Philo Of Alexandria

[TAK]

I note that while the Testimonium Flavianum is considered questionable, in another place in Josephus it reads:

While there is some question as to whether the "who was called Christ" part might be an interpolation, I believe it is pretty widely accepted that the rest of that quote is authentic.

CFR that its "pretty widely accepted that the rest of that quote is authentic." meaning that it refers to Jesus of Nazareth - Son of Mary - died on a cross Jesus, and not some other Jesus.

[cjcampbell]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

Ah, but Josephus does not claim to have actually seen Philo. In fact, there are no first hand accounts of anyone having seen Philo. By the OP's reasoning, the obvious conclusion is that Philo never existed and that his writings were all forgeries written, perhaps, by Josephus or even Sir Francis Bacon for all we know.

[SolarPowered]

Prove it.

Zhavric

What would constitute acceptable proof to you?

[JNclone]

This is all highly off-topic, but I will indulge you for a moment on Tacitus.

Tacitus refers to Pilate with an innacurate title and refers to Christianity as a superstition. Christians are quick to point at Tacitus' writing as "evidence" Jesus existed. It's nothing of the sort and Christian claims of this nature are disengenuous. Tacitus is nothing more than one of the first in a long line of authors to see Christians and assume there was a Christ. This argument just goes to show Christians aren't interested in delving.

"Tacitus mentions Jesus? Nevermind how he came by that information or what his sources were. This shows there was a Jesus."

By this logic, the Earth must be flat since there still remains a Flat Earth society.

I am not an LDS. I am not a Christian. I am an atheist. How nice, therefore, to be exempt from your sophomoric superiority.

My view is that by and large and on balance, considering the very, very complex evidential situation, it is more economical to assume that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth than to try to explain the evidence otherwise. None of the sources, taken alone, forces us to that conclusion. But the cumulative weight is hard to resist.

The question of whether Jesus was 'the real deal' is one for many other threads.

[Zhavric]

While there is some question as to whether the "who was called Christ" part might be an interpolation, I believe it is pretty widely accepted that the rest of that quote is authentic.

Josephus writings (unless you're completely biased) teach us two things:

A) There were a LOT of people running around Judea from 88 bce to 68 ce who happened to be named "Jesus" who did things not unlike the gospel Jesus. These extra Jesuses (Jesi?) form the basis for the Christ myth that Christians know today.

B) Josephus' writing is a clear example of Christians looking to re-write history to be more favorable to Christian claims. As Mormons, this is something you should be gravely concerned about.

Zhavric,

[SolarPowered]

CFR that its "pretty widely accepted that the rest of that quote is authentic." meaning that it refers to Jesus of Nazareth - Son of Mary - died on a cross Jesus, and not some other Jesus.

Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

[cjcampbell]

Two people now have stated (in not so many words) that Philo may have heard of Jesus and just written him off as another charlattan. I'm not sure why Christians make this argument as you're shooting yourself in the foot: People living at the time of Jesus thought he was just another nobody with a few tricks, but people living 2 millenia later are somehow convinced he was the real deal?

Please.

Christians in the second century (like Athenagoras) were blithely unconcerned with the personhood of Jesus.

All of you are willfully ignoring the most obvious conclusion (the only one that makes sense in light of the claims made in the bible): There was no Jesus there for Philo to hear about.

Simply repeating a false argument does not make it valid. The fact that Philo did not see or choose to write about Jesus does not prove that Jesus did not exist.

After all, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James and Paul all claimed to have seen Jesus. Why should anything Philo did not write be taken as any more authoritative than what other authors did write?

Indeed, why should we assume that any writings attributed to Philo were written by him at all? They could simply be fabrications written centuries later.

[TAK]

Ah, but Josephus does not claim to have actually seen Philo. In fact, there are no first hand accounts of anyone having seen Philo. By the OP's reasoning, the obvious conclusion is that Philo never existed and that his writings were all forgeries written, perhaps, by Josephus or even Sir Francis Bacon for all we know.

another Red Herring..

Seen?? Nonsense! They knew of him.

Nobody outside of Biblical accounts appears to know of Christ.

[TAK]

Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Not acceptable ..

This paragraph is generally accepted as authentic by scholars, although there is debate as to whether the words who was called Christ were in the original passage, or were a later interpolation..

