Is a good atheist better then a bad christian?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a Roman historian, Tacitus did not have any Christian biases in his discussion of the persecution of Christians by Nero, says Ehrman. “Just about everything he says coincides—from a completely different point of view, by a Roman author disdainful of Christians and their superstition—with what the New Testament itself says: Jesus was executed by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, for crimes against the state, and a religious movement of his followers sprang up in his wake.”

Ehrman says this collection of snippets from non-Christian sources may not impart much information about the life of Jesus, “but it is useful for realizing that Jesus was known by historians who had reason to look into the matter. No one thought he was made up.”

Wow. I didnt know this.

He was born 22 years after the "crucifixion" so his accounts are all second-hand. Who are his sources? Who has translated and rewritten his writings over the subsequent centuries/millenia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a man of faith, Father Alliata seems at peace with what archaeology can—and cannot—reveal about Christianity’s central figure. “It will be something rare, strange, to have archaeological proof for [a specific person] 2,000 years ago,” he concedes, leaning back in his chair and folding his arms over his vestments. “But you can’t say Jesus doesn’t have a trace in history.”

But before I begin my pilgrimage, I need to probe an explosive question that lurks in the shadows of historical Jesus studies: Might it be possible that Jesus Christ never even existed, that the whole stained glass story is pure invention? It’s an assertion that’s championed by some outspoken skeptics—but not, I discovered, by scholars, particularly archaeologists, whose work tends to bring flights of fancy down to literal earth.

I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” said Eric Meyers, an archaeologist and emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University. “The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.”

I heard much the same from Byron McCane, an archaeologist and history professor at Florida Atlantic University. “I can think of no other example who fits into their time and place so well but people say doesn’t exist,” he said.

Even John Dominic Crossan, a former priest and co-chair of the Jesus Seminar, a controversial scholarly forum, believes the radical skeptics go too far. Granted, stories of Christ’s miraculous deeds—healing the sick with his words, feeding a multitude with a few morsels of bread and fish, even restoring life to a corpse four days dead—are hard for modern minds to embrace. But that’s no reason to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was a religious fable.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/12/jesus-tomb-archaeology/

It's certainly possible that he existed. But we don't know for sure. We just don't know one way or another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a Roman historian, Tacitus did not have any Christian biases in his discussion of the persecution of Christians by Nero, says Ehrman. “Just about everything he says coincides—from a completely different point of view, by a Roman author disdainful of Christians and their superstition—with what the New Testament itself says: Jesus was executed by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, for crimes against the state, and a religious movement of his followers sprang up in his wake.”

Ehrman says this collection of snippets from non-Christian sources may not impart much information about the life of Jesus, “but it is useful for realizing that Jesus was known by historians who had reason to look into the matter. No one thought he was made up.”

Wow. I didnt know this.

Tacitus wasn’t a Christian. You are deliberately ignoring that fact. Please don’t assume the mantle of fact and logic here because you are complaining ignoring all credible scholars and archeologists on this issue.

Also- are you understanding that to have archeological proof of a peasant from 2,000 years ago would be exceedingly rare? Jesus is contained in 2 of the best and most complete historical records of the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a man of faith, Father Alliata seems at peace with what archaeology can—and cannot—reveal about Christianity’s central figure. “It will be something rare, strange, to have archaeological proof for [a specific person] 2,000 years ago,” he concedes, leaning back in his chair and folding his arms over his vestments. “But you can’t say Jesus doesn’t have a trace in history.”

But before I begin my pilgrimage, I need to probe an explosive question that lurks in the shadows of historical Jesus studies: Might it be possible that Jesus Christ never even existed, that the whole stained glass story is pure invention? It’s an assertion that’s championed by some outspoken skeptics—but not, I discovered, by scholars, particularly archaeologists, whose work tends to bring flights of fancy down to literal earth.

I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” said Eric Meyers, an archaeologist and emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University. “The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.”

