus lived and was crucified. But you're using some odd translations.

There's no scholar out there who thinks the passage in Josephus is original to Josephus. It was altered by Christians centuries later. Thallus almost certainly lived in the second century BC and the suggestion that he (or a pseudo-Thallus) were writing about the crucifixion is a later interpretation. Mara says nothing about Jesus being "the Christ."
Scholars/Authors Who Argue for the Entirely Authentic Testimonium:

1. Paul L. Maier
  • Historian and professor of ancient history.
  • In his translation of Josephus' works, he defends the full authenticity of the Testimonium.
  • Argues that there's no solid evidence for interpolation and that Josephus, though not a Christian, may have written the whole thing with some neutral admiration for Jesus.
2. Robert E. Van Voorst
  • While he leans more toward partial authenticity in his critical academic work (Jesus Outside the New Testament), he reviews and mentions defenders of full authenticity, including Maier, without fully endorsing them.
3. Craig S. Keener
  • A respected New Testament scholar.
  • Often leans toward defending the authenticity of Christian references in ancient texts.
  • While he doesn't always explicitly claim the entire passage is original, he's more favorable than most to the idea that Josephus could have said surprisingly positive things about Jesus.
Reply Quote
3
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 3:27p, 4/18/25
Well, Sapper was pretty emphatic and unambiguous in his first post in this thread and appears to have been mistaken in discounting the language quoted by the op. And why do you think I was attempting a "gotcha"? You seem pretty antagonistic right out of the chute. Are you uncomfortable with the point that many scholars skeptical of the Bible have little to no evidence to support their positions?

The positive evidence that Josephus wrote the language in question is the fact that every single manuscript we have includes the language in question.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 4:08p, 4/18/25
By the way, Eusebius quoted the disputed language from Josephus in three different writings in the 4th century. So it's fair to say that that language dates no later than the 4th century, if not in the original. So your following comment:
Quote:
The earliest copies we have of it were made about 1000 years after it was originally written.
is misleading.
Reply Quote
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DirtDiver • 8:53p, 4/18/25
DirtDiver said:
Sapper Redux said:
I don't think anyone seriously doubts Jesus lived and was crucified. But you're using some odd translations.

There's no scholar out there who thinks the passage in Josephus is original to Josephus. It was altered by Christians centuries later. Thallus almost certainly lived in the second century BC and the suggestion that he (or a pseudo-Thallus) were writing about the crucifixion is a later interpretation. Mara says nothing about Jesus being "the Christ."
Scholars/Authors Who Argue for the Entirely Authentic Testimonium:

1. Paul L. Maier
  • Historian and professor of ancient history.
  • In his translation of Josephus' works, he defends the full authenticity of the Testimonium.
  • Argues that there's no solid evidence for interpolation and that Josephus, though not a Christian, may have written the whole thing with some neutral admiration for Jesus.
2. Robert E. Van Voorst
  • While he leans more toward partial authenticity in his critical academic work (Jesus Outside the New Testament), he reviews and mentions defenders of full authenticity, including Maier, without fully endorsing them.
3. Craig S. Keener
  • A respected New Testament scholar.
  • Often leans toward defending the authenticity of Christian references in ancient texts.
  • While he doesn't always explicitly claim the entire passage is original, he's more favorable than most to the idea that Josephus could have said surprisingly positive things about Jesus.


None of the people in your list argue for an entirely authentic text. This is what Maier writes on the subject:
https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/josephus-and-jesus/
He argues for a variant that does not suggest Josephus was convinced Jesus was the Messiah.
Reply Quote
1
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:35a, 5/31/25
A new major work has recently been published on whether Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum was actually written by Josephus or was an addition by later Christian scribes. A noted scholar, T. C. Schmidt (PhD from Yale and currently a professor at Fairfield University), has just published a work entitled "Josephus & Jesus" via Oxford Academic Press.

In the book, Schmidt argues that the TF was written in its entirety by Josephus. He not only points to the historical evidence for Josephus' authorship but also shows that it has been misinterpreted by modern scholars as an endorsement of Christ's resurrection and divinity. Among other arguments, he points out that earlier writers who quoted or referred to it did not view it as an endorsement.