[cjcampbell]

Josephus writings (unless you're completely biased) teach us two things:

A) There were a LOT of people running around Judea from 88 bce to 68 ce who happened to be named "Jesus" who did things not unlike the gospel Jesus. These extra Jesuses (Jesi?) form the basis for the Christ myth that Christians know today.

Josephus' writing is a clear example of Christians looking to re-write history to be more favorable to Christian claims. As Mormons, this is something you should be gravely concerned about.

Again you say "teach us" as if "we know," when what you are saying is actually a personal conclusion and a minority opinion. Now, it is true that a crackpot who disagrees with conventional wisdom may in fact be a genius who is far ahead of his time. But 99.9% of the time he is just a crackpot.

You say that these 'extra Jesuses' form the basis of the 'Christian myth.' We dispute that and you have offered no evidence supporting your thesis other than the fact that Philo, of all people, did not mention Jesus in his writings. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but it is ridiculous for you to claim that you or we "know" anything that we do not.

[maklelan]

As you probably know, there has been a longstanding disagreement amongst classical scholars

and historians as to whether we can trust the Josephus mentions of Jesus as having been the

exact reading of his original text.

Unless we one day locate a very early Josephus manuscript which includes those mentions,

the probability that they were later Christian interpolations into the text remains a strong one.

Yes and the consensus is that Josephus' having called him the Christ is the interpolation, while the mention of Jesus is accurate. The Agapian text is an early Josephus text that was discovered in 1972. Here is the traditional compared to the Agapian:

Traditional - About this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was the achiever of extraordinary deeds and was a teacher of those who accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When he was indicted by the principal men among us and Pilate condemned him to be crucified, those who had come to love him originally did not cease to do so; for he appeared to them on the third day restored to life, as the prophets of the Deity had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him, and the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

Agapian - 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.

[maklelan]

Josephus writings (unless you're completely biased) teach us two things:

A) There were a LOT of people running around Judea from 88 bce to 68 ce who happened to be named "Jesus" who did things not unlike the gospel Jesus. These extra Jesuses (Jesi?) form the basis for the Christ myth that Christians know today.

Wow. I'm at a loss for words. And upon what is this theory based besides a refusal to accept that Josephus mentioned Jesus? The Agapian text shows what Josephus' original text said, so if your theory is correct then these other Jesus' that were running around had lives that were scary identical to that of the Savior.

Josephus' writing is a clear example of Christians looking to re-write history to be more favorable to Christian claims. As Mormons, this is something you should be gravely concerned about.

We are concerned about academic honesty. Look at Agapius' text and tell me how that figures into your theory.

[SolarPowered]

Not acceptable ..

This paragraph is generally accepted as authentic by scholars, although there is debate as to whether the words who was called Christ were in the original passage, or were a later interpolation..

What's "not acceptable"? The content you put in bold is in fact in my original post about Josephus.

[maklelan]

Prove it.

Zhavric

One idiotic fallacy deserves another:

Prove he didn't!

[maklelan]

Ignorance of how fallacies work & when they apply or don't apply on your part does not evidence fallacious reasoning on my, Plate.

Fallacious reasoning on your what?

[maklelan]

I stopped reading here when I realized you're one of those people who still believes Josephus' church-altered texts in some way evidences Jesus. Talk about Flat Earthists...

Wow. You got me there. On the other hand. I have access to more ancient Josephus texts than you, and I actually understand what the scholarly consensus is. Also, I have pointed out that the Christians did in fact alter the text, but it doesn't at all change the fact that Josephus mentions Christ. You call me a Flat Earthist, but you haven't even read up on the situation you're ranting about. Grow up.

[TAK]

What's "not acceptable"? The content you put in bold is in fact in my original post about Josephus.

Josephus wrote of 20 different Jesus's, there is not a generally accepted agreement as you imply, that he the New Testament Jesus.

[maklelan]

Observational selection implies there were lots of people living in the 3rd decade of the first century writing about Jesus who I'm ignoring. If you have 3rd decade 1st century sources go ahead and share them. You'll be very rich and famous as you'll be the first to provide any.

The third decade would be the 20's. The first is 1â??9, the second is 10â??19, and the third is 20â??29. Christ's ministry just started in A.D. 30 (or thereabouts), so no historians living in the third decade of the first century A.D. would have any reason to know who Christ is. Your math is worse than your logic. Even in the fourth decade there's no real reason to expect any writing about him, as he was relatively inconsequential to historians until his movement actually started gaining momentum, around thirty to forty years after his death, at which point we have Josephus mentioning him.

