At 01:10 PM 3/28/2008 -0300, Helio W. wrote:
>He doesn't indicate other sources, documents, etc. He just mention Jesus,
>respectfully like any evangelist would do.
>Probably his "citation" of Jesus is an interpolation.
Josephus was actually a fairly strong source in regards to historical facts
(in areas of Jewish and Roman history). Pretty much the primary criticism
of him is how he treated certain topics: it appeared he altered the "tone"
of relating events to gain favor with the Romans.
>Why there's no historical evidence, from different sources, of Jesus' life
>at the time he was persecuted and killed? All there is what was written
>60-70 years later, suspiciously from the same time when Paul started his
>preaching - biblical sources.
There are extra-Biblical sources. I previously mentioned a few.
Paul did not start 60-70 years later. He started his teaching/travelling
just a few years after Jesus's death (which was 30AD). Paul's letters were
mainly to churches he helped establish earlier on. So, naturally, those
would be maybe a decade or more after he first started. I think the
earliest manuscript of Paul's writings is from around 45-50 AD. And some of
the copies of other letters are dated back to 60-70 (so the originals of
those were written earlier).
Another reason given as to why it took even 20 years for the apostles to
begin writing is this: most of them were thinking Christ's return was
imminent - as in tomorrow (not the first time they've been a little off).
So they didn't feel they had to write it down (they were pretty busy
travelling and spreading the Gospel). And there wasn't really any external
pressure to have it written because, just like to day, an eyewitness is the
best and most reliable source of information.
>On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Wolfe, Stephen S Civ USAF AMC 6 MDSS/SGSI
><Stephen.Wolfe At macdill .D.O.T af.mil> wrote:
>
> > Why is Josephus pathetically weak? Explain please.
> >
> > v/r
©2008 Charlie Coleman |
