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.
It seems much easier to understand the New Testament and Josephus if one simply assumes there was a first century Jesus going around Judea like John the Baptizer preaching the coming kingdom of God. This type of preaching was, by its very nature, sedition against Rome, no matter how much Paul and the later authors tried to play down this sedition. Even Paul’s preaching was seditious in that it sees the heavenly Jesus returning and overthrowing the current world order of Rome. So one need not even imagine a violent insurgent like Jesus Barabbas to know that Jesus, like John the Baptizer, would be executed for his preaching. And everything else in the New Testament and Josephus follows on that, no matter how garbled, interpolated, and fictional it may be. One need not make it any harder than that.
That may be a simple story indeed. But is it not simpler, yet, to take the gospel narrative as a slightly exaggerated true story and Josephus as being a mostly reliable reporter of the same? Why add the complication of it all being some kind of hidden code for a rebel?
One can say it seems much easier to understand the world if we believe simplistic black and white stories about others. The point of historical research, or research of any kind, is to uncover the actual data and evidence that we have and seek to explain that in the simplest way possible.
If Jesus was like other rebel bandits of the day, then why did not peaceful religions grow out of their movements? Why only Jesus — about whom we have no evidence of banditry (unless we read some biblical passages contrary to their contexts)? Seeking hidden meanings or counter-stories behind the stories that we have to explain things does not seem to me to be the simplest way to handle evidence.
Why add the complication of their being a hidden code for a rebel? I don’t know that Jesus being a rebel has ever been hidden. The only question was “what kind of rebel?” After discovering the Dead Sea Scrolls it became evident that there was significant overlap in themes and terminology between the militant Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. And this called more into question the traditional understanding of the New Testament that Jesus was non militant, with the possibility of their being a “hidden code” or a “parable”.
I don’t think understanding the New Testament is “simplistic.” But I do think the New Testament is simpler to explain if one assumes an historical Jesus, and an historical Paul who wrote (or dictated) his seven authentic letters. It is just simpler to explain with these two assumptions.
I don’t think a “peaceful” religion did grow out of the original Jesus movement. I think the militant Book of Revelation grew out of the original Jesus movement. Paul, however, took that militant vision in a slightly different direction so that he could win Gentiles to the movement and collect money for the Poor Saints. But even for Paul, the militant world rule of Jesus and God were only delayed until the full harvest of the Gentiles was come in. One had to watch. But Peter, James, and John could not watch, not even one hour (according to Mark).
I don’t see the DSS as testifying to any militancy among the readers or guardians of those scrolls. Go back to Daniel — we have apocalyptic visions of God’s vengeance, but none of those translate to instructions for believers to take up arms and fight here and now. The opposite is the case. The apocalyptic violence is the reward for submissive martyrdom here and now.
Sometimes cults, if they believe the time is at hand, will act out their fantasies. Josephus and Tacitus report that what motivated the Jews to rebel against Rome was an ambiguous prophecy that one from their own country would rule the world. For Josephus this was an “ambiguous prophecy” because the Jewish rebels took the prophecy as referring to themselves, but in “truth” Josephus said it referred to Vespasian, who was proclaimed emperor (ruler of the world) while still in Judea. I think Josephus was thinking of Numbers 24:17-19. And 1QM 11.5-9, the War Scroll, refers to this same “ambiguous” prophecy. This was a “true” prophecy, but the rebels received it with pleasure when they believed it referred to themselves.
I was persuaded by Steve Mason on this point: https://vridar.org/2018/11/30/is-josephus-evidence-that-a-messianic-movement-caused-the-jewish-war/
and the evidence of no radical militant movement in time of Tiberius:
https://vridar.org/2018/10/25/under-tiberius-all-was-quiet-or-no-jesus-was-not-one-of-many/
Are you sure about any cults taking up violent attacks on others as militant forces to act out their end-times fantasies, though? I know of some that faced being murdered by others or committing suicide when expecting an end to their group.
Good point about “cults” committing suicide when expecting an end to their group, with the Judas Sicariots on Masada coming to mind. But I was also thinking about zealot nationalist religious movements like the Maccabees. They get pushed to the limit, then they rebel. The Jesus movement in the time of Jesus was of course small (a cult following), and so it would have went under the radar. And it may even have been non-violent at that time, other than causing some protest disturbance at the Temple. But that movement grew to many thousands in the last years of Paul (Acts 21:20-22) and evidently was violent (Acts 22:21-13). And the Judas Sicariots of the Way conspired with the Zealot chief priests of the Way to betray and murder Paul (Acts 23:11-14) for teaching against the Law, and for spending the collection for the Poor on himself (or so they “wickedly” thought, according to the parable of Mark 14).
Thanks for the two links, Neil. They look very interesting. I am reading now.
And the Judas Sicariots of the Way conspired with the Zealot chief priests of the Way to betray and murder Paul (Acts 23:11-14) for teaching against the Law, and for spending the collection for the Poor on himself (or so they “wickedly” thought, according to the parable of Mark 14).
Note that it is not just Mark and the other Gospels that need to read as parable, but also Acts. Needless to say the pro-Roman high priests would not have conspired with the Judas Sicariots to murder Paul and his Roman guards (or to ask for the release of Jesus Barabbas). But they would have complained to the governor that Paul was spreading this seditious teaching throughout the world (Acts 24:5 Douay-Rheims).
There is nothing historical about Acts. It is second century fiction. The scenes are borrowed from the gospels and created partly to denigrate Christians opposed to Luke’s ecumenical agenda.
I have read both links, and I think for the most part they are reasonable, and I agree the real disturbances of the Zealots and Sicarii happened in the latter years of Paul, the 50s and the 60s. And Mark, when he writes his parabolic Gospel, is actually looking back on that time, and the difficulties Paul had with the scribes, Pharisees (separatists), zealot chief priests, and Judas Sicariots of the Jerusalem Way of James. However, I do think the “ambiguous prophecy” that Josephus was referring to was the “star prophecy” of Numbers 24:17-20 and the War Scroll 1QM 11.5-9. Daniel 7:27 is also highly significant, the Romans having replaced the Seleucid Greeks as the oppressor, and Daniel reinterpreted to apply to that later time.