The book is surprisingly available for download for free here:

Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ | Oxford Academic

I'm posting this here for two reasons. One, it is intensely interesting (at least to me) for its own sake. Second, it reinforces the point that I made in the thread above that the "consensus of scholars" on the TF was based solely on the opinions and speculation of those scholars, not upon any actual evidence. The "consensus of scholars" should never be substituted for actual evidence and arguments and should not be used to quell discussion. The use of the phrase is the intellectual equivalent of the appeal by kindergartners that "my daddy told me so" to try to win an argument.
Reply Quote
1
FIDO95
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:58a, 5/31/25
AG
These kind of debates are odd to me but certainly part of out human nature. I suspect that in 2000 years our descendants are going to be arguing on TexAgs about Covid. Someone is going to make the claim that it was a horrible virus and point to the ancient words of the expert Anthony Fauci as authoritative. They will make that claim despite the overwhelming testimonies of the people that lived in that era and recorded the true reality of what they witnessed.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KingofHazor • 11:01a, 5/31/25
I take it you've never engaged in academic debates if you seriously believe
Quote:
"consensus of scholars" on the TF was based solely on the opinions and speculation of those scholars, not upon any actual evidence. The "consensus of scholars" should never be substituted for actual evidence and arguments and should not be used to quell discussion.


Here's a thread covering a number of arguments, books, and articles that show what is meant by academic consensus. It's not "opinions and speculation."
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/s/u8YLEvt34N
Reply Quote
2 edits
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FIDO95 • 11:02a, 5/31/25
Quote:
They will make that claim despite the overwhelming testimonies of the people that lived in that era and recorded the true reality of what they witnessed.


Which reality? Because I worked as a volunteer EMT during
Covid and I saw a lot that backed Fauci and the restrictions.
Reply Quote
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 12:41p, 5/31/25
Sapper Redux said:
I take it you've never engaged in academic debates if you seriously believe
Quote:
"consensus of scholars" on the TF was based solely on the opinions and speculation of those scholars, not upon any actual evidence. The "consensus of scholars" should never be substituted for actual evidence and arguments and should not be used to quell discussion.


Here's a thread covering a number of arguments, books, and articles that show what is meant by academic consensus. It's not "opinions and speculation."
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/s/u8YLEvt34N
Your missing my point, entirely. I'm not contesting that the consensus of scholars used to agree with your point. I'm contesting the use of the phrase "consensus of scholars" to try to end a discussion. The "consensus of scholars" may or may not be correct, but it does not establish whatever point you're trying to make, especially when strong disagreement exists as to a subject.

Every new perspective, discovery, thesis, or the like was contrary to the "consensus of scholars" when it was first proposed.

This new book amply demonstrates how the scholarly consensus was most likely wrong with respect to the TF.
Reply Quote
1
FIDO95
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 2:05p, 5/31/25
AG
Sapper Redux said:
Quote:
They will make that claim despite the overwhelming testimonies of the people that lived in that era and recorded the true reality of what they witnessed.


Which reality? Because I worked as a volunteer EMT during
Covid and I saw a lot that backed Fauci and the restrictions.
Do you really not see the fallacy of your statement? It kind of proves my point.

I do not want to derail this thread about Covid. This is not the forum for that. What I would suggest you to consider is how biased your statement is. I don't doubt your experience. If you were an EMT, you were likely transporting very ill patients. Thus, your experienced is a heavily skewed sample size. Likewise, I'm in primary care pediatrics. In 4 years, I never sent or had a patient hospitalized for Covid. However, it would be a fallacy for me to base my opinion on my own sample as It would lead me to conclude that Covid doesn't make people all that sick. For that reason, a broad retrospective meta analysis is proper way to study the response, morbidity, and mortality of a given illness as opposed to an individual experience. That information is out there if you want to find it but again, this is not the thread for that.

Returning to the point of the OP, there exists individual documents that state Jesus was a rebel trying to overthrow the Roman authority in Judea. Hanging your hat on that individual document would cause you to miss the broader experience. If you take the entire body of evidence that exists, it becomes crystal clear that Jesus was the Messiah, was crucified, and did rise from the dead.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
8
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FIDO95 • 2:53p, 5/31/25
Quote:
Hanging your hat on that individual document would cause you to miss the broader experience. If you take the entire body of evidence that exists, it becomes crystal clear that Jesus was the Messiah, was crucified, and did rise from the dead.


So much of that depends on the evidence you choose to privilege. Not all evidence is created equal.
Reply Quote
BonfireNerd04
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 10:08p, 5/31/25
Quote:
My personal take is that the New Testament writers simply projected their ideas about what a Jewish messiah would be like onto the life of the actual Jesus who it does seem reasonable to me to believe was a real person that lived, preached, and was executed in this time period. In doing so they made mistakes, strange choices, and references to the Old Testament that weren't previously understood to be messianic prophecies of any kind.
Out of curiosity, are you familiar with Rabbi Tovia Singer? Because this is the kind of stuff he likes to talk about.
Reply Quote
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BonfireNerd04 • 8:07a, 6/2/25
AG
I've heard him discussed but haven't read any of his works. The point of view I described is a fairly common one and I personally believe there's plenty of evidence in the New Testament text itself to back it up.
Reply Quote
2
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 9:40a, 6/2/25
Rocag said:
I've heard him discussed but haven't read any of his works. The point of view I described is a fairly common one and I personally believe there's plenty of evidence in the New Testament text itself to back it up.
Can you give us your top 5 pieces of evidence from the NT to back it up?
Reply Quote
1
one MEEN Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:34p, 6/2/25
AG
Firstly, there is no perspective from nowhere. Josephus was writing at the behest of the romans. He declared Caesar to be the messiah.

