They were still presented as a historical record though and not a collection of various writings that suited the religious authorities at the time with the ones that didn't discarded.Of course, we are not going to find the original writing for most historical works. The earliest manuscripts of Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" are from 11th century. So why should this work get any more credibility than Paul's epistles ?
And let's not forget all the gospels they binned off cos they didn't fit their narrative. Having women with more power, for instance.And don’t forget those names where attributed to anonymous authors. All contradicted each other. I don’t know about you, but that’s not a good sign.
He did meet the disciples of Jesus(as) - Acts 15.According to Paul himself in the New Testament he never met the man.
We've all met disciples of Jesus.He did meet the disciples of Jesus(as) - Acts 15.
Regardless, Josephus was not a witness to most things in his book. Going by the Wikipedia article on 'Antiquites of the Jews', we see Josephus had his own leanings too.They were still presented as a historical record though and not a collection of various writings that suited the religious authorities at the time with the ones that didn't discarded.
You're right, he wasn't. You might notice I've already rejected him as a primary source here too.Regardless, Josephus was not a witness to most things in his book. Going by the Wikipedia article on 'Antiquites of the Jews', we see Josephus had his own leanings too.
Is that the same ? I find the encounter of Paul with the apostles in Acts 15 trustworthy, given the difference of opinion they had on the annulment of the Law .We've all met disciples of Jesus.
You're right, he wasn't. You might notice I've already rejected him as a primary source here too.
But you forget that there are loads of surviving texts from the first century the romans were very diligent in that respectJosephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Suetonius.
The 4 of them together amount to more historical evidence than we have more most things going on in antiquity.
Add that to all the Christian writings and it becomes very hard for anyone to convincingly dispute the existence of a historical person without raising the bar of evidence so high that you wipe out thousands of years worth of history for which we only have a couple of surviving sources which is why this really isn’t a controversial topic.
But you can’t definitively say that it wasn’t made up from the get goJosephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Suetonius.
The 4 of them together amount to more historical evidence than we have more most things going on in antiquity.
Add that to all the Christian writings and it becomes very hard for anyone to convincingly dispute the existence of a historical person without raising the bar of evidence so high that you wipe out thousands of years worth of history for which we only have a couple of surviving sources which is why this really isn’t a controversial topic.
But you forget that there are loads of surviving texts from the first century the romans were very diligent in that respect
And not one mention of a jesus
Have all the Roman records survived ?But you forget that there are loads of surviving texts from the first century the romans were very diligent in that respect
And not one mention of a jesus
The 4 you mention cannot be eyewitnesses
So we are dealing with at best second hand information
Josephus at around 93ad we are two generations later and more for the others
So
Josephus is scant at best and the fact it’s still debated means until definitive remains dubious
Don’t be sillyHave all the Roman records survived ?
At least 2 Roman censuses occurred in the period, 6 AD and 28 AD. Both are primary sources. The Romans were, after all, fastidious record keepers.Ok. If you follow the other discussion happening here, Josephus is being quoted as a source for the historicity of Jesus(as), but the Bible is not. Can you name a primary historical source of events in Jerusalem, 1st century A.D ?
Tacitus was born around 56 ad so minimum ad 76 before writing anythingNot one...except Tacitus and Pliny.
Tacitus is renowned for being reliable, to the extent that whenever he was writing about stuff that was not known to be true, he would highlight that, and he didnt when writing about Jesus.
We're talking about a guy who started a a rabble in a provincial town before getting executed, you wouldn't expect there to be dozens of sources across the Roman empire from his lifetime especially when it's what happens after his death that makes him noteworthy to them.
Ok. So what information do we have about Pilate in the Roman records ?At least 2 Roman censuses occurred in the period, 6 AD and 28 AD. Both are primary sources. The Romans were, after all, fastidious record keepers.
Bugger all really, hardly compelling evidence for the existence of Jesus. AFAIK outside of the bible he's only mentioned very briefly by Tacitus.Ok. So what information do we have about Pilate in the Roman records ?
So its someone who started a rabble and got executedNot one...except Tacitus and Pliny.
Tacitus is renowned for being reliable, to the extent that whenever he was writing about stuff that was not known to be true, he would highlight that, and he didnt when writing about Jesus.
We're talking about a guy who started a a rabble in a provincial town before getting executed, you wouldn't expect there to be dozens of sources across the Roman empire from his lifetime especially when it's what happens after his death that makes him noteworthy to them.
Pilate is well known to be a very nasty governor who would of been nothing like the lily livered version in the bibleOk. So what information do we have about Pilate in the Roman records ?
Those information come from other sources like Josephus. There is not much in the Roman records about this Roman governor, so it's not some encyclopaedia as is made out to be.Pilate is well known to be a very nasty governor who would of been nothing like the lily livered version in the bible
If memory serves me correctly he was removed from his post and sent back to Rome as he was getting out of hand
But will have to check my facts