I heard much the same from Byron McCane, an archaeologist and history professor at Florida Atlantic University. “I can think of no other example who fits into their time and place so well but people say doesn’t exist,” he said.

Even John Dominic Crossan, a former priest and co-chair of the Jesus Seminar, a controversial scholarly forum, believes the radical skeptics go too far. Granted, stories of Christ’s miraculous deeds—healing the sick with his words, feeding a multitude with a few morsels of bread and fish, even restoring life to a corpse four days dead—are hard for modern minds to embrace. But that’s no reason to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was a religious fable.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/12/jesus-tomb-archaeology/

It's certainly possible that he existed. But we don't know for sure. We just don't know one way or another.

We do absolutely. You just don’t want to admit it and aren’t posting anything other than your opinion. There have been many posts that detail that it’s not questionable that Jesus was a man who walked the earth. I hope people read them and understand you aren’t intellectually honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a man of faith, Father Alliata seems at peace with what archaeology can—and cannot—reveal about Christianity’s central figure. “It will be something rare, strange, to have archaeological proof for [a specific person] 2,000 years ago,” he concedes, leaning back in his chair and folding his arms over his vestments. “But you can’t say Jesus doesn’t have a trace in history.”

But before I begin my pilgrimage, I need to probe an explosive question that lurks in the shadows of historical Jesus studies: Might it be possible that Jesus Christ never even existed, that the whole stained glass story is pure invention? It’s an assertion that’s championed by some outspoken skeptics—but not, I discovered, by scholars, particularly archaeologists, whose work tends to bring flights of fancy down to literal earth.

I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” said Eric Meyers, an archaeologist and emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University. “The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.”

I heard much the same from Byron McCane, an archaeologist and history professor at Florida Atlantic University. “I can think of no other example who fits into their time and place so well but people say doesn’t exist,” he said.

Even John Dominic Crossan, a former priest and co-chair of the Jesus Seminar, a controversial scholarly forum, believes the radical skeptics go too far. Granted, stories of Christ’s miraculous deeds—healing the sick with his words, feeding a multitude with a few morsels of bread and fish, even restoring life to a corpse four days dead—are hard for modern minds to embrace. But that’s no reason to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was a religious fable.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/12/jesus-tomb-archaeology/

It's certainly possible that he existed. But we don't know for sure. We just don't know one way or another.

“I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” said Eric Meyers, an archaeologist and emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University. “The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.” “

So what do you say to refute this archeologists and professor from Duke?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a man of faith, Father Alliata seems at peace with what archaeology can—and cannot—reveal about Christianity’s central figure. “It will be something rare, strange, to have archaeological proof for [a specific person] 2,000 years ago,” he concedes, leaning back in his chair and folding his arms over his vestments. “But you can’t say Jesus doesn’t have a trace in history.”

But before I begin my pilgrimage, I need to probe an explosive question that lurks in the shadows of historical Jesus studies: Might it be possible that Jesus Christ never even existed, that the whole stained glass story is pure invention? It’s an assertion that’s championed by some outspoken skeptics—but not, I discovered, by scholars, particularly archaeologists, whose work tends to bring flights of fancy down to literal earth.

I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” said Eric Meyers, an archaeologist and emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University. “The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.”

I heard much the same from Byron McCane, an archaeologist and history professor at Florida Atlantic University. “I can think of no other example who fits into their time and place so well but people say doesn’t exist,” he said.

Even John Dominic Crossan, a former priest and co-chair of the Jesus Seminar, a controversial scholarly forum, believes the radical skeptics go too far. Granted, stories of Christ’s miraculous deeds—healing the sick with his words, feeding a multitude with a few morsels of bread and fish, even restoring life to a corpse four days dead—are hard for modern minds to embrace. But that’s no reason to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was a religious fable.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/12/jesus-tomb-archaeology/

It's certainly possible that he existed. But we don't know for sure. We just don't know one way or another.