Next time, do a more in-depth analysis and save me the time of responding to these false charges.

Ditto that, my brother.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Big Z's fallacies don't count, iho. Methinks TAK brought one of his atheist pals to the site. I could be wrong, but these guys have each other's backs like Turner and Hooch.

[maklelan]

Josephus and Tacitus are far from being universally accepted as legitimate.

This can be unequivocally stated about every historian in history. Elvis' death is not even universally accepted as legitimate. This statement gives itself more credit than it actually has.

- Anybody reading the Josephus passage should find it laughable that a son of a Pharisee would call Jesus â??a wise manâ? , a â??doer of wonderful worksâ? and â??He (Jesus) appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.â?.

On the whole there are nearly dozen Jewish and Roman writers and historians of that period that are silent on the subject of Christ as a person.

But of course you know that from your research and scholarshipâ?¦ .

Indeed. And you should know from your research and scholarship that the overly Christian tone of Josephus' statement is an interpolation, the absence of which, evidenced by Agapius' text, does not at all change the fact that Josephus wrote that a man named Jesus was condemned to be crucified by Pilate and whose disciples considered him to be the Messiah. Could you name the "nearly dozen" Jewish and Roman writers and historians that neglect to mention Jesus, as well as an indication why they would have had he really existed?

Big Z's fallacies don't count, iho. Methinks TAK brought one of his atheist pals to the site. I could be wrong, but these guys have each other's backs like Turner and Hooch.

Only Turner and Hooch actually did a good job.

[LifeOnaPlate]

This can be unequivocally stated about every historian in history. Elvis' death is not even universally accepted as legitimate. This statement gives itself more credit than it actually has.

Indeed. And you should know from your research and scholarship that the overly Christian tone of Josephus' statement is an interpolation, the absence of which, evidenced by Agapius' text, does not at all change the fact that Josephus wrote that a man named Jesus was condemned to be crucified by Pilate and whose disciples considered him to be the Messiah. Could you name the "nearly dozen" Jewish and Roman writers and historians that neglect to mention Jesus, as well as an indication why they would have had he really existed?

Only Turner and Hooch actually did a good job.

And Turner and Hooch developed their own cases, rather than relying on outdated arguments on nobelief.com.

They may drool more, though.

[maklelan]

Josephus wrote of 20 different Jesus's, there is not a generally accepted agreement as you imply, that he the New Testament Jesus.

It seems from the most ancient texts (which are free from the Christian taint), and the scholarly consensus, that, in fact, Josephus did indeed "____?_____ the New Testament Jesus."

[Paul Ray]

Two people now have stated (in not so many words) that Philo may have heard of Jesus and just written him off as another charlattan. I'm not sure why Christians make this argument as you're shooting yourself in the foot: People living at the time of Jesus thought he was just another nobody with a few tricks, but people living 2 millenia later are somehow convinced he was the real deal?

Please.

What is so hard to understand about that?

There were people living in Jerusalem back then who condemned him (Jesus) to death.

... and some others who believed he was/is still the Messiah.

And there are people TODAY who believe he was/is the Messiah.

... and some others who don't even really know who he was/is.

You seem to be shooting yourself in your foot with your comments.

Christians in the second century (like Athenagoras) were blithely unconcerned with the personhood of Jesus.

... and I'm sure some other Christians were concerned and had faith in him too.

There are some other documents from other people who lived in that period, you know.

... and if you don't know you can easily find them if you want to.

All of you are willfully ignoring the most obvious conclusion (the only one that makes sense in light of the claims made in the bible): There was no Jesus there for Philo to hear about.

I think it's obvious that you have failed to consider some other thoughts while thinking that your thoughts are flawless.

[maklelan]

I think it's obvious that you have failed to consider some other thoughts while thinking that your thoughts are flawless.

The surest sign of this is his obstinate refusal to even read the arguments that disagree with his opinion:

I stopped reading here when I realized you're one of those people who still believes Josephus' church-altered texts in some way evidences Jesus. Talk about Flat Earthists...

Isn't it pretty convincing evidence that your not at all concerned with the thoughts of anyone but yourself if you flatly refuse to even read another argument? Maybe you need to grow up.

[Paul Ray]

Maybe you need to grow up.

I also think that is obvious.

... but then again, we all do.

None of us are perfect now.

... but we can be.