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.