Existence of Jesus

[Mark]

Also Jesus was mentioned by the classical historian Josephus, who was not a Christian. It is not impossible of course that a person would be mentioned by a historian of that day and not exist, but considering how very few people of ordinary birth get named in Roman histories (Caesar for example mentions a few common soldiers in connection with extraordinarily brave deeds during his campaigns), it would be just a little strange if someone was mentioned who did not, in fact, exist

The Josephus quote(s) tends to be regarded as a later interpolation (in effect a fake).

Kyu

Well actually if you read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus , you will see that while what is today in Josephus almost certainly is an emendation by later scribes, it is considered likely that Josephus did say something about Jesus, which was probably the basis of this emendation. Most probably what he wrote is something like this, which is a paraphrase by one Agapius of what would seem to be an unmodified, earlier and not lost edition of Josephus:

"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 their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders"

---

Further Origen, a Christian author writing around 240 (Josephus wrote around 70 or 80), said that Josephus did not recognize the divinity of Jesus. This would be a rather odd thing to say if Josephus had not written something about Jesus, and what he wrote could well be lost text paraphrased above, and which does bear resemblance to the presumably amended text now found in Josephus.

All this is debatable, I readily concede. But it is misleading to say that the text in Josephus is "fake."

Further it is worth noting that the historicity of Jesus is not widely doubted among historians of the classical period. Why would it be? There is some presumption that he lived; there is on the other side mere doubt that he did not. But how much evidence could possibly come down from A.D. 40 clearly demonstrating the existence of any particular non-patrician Roman, indeed a non-Italian and non-citizen? It's worth noting that to Romans, Jesus would have been a nonentity during his life; only much later, as Christianity spread, did he become a figure of any significance to Rome (by then a historical one, of course).