We do absolutely. You just don’t want to admit it and aren’t posting anything other than your opinion. There have been many posts that detail that it’s not questionable that Jesus was a man who walked the earth. I hope people read them and understand you aren’t intellectually honest.

Certainly NOT "absolutely". Where is the evidence? Again, it's possible that he lived, not saying that he didn't. Just that we don't know "absolutely".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a man of faith, Father Alliata seems at peace with what archaeology can—and cannot—reveal about Christianity’s central figure. “It will be something rare, strange, to have archaeological proof for [a specific person] 2,000 years ago,” he concedes, leaning back in his chair and folding his arms over his vestments. “But you can’t say Jesus doesn’t have a trace in history.”

But before I begin my pilgrimage, I need to probe an explosive question that lurks in the shadows of historical Jesus studies: Might it be possible that Jesus Christ never even existed, that the whole stained glass story is pure invention? It’s an assertion that’s championed by some outspoken skeptics—but not, I discovered, by scholars, particularly archaeologists, whose work tends to bring flights of fancy down to literal earth.

I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” said Eric Meyers, an archaeologist and emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University. “The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.”

I heard much the same from Byron McCane, an archaeologist and history professor at Florida Atlantic University. “I can think of no other example who fits into their time and place so well but people say doesn’t exist,” he said.

Even John Dominic Crossan, a former priest and co-chair of the Jesus Seminar, a controversial scholarly forum, believes the radical skeptics go too far. Granted, stories of Christ’s miraculous deeds—healing the sick with his words, feeding a multitude with a few morsels of bread and fish, even restoring life to a corpse four days dead—are hard for modern minds to embrace. But that’s no reason to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was a religious fable.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/12/jesus-tomb-archaeology/

It's certainly possible that he existed. But we don't know for sure. We just don't know one way or another.

“I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” said Eric Meyers, an archaeologist and emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University. “The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.” “

So what do you say to refute this archeologists and professor from Duke?

Where is their credible evidence? As a "religious scholar", he is inherently biased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Roman historian, Tacitus did not have any Christian biases in his discussion of the persecution of Christians by Nero, says Ehrman. “Just about everything he says coincides—from a completely different point of view, by a Roman author disdainful of Christians and their superstition—with what the New Testament itself says: Jesus was executed by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, for crimes against the state, and a religious movement of his followers sprang up in his wake.”

Ehrman says this collection of snippets from non-Christian sources may not impart much information about the life of Jesus, “but it is useful for realizing that Jesus was known by historians who had reason to look into the matter. No one thought he was made up.”

Wow. I didnt know this.

Tacitus wasn’t a Christian. You are deliberately ignoring that fact. Please don’t assume the mantle of fact and logic here because you are complaining ignoring all credible scholars and archeologists on this issue.

Also- are you understanding that to have archeological proof of a peasant from 2,000 years ago would be exceedingly rare? Jesus is contained in 2 of the best and most complete historical records of the time.

Yes, obviously it's very rare. The historical records are written by people born decades after the "crucifixion" and are second-hand accounts. Who were their sources? We don't have primary records. Who has translated and rewritten the historical accounts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Roman historian, Tacitus did not have any Christian biases in his discussion of the persecution of Christians by Nero, says Ehrman. “Just about everything he says coincides—from a completely different point of view, by a Roman author disdainful of Christians and their superstition—with what the New Testament itself says: Jesus was executed by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, for crimes against the state, and a religious movement of his followers sprang up in his wake.”

Ehrman says this collection of snippets from non-Christian sources may not impart much information about the life of Jesus, “but it is useful for realizing that Jesus was known by historians who had reason to look into the matter. No one thought he was made up.”

Wow. I didnt know this.

Tacitus wasn’t a Christian. You are deliberately ignoring that fact. Please don’t assume the mantle of fact and logic here because you are complaining ignoring all credible scholars and archeologists on this issue.

Also- are you understanding that to have archeological proof of a peasant from 2,000 years ago would be exceedingly rare? Jesus is contained in 2 of the best and most complete historical records of the time.

