(June 25, 2015 at 6:04 pm)tonechaser77 Wrote:(June 25, 2015 at 12:39 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Fact 1: Jesus died by crucifixion
Josephus (AD 93-94)
“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.” (Antiquities XVIII, 63 from Josephus: The Essential Writings by Paul L. Maier, page 264-265; this text is from An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications by S. Pines [Jerusalem, 1971]; another translation of above found in Van Voorst, page 97; for a different version of the text infamously interpolated by later Christian editors, see discussion in Van Voorst, page 85ff; also full discussion in A Marginal Jew, volume 1 by John P. Meier, pages 56ff)
This text, which definitely mentions Jesus and his crucifixion under Pilate by a well-known Jewish historian of the first century, is hotly disputed because of possible later 'Christian interpolation'; however, the version given above is a translation of the Arabic text which does not contain the 'Christian' additions.
Even with the Arabic version of Josephus there is evidence of Christian interpolation. The phrase ...and the tribe of Christians so named after him, has not disappeared to this day, confirms this. There was absolutely no tribe of Christians during Josephus' lifetime. Christianity under that moniker did not establish itself until the 2nd century.
Not only was the term "Christian" in use before the end of the first century, but so was the proper noun "Catholic Church".
The book of Acts was written before AD 65, and the early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26).
As early as AD 107, those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote:
You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, AD 107, [8,1])
Notice that Ignatius does not take pains to introduce the term "Catholic Church"; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. John, the beloved disciple, may have thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!
As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” – terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.
Second, Tacitus and Josephus were contemporaries...and it is likely that these two historians were acquainted with one another as a result of their work in Rome.
Quote:Furthermore, this Arabic version is a work of Agapius of Hireapolis from...the 10th century!! Claims that an Arabic passage itself dates from the 4th century are ridiculous. Written Arabic barely existed at such an early date. Moreover, Agapius was a pro Byzantium Christian at a time of intensifying Islamization of Syria. What he wrote was political correctness that was intended on saving his own ass. In short, the Arabic Josephus is no evidence of Jesus and only serves to confuse the people who don't dig in far enough.
Would the purpose of quoting a version of Josephus that does not contain the Christian additions be to examine the passage as it appeared prior to modifications? Of course. Thus the existence of the Arabic text - regardless of its age - provides insight into what Josephus probably wrote.