Secondly, there is no perspective from nowhere. Sapper isn't playing neutral historian here even if he wants to just point to academia. Sapper has embraced reform judiasm as of late.

For as much as he points out to the Christians here that their skin in the game blinds them, so does his. Its not settled, there is a minority report here.

And finally, why do I care about pagan sources about the historical Jesus? Why is every early christian untrustworthy but any pagan willing to write something down is telling the truth? Its one thing for pagan sources to go, 'Yeah a man name Jesus of Nazareth was crucified' its another for a pagan to go, 'Yeah that man was the messiah'.

I generally think the infatuation of scouring pagan sources is deeply evangelical because the only thing they have is the scriptures. No chain of custody of the scriptures or the church traditions.

'Josephus's story is most likely altered neener neener neener.' Yeah, okay St. Seraphim of Sarov saw Jesus walk into his church, address him (St. Seraphim), and then Jesus stepped into his icon.

See y'all at liturgy on Sunday.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Redstone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:16p, 6/2/25
AG
Read the Angelico Press version of Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich's visions for extremely detailed recountings of the astonishing events of April 3 to 5, 33 AD.
Reply Quote
1
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to one MEEN Ag • 8:22a, 6/3/25
Quote:
I generally think the infatuation of scouring pagan sources is deeply evangelical because the only thing they have is the scriptures. No chain of custody of the scriptures or the church traditions.
You deeply misunderstand both Protestantism/evangelicalism and the work by RCC scholars. I'm not sure what you mean by "chain of custody of the scriptures" but RCC and Protestant scholars probably don't differ much on the history of the Scriptures, but only on the significance or lack of significance of the Council of Trent.

And RCC scholars are as much into the weeds of the early history of Christianity as Protestant scholars are. The RCC gives a lot of attention to Josephus.

Finally, as someone above pointed out, Josephus isn't that critical for the defense of orthodox (small "O") Christianity. There are abundant other sources. The article I posted is simply to demonstrate that relying on a supposed "consensus of scholars" is an intellectually weak and dangerous practice. At every major change in any discipline, the consensus of scholars has been wrong until the consensus changes.
Reply Quote
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KingofHazor • 9:02a, 6/3/25
AG
Like I said, it's not an uncommon idea and there are lots of books and articles written about it that can go into more detail than I can.

But to start with you can compare what is said about the life of Jesus in the earliest sources as compared to the later ones. The Pauline epistles, while admittedly never intended to be a biography of Jesus, mention a couple of details that line up with what's in the gospels but leave out many of the more fantastical stories. Paul doesn't mention anything abnormal about his birth or family, knows about his ministry and disciples, and clearly knows about his crucifixion. Now I would not argue that Paul not mentioning something is proof it didn't happen, but you'd think the events depicted in the gospels might have been more worth mentioning.

Likewise it's generally accepted that Mark was the earliest of the gospels to be written. And when you compare Mark to even to Matthew and Luke there are some pretty notable differences. Mark lacks any birth narrative, for instance. And the oldest manuscripts are missing Mark 16:9-20, meaning it ends with the women going to the tomb, meeting the angel, and then saying nothing to anyone because they were afraid. Interesting way of ending it. Matthew seems most interested in connecting Jesus to supposed Old Testament prophecies and does so in some funny ways. I think my favorite is when he has Jesus riding into Jerusalem weirdly perched between two donkeys because of how he interpreted a verse from Zechariah. There's also good reason to believe the verse from Isaiah he quotes in reference to the virgin birth doesn't refer to a virgin girl at all.

The bigger issue is that many of the verses in the Old Testament pointed to as prophetic by Christians don't appear to be prophecies in the context of the writing and there's little evidence they were seen as such prior to the rise of Christianity. Leading to the conclusion that nearly any verse could be taken out of context and post hoc elevated to being prophecy.
Reply Quote
1
one MEEN Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KingofHazor • 9:21a, 6/3/25
AG
KingofHazor said:
Quote:
I generally think the infatuation of scouring pagan sources is deeply evangelical because the only thing they have is the scriptures. No chain of custody of the scriptures or the church traditions.
You deeply misunderstand both Protestantism/evangelicalism and the work by RCC scholars. I'm not sure what you mean by "chain of custody of the scriptures" but RCC and Protestant scholars probably don't differ much on the history of the Scriptures, but only on the significance or lack of significance of the Council of Trent.