Yes, obviously it's very rare. The historical records are written by people born decades after the "crucifixion" and are second-hand accounts. Who were their sources? We don't have primary records. Who has translated and rewritten the historical accounts?

You can apply your standard to every historical document ever written. Documents from 2,000 years ago haven’t all been translated? Really? Claiming that makes you even less credible than before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Roman historian, Tacitus did not have any Christian biases in his discussion of the persecution of Christians by Nero, says Ehrman. “Just about everything he says coincides—from a completely different point of view, by a Roman author disdainful of Christians and their superstition—with what the New Testament itself says: Jesus was executed by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, for crimes against the state, and a religious movement of his followers sprang up in his wake.”

Ehrman says this collection of snippets from non-Christian sources may not impart much information about the life of Jesus, “but it is useful for realizing that Jesus was known by historians who had reason to look into the matter. No one thought he was made up.”

Wow. I didnt know this.

Tacitus wasn’t a Christian. You are deliberately ignoring that fact. Please don’t assume the mantle of fact and logic here because you are complaining ignoring all credible scholars and archeologists on this issue.

Also- are you understanding that to have archeological proof of a peasant from 2,000 years ago would be exceedingly rare? Jesus is contained in 2 of the best and most complete historical records of the time.

Yes, obviously it's very rare. The historical records are written by people born decades after the "crucifixion" and are second-hand accounts. Who were their sources? We don't have primary records. Who has translated and rewritten the historical accounts?

You can apply your standard to every historical document ever written. Documents from 2,000 years ago haven’t all been translated? Really? Claiming that makes you even less credible than before.

You think that history is never rewritten/tweaked? The earliest known manuscript for Tacitus was written by Christian monks 800 years later.

[Anonymous]

Off topic here. Start a new thread.

[Anonymous]

Josephus recorded Jewish history, with special emphasis on the first century CE and the First Jewish–Roman War (66–70 CE),[7] including the Siege of Masada. His most important works were The Jewish War (c. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94).[8] The Jewish War recounts the Jewish revolt against Roman occupation. Antiquities of the Jews recounts the history of the world from a Jewish perspective for an ostensibly Greek and Roman audience. These works provide valuable insight into first century Judaism and the background of Early Christianity,[8] and are the chief source next to the Bible for the history and antiquity of ancient Palestine.[9]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

The works of Josephus include useful material for historians about individuals, groups, customs, and geographical places. Josephus mentions that in his day there were 240 towns and villages scattered across Upper and Lower Galilee,[35] some of which he names. A few of the Jewish customs named by him include the practice of hanging a curtain of fine-linen at the entrance to one's house,[36] and the Jewish custom to partake of a Sabbath-day's meal around the sixth-hour of the day (at noon).[37] He notes also that it was permissible for Jewish men to marry many wives (polygamy).[38] His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He describes the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and to Jesus (for more see Josephus on Jesus).[39] Josephus represents an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

A careful reading of Josephus's writings and years of excavation allowed Ehud Netzer, an archaeologist from Hebrew University, to discover what he considered to be the location of Herod's Tomb, after a search of 35 years.[40] It was above aqueducts and pools, at a flattened desert site, halfway up the hill to the Herodium, 12 km south of Jerusalem—as described in Josephus's writings.[41] In October 2013, archaeologists Joseph Patrich and Benjamin Arubas challenged the identification of the tomb as that of Herod.[42] According to Patrich and Arubas, the tomb is too modest to be Herod's and has several unlikely features.[42] Roi Porat, who replaced Netzer as excavation leader after the latter's death, stood by the identification.[42]

