emilysmith wrote:Here is the entire paragraph from Josephus. It seems that most peopel who argue its authenticity have never even bothered to read it, lete alone the pages before and after it.
And now Caesar, upon hearing 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. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
That is not the Testimonium, DB. That is the other reference to Jesus in Josephus.
The significance of Josephus mentioning 16 different people names Jesus (17 if you include this paragraph as 2) is that an interpolation becomes exponentially easier to write into history. There are a number of convenient locations to insert Christ, messiah, etc.
1. Have you counted them yourself?
2. "Jesus" was a common name.
Josephus, who lived within walking distance of Nazareth, never mentions it. He is very detailed about describing his area, so it is anomalous that he would mention Sephorah(?) which is smaller and without a synagogue, and does not mention Nazareth.
Archaeologists: Jesus-Era House Found In NazarethTacitus makes no other mention of Christians besides the one reference. Not only that, no one else does, either in that time period, leading many to have concluded that it was also a forgery.
That is a lie. Pliny and Trajan refer to Christians in their
letters. It is also a lie that "many" believe it is a forgery. Only crackpots and the morons who follow them think that DB.
History now shows that Nero wasn't even in Rome.
Provide the source for your claim DB. (Not your claim, actually, but the claim of the crazy skank Acharya S whom you are mindlessly parroting.)
I only brought it up because that jerk, Milesius (who is going to Hell, if I am wrong, by the way, even if he is right) was acting like Josephus and Tacitus were proof of Jesus.
They are evidence for the historicity of Jesus DB.
Nobody actually believes Jesus because of Josephus or Tacitus. Paul and four gospels are the primary sources.
The problem seems to be that none of these were written in the lifetime of Jesus, and the authors aren't who they claim to be, which, technically, makes them forgeries.
1. They do not have to have been written during Jesus' life to be credible.
2. Paul's wrote eight letters. And the Gospels did not have names attached to them originally, so they can't be forgeries (unlike, say, the Pastoral Epistles) DB.
There are even plenty of reasons to suspect that the whole thing is a myth, made up by people who placed him just far enough back so no one would be able to confirm or deny it... most likely for the purpose of allegory. Then later, the proletariat imposed a more literal interpretation onto the Gospels.
To the contrary, there are no legitimate reasons, let alone plenty, DB.
