Chapter 4 (“Problems with Josephus”) of Michael J. Alter’s book contains a comprehensive discussion (50 pages) of the arguments relating to the TF’s authenticity. He sets out arguments in helpful tabular format, discusses the contributions of John Meir, Robert A. Van Voorst, Gary Goldberg, Ken Olson, Paul Hopper and others (Allen, Carrier, Doherty, Feldman, Leidner, Licona, Paget, Price, Shulman, Viklund, Whealey…) in addition to his own analysis.
Sixteen rebuttal arguments against authenticity of the TF are presented. But the question of authenticity is shown to be only one of the “problems with Josephus” regarding the historical Jesus.
That’s chapter 4 — here is the TOC for the rest of Volume 1:
1 Habermas and Licona’s First Minimal Fact: Jesus Died by Crucifixion—An Overview
2 Jesus Was Not Brain-Dead While On the Cross
3 Problems with the Gospels and Acts
4 Problems with Josephus
5 Problems with Mara bar Serapion
6 Problems with Tacitus
7 Additional Problems with the Gospels
8 Problems with the Gospel of John and Jesus’ Crucifixion 1
9 The Shroud of Turin
10 Medical Issues Continued
11 Islamic Theology and Jesus’ CrucifixionDid Jesus Die on the Cross?
12 Is Joseph of Arimathea Historical?
13 Was the Tomb Really Accessible?
14 Could the Disciples Preach an Empty Tomb in Jerusalem?
15 Why a Lack of Controversy Over the Tomb by the Public?
16 Why a Lack of Interest in the Tomb by Roman Leadership?
17 Why a Lack of Interest in the Tomb by the Jewish Authorities?
18 Was There Controversy About the Empty Tomb Among Jesus’ Followers?
19 What Were the Consequences of an Empty Tomb?
20 Three Alternative Possibilities
21 Interactions with Christian Apologists
Bruce Chilton writes the Foreword: This highly concentrated volume is only the first fruit of a series dedicated to “The Resurrection and Its Apologetics.” The care of this initial foray promises future volumes that are relentless in their argumentation, sharp in their polemics, and judicious in their selection of the evidence and the arguments presented.
- Alter, Michael J. 2024. The Resurrection and Its Apologetics: Jesus’ Death and Burial, Volume One. Resource Publications.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
How about this timeline for the fictional Jesus and a legit original TF which was later edited and/or added to by Eusebius (I’m no expert but have read widely and can at least make some arguments based on logical conclusions):
Josephus born circa 37 CE: the second son of Matthias, a Jerusalem temple priest who would have been well aware of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus and later rumors of resurrection had they really occurred, especially if the religion spread like wildfire after the Crucifixion as the Church later falsely claimed. Had they actually occurred, there is an excellent possibility Matthias would have directly witnessed all or parts of such events. Had they actually occurred, Matthias would later have passed his knowledge of the momentous events on to his illustrious son. Moreover, if Christians had really multiplied so rapidlym Josephus throughout his entire lifetime would’ve been plagued and pressured by them to convert. That was the point after all of the later gospels, especially Matthew who was writing to the Jews and invented the Slaughter of the Innocents trying to install in their minds a Moses meme.
Circa 50 AD: Jesus invented by Cephas (Peter) based on his and the visions of others, later Paul claims visions and co-invents Jesus. Even Cephas and Paul fought over what Jesus should “be.” Paul wrote that Jesus was made in heaven by God using the seed of David on un-named woman. So these original Christians emanating from the original Pauline sect would know nothing of Joseph/Mary, and would believe Jesus came down fully formed adult from heaven
(later generally called — and belittled — as “gnosticism” even though it comes directly from Paul. One variation eventually becoming the largest and most popular Christian contingent in the second century known as Marcionism. Marcion — not to be confused with Mark — actually being the first to publish a Testament including some of Paul’s epistles. If the historical Jesus born of Joseph and Mary was first, how could Marcion come along a century later with his instantly popular version — logically he should have been the proverbial “laughed out of town.” This means he already had a large already existing audience, namely the original Christians who “descended” from Paul. Instead, Marcion successfully published a Testament — Gospel of the Lord — in three languages and had a string of churches across Asia Minor).
63 CE: at 26 years of age Josephus travels to Rome to negotiate directly with Nero for the release of jewish hostages. So Josephus was personally acquainted with Nero, yet never writes of Nero’s persecution of Christians. The standard dating of Mark mentioning this is issuance of that gospel beginning circa 66 AD. If there were large enough groups of Christians to be considered a threat and murdered by Nero, Josephus would most certainly have written of this notorious episode in his later works. In reality there was no sizable amount of Christians thus no threat. By the late 2nd century Celsus was calling Christians “a small secretive sect that whispers in corners.” Critics have accused Mark of merely substituting the word “Christians” for Jews who were actually persecuted by Nero, as evidenced by the intervention of Josephus.
94 CE — publication of Antiquities and supposedly the TF. Some scholars have long argued there had to be an original TF which Eusebius later realized would cast doubt on the official story so altered it to the historicist view. It is at least possible that Josephus by this time near the end of his life (died 100 CE) had met up with some Christians, but what kind of Christians were they? The TF’s ultimately quite snide, slightly mocking and deprecating language infers not only what he thought of them, but that they MUST have been of the gnostic variety because that’s exactly the version of Jesus represented by TF’s phrase “if he could even be considered to be human” (paraphrasing). AKA what originated with Paul, Jesus being made in and descending fully formed from heaven.
Whatever the scenario to be considered here (if the TF is real or 100 percent inserted), had Josephus been presented with the Mary/Joseph historicist version AKA one or more of the four gospels he would’ve rejected the entire thing as hogwash.
Their variance with actual history is notorious: Josephus would’ve known there was no Slaughter of the Innocents/Matthew (in his works Josephus himself detailed Herod’s worst crimes. of which this would have been the WORST except it never happened);
that Jesus was never taken to the temple and declared Messiah/Luke at complete variance with Matthew;
that Nero not only didn’t persecute Christians he most likely knew nothing of them;
if presented with both Luke and Matthew, Josephus would have instantly noted the variances not to mention outright lies;
Josephus would’ve asked where is this Nazareth since it did not yet exist: Josephus’s map of Israel does not contain Nazareth, even though Josephus lived for a good amount of time in Jaffa just a mile or so away. Nazareth was later built in the second century by Christian monks atop Jaffa’s burial grounds.