Manuscripts, textual criticism, and editions
Edit
For many years, the works of Josephus were largely known in Europe only in an imperfect Latin translation from the original Greek. Only in 1544 did a version of the standard Greek text become available in French, edited by the Dutch humanist Arnoldus Arlenius. The first English translation, by Thomas Lodge, appeared in 1602, with subsequent editions appearing throughout the 17th century. The 1544 Greek edition formed the basis of the 1732 English translation by William Whiston, which achieved enormous popularity in the English-speaking world. It was often the book—after the Bible—that Christians most frequently owned. A cross-reference apparatus for Whiston's version of Josephus and the biblical canon also exists.[43][44] Whiston claimed that certain works by Josephus had a similar style to the Epistles of St Paul.[45]

Later editions of the Greek text include that of Benedikt Niese, who made a detailed examination of all the available manuscripts, mainly from France and Spain. Henry St. John Thackeray used Niese's version for the Loeb Classical Library edition widely used today.

The standard editio maior of the various Greek manuscripts is that of Benedictus Niese, published 1885–95. The text of Antiquities is damaged in some places. In the Life, Niese follows mainly manuscript P, but refers also to AMW and R. Henry St. John Thackeray for the Loeb Classical Library has a Greek text also mainly dependent on P.[citation needed] André Pelletier edited a new Greek text for his translation of Life. The ongoing Münsteraner Josephus-Ausgabe of Münster University will provide a new critical apparatus. There also exist late Old Slavonic translations of the Greek, but these contain a large number of Christian interpolations.[46]

So you are saying Josephus isn’t up to your personal standards for historical documentation?

Really? He’s not good enough for you?

[Anonymous]

Tacitus

Tacitus makes use of the official sources of the Roman state: the acta senatus (the minutes of the sessions of the Senate) and the acta diurna populi Romani (a collection of the acts of the government and news of the court and capital). He also read collections of emperors' speeches, such as those of Tiberius and Claudius. He is generally seen[by whom?] as a scrupulous historian who paid careful attention to his sources. The minor inaccuracies in the Annals may be due to Tacitus dying before he had finished (and therefore before he had proof-read) his work.

Tacitus cites some of his sources directly, among them Cluvius Rufus, Fabius Rusticus and Pliny the Elder, who had written Bella Germaniae and a historical work which was the continuation of that of Aufidius Bassus. Tacitus also uses collections of letters (epistolarium). He also took information from exitus illustrium virorum. These were a collection of books by those who were antithetical to the emperors. They tell of sacrifices by martyrs to freedom, especially the men who committed suicide. While he places no value on the Stoic theory of suicide and views suicides as ostentatious and politically useless, Tacitus often gives prominence to speeches made by those about to commit suicide, for example Cremutius Cordus' speech in Ann. IV, 34–35.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus

Perhaps to clear things up you should provide primary accounts of historical documentation from 2,000 years ago that refute Tacitus and Josephus. Primary accounts that have never been translated that prove there was no Jesus.

I am sure you can link to those and prove he never existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tacitus

Tacitus makes use of the official sources of the Roman state: the acta senatus (the minutes of the sessions of the Senate) and the acta diurna populi Romani (a collection of the acts of the government and news of the court and capital). He also read collections of emperors' speeches, such as those of Tiberius and Claudius. He is generally seen[by whom?] as a scrupulous historian who paid careful attention to his sources. The minor inaccuracies in the Annals may be due to Tacitus dying before he had finished (and therefore before he had proof-read) his work.

Tacitus cites some of his sources directly, among them Cluvius Rufus, Fabius Rusticus and Pliny the Elder, who had written Bella Germaniae and a historical work which was the continuation of that of Aufidius Bassus. Tacitus also uses collections of letters (epistolarium). He also took information from exitus illustrium virorum. These were a collection of books by those who were antithetical to the emperors. They tell of sacrifices by martyrs to freedom, especially the men who committed suicide. While he places no value on the Stoic theory of suicide and views suicides as ostentatious and politically useless, Tacitus often gives prominence to speeches made by those about to commit suicide, for example Cremutius Cordus' speech in Ann. IV, 34–35.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus

Perhaps to clear things up you should provide primary accounts of historical documentation from 2,000 years ago that refute Tacitus and Josephus. Primary accounts that have never been translated that prove there was no Jesus.