And RCC scholars are as much into the weeds of the early history of Christianity as Protestant scholars are. The RCC gives a lot of attention to Josephus.

Finally, as someone above pointed out, Josephus isn't that critical for the defense of orthodox (small "O") Christianity. There are abundant other sources. The article I posted is simply to demonstrate that relying on a supposed "consensus of scholars" is an intellectually weak and dangerous practice. At every major change in any discipline, the consensus of scholars has been wrong until the consensus changes.
Chain of custody of scriptures refers to evangelicals generally not thinking too hard about where the bible came from, who compiled it, how it was compiled, and who has the authority to interpret it. Most evangelicals think nothing of owning a study bible and just going, 'see everything is plainly there.'

And churches that only have the scriptures and no traditions are more suspectable to higher literary criticism than say a church that is orthodox or catholic. Because if you only have this bound book and you have to believe its ineffable and unchanged, and I can show its changed over time - I've destroyed the central point of your authority for your religion.

So yes, generally, evangelicals are more eager to pull from something that isn't christian history preserved by the church to prove christian historicity.

But I also agree with you here. I don't really care what a bunch of secular historians declare is consensus. Its pretty well established that the experts in academia will make you a pariah for implicitly believing the history of the bible compared to not. And only cede ground inch by inch.

Take for example Assyrian attack on the 10 northern tribes and the anticipated siege on Jersusalem. We know the Assyrians destroyed the 10 tribes and were knocking on the door of Jersualem. The Israelite side also preserves that King Hezekiah prayed night and day for God to intervene. God does intervene by having the Assyrian camp break out in crazed confusion and abandon their plans. The Assyrian records just show they stopped their campaign and turned back. Scholarly discussion says, 'There was most likely a plague that broke out and caused the troops to break rank.'

Thats promptly when I stopped caring about the consensus hypothesis of secular historians. You can have both sides of the story and they'll still just ascribe it to anything but God.

That and the pool of Sidon being a big deal and not existing right up until it was discovered. And then onto the next talking point.
Reply Quote
2
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to one MEEN Ag • 12:21p, 6/3/25
Quote:
Thats promptly when I stopped caring about the consensus hypothesis of secular historians. You can have both sides of the story and they'll still just ascribe it to anything but God.


The Assyrians almost certainly ascribed it to the will of Ashur. By your logic, historians should accept that Ashur exists and influences Assyrian campaigns.
Reply Quote
1
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to one MEEN Ag • 1:18p, 6/3/25
AG
Quote:
That and the pool of Sidon being a big deal and not existing right up until it was discovered. And then onto the next talking point.
What do you think the Pool of Sidon is/was? Because everything I see on it still refers to it as a misnaming of the Pool of Siloam.
Reply Quote
one MEEN Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 1:19p, 6/3/25
AG
Sapper Redux said:
Quote:
Thats promptly when I stopped caring about the consensus hypothesis of secular historians. You can have both sides of the story and they'll still just ascribe it to anything but God.
The Assyrians almost certainly ascribed it to the will of Ashur. By your logic, historians should accept that Ashur exists and influences Assyrian campaigns.
The Assyrians most certainly did not ascribe their defeat to the will of Ashur, they did what basically every ancient king does. Not celebrate the loss at all and then blame the loss on not sacrificing enough or properly to their pagan god.

Now the 10 tribes being taken right up before being turned away at jerusalem? As judgement and given over to the demonic powers the ten northern tribes wanted anyway? And the local pagan god/demon Ashur was who received them? Yeah that agrees with Christian synthesis and the divine counsel anyway. And that's exactly how the Assyrian monuments of conquest show it.

Again. You can't look at secular historian consensus to answer any detailed question about the nature of God. There's always a cop out.

Hey pay attention in your reform judiasm catechesis classes bud, the divine counsel is in the Torah.
Reply Quote
2
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to one MEEN Ag • 3:56p, 6/3/25
I'm not Reform. Your personal vendetta against Reform Jews is pretty pathetic, however. Amazing that you can't understand the point. Ascribing loss or victory to God of the will of the gods is extremely common throughout ancient history. Do you believe Hektor died because Athena tricked him? Should that be the scholarly consensus since an ancient text claimed it was so?
Reply Quote
1
Last Page
Page 1 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.