Changes

====Josephus====

====Josephus====

[[Josephus|Flavius Josephus]] (c. A.D. 37 – 100) was a Jew and a Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavian dynasty.  Josephus is unusual in that, while he was Jewish, he was loyal to the Roman political powers.  In A. D. 93 he wrote his ''Antiquities of the Jews'', a work recording the history of the Jews.  In it, Jesus is mentioned twice.  The second mentioning is the shorter, and will be discussed first.  It is a completely disinterested comment made in passing, where, when talking about James, Josephus specifics which James he means by identifying his subject as James "the brother [or kinsman] of Jesus, who was called Christ".<ref>Josephus ''[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/works/files/ant-20.htm Antiquities 20:9.1]''</ref> Scholars have found little or no reason to doubt the authenticity of this passage and have, by and large, accepted it as genuine.<ref>Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990–91</ref>  

[[Josephus|Flavius Josephus]] (c. A.D. 37 – 100) was a Jew and a Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavian dynasty.  Josephus is unusual in that, while he was Jewish, he was loyal to the Roman political powers.  In A. D. 93 he wrote his ''Antiquities of the Jews'', a work recording the history of the Jews.  In it, Jesus is mentioned twice.  The second mentioning is the shorter, and will be discussed first.  It is a completely disinterested comment made in passing, where, when talking about James, Josephus specifies which James he means by identifying his subject as James "the brother [or kinsman] of Jesus, who was called Christ".<ref>Josephus ''[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/works/files/ant-20.htm Antiquities 20:9.1]''</ref> Scholars have found little or no reason to doubt the authenticity of this passage and have, by and large, accepted it as genuine.<ref>Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990–91</ref>  

More notably, an earlier mention of Jesus is made in a passage that has come to be called the in the ''Testimonium Flavianum'':

More notably, an earlier mention of Jesus is made in a passage that has come to be called the ''Testimonium Flavianum'':

:''About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvelous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.''<ref>Josephus ''[http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm Antiquities 18.3.3]''</ref>

:''About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvelous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.''<ref>Josephus ''[http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm Antiquities 18.3.3]''</ref>

Most scholars accept the authenticity of the majority of the passage.<ref>John Drane ''Introducing the New Testament'' (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986) p. 138; also, James H. Charlesworth, ''Jesus Within Judaism'' (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988) p. 96</ref>  However, certain parts have been called into question, especially those which conform with the Christian creed.  These doubts are not based on the manuscript record, which is consistent, nor on the language, which is stylistically harmonious with Josephus.<ref>Henri Daniel-Rops, ''Silence of Jesus' Contemporaries'' p. 21; J.N.D. Anderson, ''Christianity: The Witness of History'' (London: Tyndale, 1969)p. 20; F.F. Bruce, ''New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?'' (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1967) p. 108.</ref>  Concerning the ''Testimonium Flavianum'', Habermas wrote, "There is no textual evidence against it, and, conversely, there is very good manuscript evidence for these statements about Jesus, thus making it difficult to ignore."<ref>G. R. Habermas, ''The Historical Jesus'' p. 193</ref>  And there are even a few scholars support the authenticity of the entire passage.<ref>Daniel-Rops, ''Silence of Jesus' Contemporaries'' p. 21</ref>   

Most scholars accept the authenticity of the majority of the passage.<ref>John Drane ''Introducing the New Testament'' (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986) p. 138; also, James H. Charlesworth, ''Jesus Within Judaism'' (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988) p. 96</ref>  However, certain parts have been called into question, especially those which conform with the Christian creed.  These doubts are not based on the manuscript record, which is consistent, nor on the language, which is stylistically harmonious with Josephus.<ref>Henri Daniel-Rops, ''Silence of Jesus' Contemporaries'' p. 21; J.N.D. Anderson, ''Christianity: The Witness of History'' (London: Tyndale, 1969)p. 20; F.F. Bruce, ''New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?'' (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1967) p. 108.</ref>  Concerning the ''Testimonium Flavianum'', Habermas wrote, "There is no textual evidence against it, and, conversely, there is very good manuscript evidence for these statements about Jesus, thus making it difficult to ignore."<ref>G. R. Habermas, ''The Historical Jesus'' p. 193</ref>  And there are even a few scholars who support the authenticity of the entire passage.<ref>Daniel-Rops, ''Silence of Jesus' Contemporaries'' p. 21</ref>   

Nonetheless, the fact that Josephus, by all accounts an adherent to Judaism, would so openly proclaim Jesus to be the Messiah who rose from the dead has been hard for many to accept, especially given Josephus’s later statement, which reservedly said only that Jesus was “called” the Christ.  Likewise, the fact that some of the early Church Fathers did not employ this text, even when quoting from Josephus, has contributed to the doubts.  However, this is (with one exception) an argument from silence, and some (later) Fathers did know the passage.  The exception is Origen, who wrote that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ.  Though it is important not to take this one utterance to far, it does raise a legitimate question about the authenticity of the entire passage.  Whatever the case, it is in no sense necessary to affirm the entirety of the passage in order to establish that Josephus did indeed record Jesus as a historical person, a claim that virtually every scholar (opinions about the integrity of the passage aside) would agree with.  Indeed, the brief reference, concerning James, alone is enough to establish not only that Jesus was a real historical person, but that he had an significant impact, since Josephus could clarify which (of the many) people named James he was talking about merely by pointing to his relation with Jesus.

Nonetheless, the fact that Josephus, by all accounts an adherent to Judaism, would so openly proclaim Jesus to be the Messiah who rose from the dead has been hard for many to accept, especially given Josephus’s later statement, which reservedly said only that Jesus was “called” the Christ.  Likewise, the fact that some of the early Church Fathers did not employ this text, even when quoting from Josephus, has contributed to the doubts.  However, this is (with one exception) an argument from silence, and some (later) Fathers did know the passage.  The exception is Origen, who wrote that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ.  Though it is important not to take this one utterance too far, it does raise a legitimate question about the authenticity of the entire passage.  Whatever the case, it is in no sense necessary to affirm the entirety of the passage in order to establish that Josephus did indeed record Jesus as a historical person, a claim that virtually every scholar (opinions about the integrity of the passage aside) would agree with.  Indeed, the brief reference, concerning James, alone is enough to establish not only that Jesus was a real historical person, but that he had a significant impact, since Josephus could clarify which (of the many) people named James he was talking about merely by pointing to his relation with Jesus.

==== Tacitus ====

==== Tacitus ====