I am sure you can link to those and prove he never existed.

I'm not saying they are wrong or should be refuted, just that they can't be confirmed and aren't really "evidence". These manuscripts are hearsay, at best.

And there was certainly the possibility of tweaking between the time they were supposedly written until the earliest known manuscripts. Either intentionally or accidentally translated incorrectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Josephus recorded Jewish history, with special emphasis on the first century CE and the First Jewish–Roman War (66–70 CE),[7] including the Siege of Masada. His most important works were The Jewish War (c. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94).[8] The Jewish War recounts the Jewish revolt against Roman occupation. Antiquities of the Jews recounts the history of the world from a Jewish perspective for an ostensibly Greek and Roman audience. These works provide valuable insight into first century Judaism and the background of Early Christianity,[8] and are the chief source next to the Bible for the history and antiquity of ancient Palestine.[9]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

The works of Josephus include useful material for historians about individuals, groups, customs, and geographical places. Josephus mentions that in his day there were 240 towns and villages scattered across Upper and Lower Galilee,[35] some of which he names. A few of the Jewish customs named by him include the practice of hanging a curtain of fine-linen at the entrance to one's house,[36] and the Jewish custom to partake of a Sabbath-day's meal around the sixth-hour of the day (at noon).[37] He notes also that it was permissible for Jewish men to marry many wives (polygamy).[38] His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He describes the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and to Jesus (for more see Josephus on Jesus).[39] Josephus represents an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

A careful reading of Josephus's writings and years of excavation allowed Ehud Netzer, an archaeologist from Hebrew University, to discover what he considered to be the location of Herod's Tomb, after a search of 35 years.[40] It was above aqueducts and pools, at a flattened desert site, halfway up the hill to the Herodium, 12 km south of Jerusalem—as described in Josephus's writings.[41] In October 2013, archaeologists Joseph Patrich and Benjamin Arubas challenged the identification of the tomb as that of Herod.[42] According to Patrich and Arubas, the tomb is too modest to be Herod's and has several unlikely features.[42] Roi Porat, who replaced Netzer as excavation leader after the latter's death, stood by the identification.[42]

Manuscripts, textual criticism, and editions
Edit
For many years, the works of Josephus were largely known in Europe only in an imperfect Latin translation from the original Greek. Only in 1544 did a version of the standard Greek text become available in French, edited by the Dutch humanist Arnoldus Arlenius. The first English translation, by Thomas Lodge, appeared in 1602, with subsequent editions appearing throughout the 17th century. The 1544 Greek edition formed the basis of the 1732 English translation by William Whiston, which achieved enormous popularity in the English-speaking world. It was often the book—after the Bible—that Christians most frequently owned. A cross-reference apparatus for Whiston's version of Josephus and the biblical canon also exists.[43][44] Whiston claimed that certain works by Josephus had a similar style to the Epistles of St Paul.[45]

Later editions of the Greek text include that of Benedikt Niese, who made a detailed examination of all the available manuscripts, mainly from France and Spain. Henry St. John Thackeray used Niese's version for the Loeb Classical Library edition widely used today.

The standard editio maior of the various Greek manuscripts is that of Benedictus Niese, published 1885–95. The text of Antiquities is damaged in some places. In the Life, Niese follows mainly manuscript P, but refers also to AMW and R. Henry St. John Thackeray for the Loeb Classical Library has a Greek text also mainly dependent on P.[citation needed] André Pelletier edited a new Greek text for his translation of Life. The ongoing Münsteraner Josephus-Ausgabe of Münster University will provide a new critical apparatus. There also exist late Old Slavonic translations of the Greek, but these contain a large number of Christian interpolations.[46]

So you are saying Josephus isn’t up to your personal standards for historical documentation?

Really? He’s not good enough for you?

Written ~100 years after the crucification. All hearsay.

You think the manuscripts are 100% authentic? No tweaks, errors, or interpolations?