Answer 1
There is a reference to someone named 'christos' or 'chrestus' but this just means 'anointed', so it could have applied to anyone.
Most theologians say that the reference to 'christos' is a forgery, added later. And besides this, Josephus was hardly a reliable source. He turned on his fellow Jews and defected to the Romans.
Answer 2
Apparently he did but it is clear that some of his statements do not seem to be in keeping with what we know of what Josephus believed, and presumably have been added or modified by scribes in transmission. Thus the statement in what is called 'the testimonium' that "He was the Christ" may be an addition; or possibly originally read "He was believed to be the Christ", as the Latin and Syriac versions still read.
This has been sorted out over time by textual and literary-critical methods. Originally it was all believed to be genuine, then in going to the other extreme some rejected it entirely. However the scholarly view, as is often the case in some areas has settled down to a relative consensus that some of it was genuine - the parts that acknowledge Jesus' existence, but not the parts which express personal faith in Him.
There are two passages in question. The longer, in Antiquities book 18 is also known as the Testimonium Flavianum. The shorter is in Antiquities 20.
From the 17th-19th century, the long passage was generally considered an interpolation (accidental or otherwise) by some later copyist. Discoveries of further versions of the text in other ancient and medieval languages, together with a reaction against the hyper-scepticism of the 19th century, have caused a movement where many scholars now think at least part of the text is genuine. It remains controversial, however.
The short passage has always been considered genuine by almost all scholars. Ca. 1900 Emil Scherer questioned it, but his views were not accepted.
There is a scholarly study of the history of the scholarship on these passages: Alice Whealey, "Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times", Peter Lang Publishing (2003).
Answer 3
You need to be very aware that the Roman Church had custody of these ancient documents for centuries. It wouldn't have been hard for them to "correct" the writings of Josephus.
Many ancient writings were changed or destroyed by the Roman Church.
One thought:There is no mention in the Bible of the death of James(the half-brother of Jesus). However, Acts 12:1+2 relates how James, the son of Zebedee, died by the sword, on the orders of Herod Agrippa 1 in 44CE.It's of interest to note that, in his writings, Josephus relates that 'James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ', died by stoning on the orders of Ananus(Ananias), the high priest at the time ('Jewish Antiquities', XX, 200 (ix,1).Answer/In Acts 12:2, where it records the death of James the brother of John by sword.
Last names didn't really exist in Biblical times. However, people were identified from the city from which they or their fathers were from. This is why Jesus is called Jesus of Nazareth.
Zero. They had other names for him, such as "Teacher" and Peter called him "The Christ" but they never called him "Jesus".
Nicodemus called Jesus "a teacher who has come from God". John 3:2 Jesus was called Rabbi which is priest, pastor, teacher.
Jesus called 12 apostles to serve him.
AnswerUnfortunately, Josephus does not prove that Jesus existed, but he does say (Antiquities Book XVIII) that he knew of Christians who believed he had once existed and who in his own day continued to worship Jesus. If the existence of Jesus as a historical person is ever to be established, this passage will at least assist in that direction.
A:The original of this passage was simply part of the book by Flavius Josephus, known as Antiquities of the Jews, and for Josephus had no particular significance and was therefore written to no one in particular. Later Christians took the passage as proof that Jesus had actually lived and performed miracles, although the passage merely records that Josephus knew of Christians who believed it to be the case. In fact, it is probable that the original wording differed from the versions we now have.
Look at the writings attributed to Josephus. Doesn't it seem odd that he declares Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ, and yet seems so calm about the whole thing? In all of his writings, Jesus, the Messiah, gets only a paragraph? Doesn't make sense. This is obviously not the answer your teacher wants, but the reality is, according to every modern scholar, that Josephus wrote nothing at all about Jesus. The part that is attributed to Josephus is a clumsy forgery, probably inserted hundreds of years after Josephus' death.
In spite of incredible efforts to prove otherwise, Jesus was never mentioned in the Old Testament, either by name or in any way that would truly identify him. And the only extra-biblical mention of Jesus in the entire first century is in Antiquities of the Jews, published by Flavius Josephus at the end of the century. In this, he mentioned the Christians who worshipped a Jesus who seems to have been crucified, but this is based on knowledge of believers in his own day, not on even second-hand information about past events.
About the same.
It was Josephus.
Jesus is presumed real. The problem is that people often do not change their minds even after sufficient proof is offered. Josephus may have had sufficient proof that Jesus is God, but may not have converted anyway. How many people know smoking is bad, and even know that it will kill them, but continue to smoke anyway. Jesus was heard talking to a man named Thomas. Thomas knew for a fact that Jesus was God and proclaimed that he must be the most blessed person alive. Jesus corrected him saying that he only believed because he saw. Clarification: The Christian concept of 'messiah' does not exist in Judaism. The Hebrew word 'moshiach' literally means 'anointed' and was the title given to any person who was anointed with oil as part of their induction into serving HaShem (G-d).
There are texts from some non-Christian historians (and others), such as Josephus and Tacitus. For more details, check the Wikipedia article entitled "Historicity of Jesus". ---------- There is no contemporary evidence that Jesus was a real, historical person. Later authors, such as Josephus and Tacitus described the Christians who worshipped Jesus, but make no attempt to vouch for his historicity.
The Jewish historian Josephus wrote a history called Antiquities of the Jews, which includes a passage called the Testamonium Flavianum, which is believed to be authentic, although probably altered in the following centuries by pious Christians. One of the surviving versions of the Testamonium Flavianum says:About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.To what extent this reflects Josephus' original writing, it should be remembered that Josephus remained a pious Jew, who could scarcely have written this version of the Testamonium Flavianum as it now stands. The most we can probably say is that he was not antagonistic to the Christians and that he probably viewed Jesus to have been a man worthy of respect.
The Jewish historian Josephus is one of the major sources of factual, historical information about Jesus.
The renowned 1st century Jewish historian, Josephus, stated in the Testimonium Flavianum that Jesus did indeed have a mono-brow.
In Luke's Gospel, Jesus is said to have been found in the Temple talking to the priests and scribes, when he was only twelve years old, and amazing them with his knowledge. This the only such account in the canonical gospels and closely parallels Josephus' story of his own childhood in his The Life of Flavius Josephus. Given Luke's apparent reliance on Josephus for historical background, some scholars say that it is possible that the passage in Luke was really about Josephus.