From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: alt.bible,alt.bible.prophecy,aus.religion.christian
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: I am, that is why I sent myself to you
> > Josephus mentions Jesus, and pretty nicely, as well -- and Josephus was
> > pretty grouchy and antagonistic about everyone else.
>
> Barry's pages dismiss Josephus out of hand, with a very sketchy
> summary of the reasons for this dismissal, and no good references
> to follow up study on this passage. Barry is quite right to dismiss
> Josephus as useless for verifying the historicity of Jesus; but the
> quality of argument presented in his pages is not likely to be
> persuasive to others with a contrary opinion.
>
> For a much more comprehensive look at the "Testimonium Flavianum",
> see:
>    <http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testhist.htm>
> This page give historical background to the debate. It is part of
> a large Flavius Josephus Home Page
>    <http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/home.htm>
>
> For an excellent summary of a model for the inclusion of this
> passage into Josephus, see
>    <http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/question.htm>
> This page give one scholarly perspective on the testimonium; and
> so cannot be taken as academic concensus in all its details;
> However, the argument is (IMO) sound, fairly comprehensive,
> and in its broad scope an excellent look at the issues and models
> involved in explaination of this passage.
>
> Follow up further with the bibliography on the testimonium:
>    <http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimoniumBibliography.htm>
>
> In brief: the testimonium definitely cannot be taken as independent
> confirmation of Jesus; but as confirmation of the existence of a
> religious community which believed in Jesus. We knew that anyway.
>
> The best evidence for the existence of Jesus remains the gospels
> and the letters of Paul. (The letters of Paul are good evidence
> for an interesting reason... Paul never met Jesus, and cannot
> attest in his own right to Jesus' existence. However; Paul was
> writing very shortly after the time of Jesus, and his letters
> show a great concern to justifiy his own status as an apostle
> along side others who had met Jesus. If everyone was in Paul's
> position, there would be no need for this great emphasis. The
> letters are thus the earliest evidence of a group of people who
> knew Jesus first hand, through the accounts of another person who
> was aiming for prominence within their community.
>
> Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart