Dartmistress wrote:
I am surprised, Francois, at what you say about the Josephus manuscripts. There are many scholars who still use him for reference. 
They are misguided. Even among honest Christian scholars, the reference to Josephus is considered weak at best.

The big problem with such old documents is that we must just guess. Is it a forgery by the anti-christians or are the claims of forgery another ploy by the pro-christians?
Josephus Flavius' manuscripts are known to have been in the possession of a Priest, and Christian Propagandist named Eusabius, in the fourth century. No single historical document refers to the work of Josephus to make a case for the (possible/probable) existence of Jesus from before Eusabius had possession of them.

Josephus (who sought to document the history of the Jews) wrote in a very linear manner, with his own, distinctive style. He wrote entire chapters about individuals which history has long forgotten.

The text refering to Jesus (which is actually quite short) is believed to have been added to the manuscripts by Eusabius. For one, it breaks with the linearity of the texts, and it is written in a different style, one much closer to Eusabius' style than Josephus'.


Edited 1 time by Dec 10 11 6:47 PM.