Examining Ehteshaam Gulam's Deceptive Use of Josephus

Here Gulam attempts to use Jesus' non-existence arguments against the historicity of the crucifixion. By dismissing the non-Christian evidence as such (in line with the extremely unsound hypothesis of G.A. Wells he cites in Who Was Jesus?) he is dehistoricizing Jesus. This approach is rather unsound.

The manner by which he approaches this is a clear demonstration of his inadequacy in historical investigation and complete ignorance of historical scholarship. For Josephus' accounts he states:

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

As is evident in his first sentence he is tainted greatly by the fringe Christ Myth theorists. He states Flavius was the earliest non-Christian to mention "a Jesus". Josephus mentions other Jesus' who we know are not the historical Jesus we have in mind. For example, there is Jesus the son of Sapphias (Wars 20.4.566) and Jesus the brother of John (Antiquities 7.1.298). Any reading of the primary source material (Josephus' various texts) or secondary text will make this fact abundantly clear.

The second point made is that, "many scholars" believe that Josephus' mentions of Jesus of Nazareth came from later interpolations. This is simply incorrect. Most scholars do not think this.

The shorter mention of Jesus:

... so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others,[1]

In line with the New Testament accounts we have James the brother of Jesus. This mention is not doubted by any major scholar as anything other than authentic. Also to note, this text is recounting a history that we do not find in the New Testament. Therefore, we have reliable extra-biblical witness to the events of Jesus and his early ministry.

This text in light of Gulam's snide 'a Jesus' remark makes it clear that this Jesus (of others mentioned in Josephus) is the Jesus we are after. The brother of James and the one who was called the Messiah (Christ).

Regarding the authenticity:

"Josephus (Ant. 20.200) describes how the high priest Ananus took advantage of the death of the Roman governor Festus in A.D. 62 to organize a mob to stone James, whom he identifies as "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ." Few scholars have questioned the genuineness of this passage."
Professor Edwin M. Yamauchi

The next mention of Jesus is where we have some problems. This is a longer text that shows some Christian embelishment. However, the fact that Josephus mentioned Jesus here is not a question of doubt.

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek [meaning “Gentile,” that is, non-Jewish] origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day, the tribe of Chris tians (named after him) has not died out.

What do scholars have to say on the authenticity?

"In the part of this embellished text that VIRTUALLY ALL REGARD AS AUTHENTIC Josephus describes Jesus as a teacher and wonderworker who was accused by the leading men (i.e., ruling priests) before the Roman governor."
Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans, Jacob Neusner, 'The Missing Jesus' p.21

So, from Josephus we can take away 10 facts that most scholars agree upon:

(1) Jesus was known as a wise and virtuous man, one recognized for his good conduct. (2) He had many disciples, both Jews and Gentiles. (3) Pilate condemned him to die, (4) with crucifixion explicitly being mentioned as the mode. (5) The disciples reported that Jesus had risen from the dead and (6) that he had appeared to them on the third day after his crucifixion. (7) Consequently, the disciples continued to proclaim his teachings. (8) Perhaps Jesus was the Messiah concerning whom the Old Testament prophets spoke and predicted wonders. We would add here two facts from Josephus’ earlier quotation as well. (9) Jesus was the brother of James and (10) was called the messiah by some.[2]

Gulam goes on to say that the source was probably Chrisitans anyway - however, this need not be so. A probable scenario as suggested by Marcus Borg is that "he learned about Jesus from non-Christian Jews, probably before moving to Rome in the 60s. Perhaps this is how non-Christian Jews commonly spoke about Jesus." (Marcus Borg, Jesus p.31)

As is evident, the scholars present a very different picture to that Gulam would insist everyone think

_______
1. Josephus, Flavius ; Whiston, William: The Works of Josephus : Complete and Unabridged. Peabody : Hendrickson, 1996, c1987, S. Ant 20.200
2. Habermas, Gary R. ; Habermas, Gary R.: The Historical Jesus : Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin, Mo. : College Press Pub. Co., 1996, S. 195

Who was Jesus? A Christian-Muslim Debate

The Cost of Discipleship (Matthew 10:34-38)

Some commentaries on Matthew 10:34-49

10:34. Throughout the next section (vv. 34–39) the focus is upon the absolute priority of one’s relationship to Jesus (note the personal pronouns “I,” “me,” and “my”). The tone of the section is set by Jesus’ startling announcement that the purpose of his coming was not to bring peace, but a sword. The words are intended to counter the faulty notion (μὴ νομίσητε, mē nomisēte, cf. 5:17) that Jesus’ messianic vocation means that an era of peace and tranquility has now come. Although some Jewish traditions anticipated an age of peace when the Messiah arrives (see Isa 9:5–7; 11:6; 66:25; Zech 9:9–10; 1 Chr 22:9; cf. Luke 2:14), the peace that Jesus offers does not insure the absence of conflict or social disruptions. In fact, Jesus has not come to bring a stability associated with the absence of fighting, but rather his presence provokes a hostility associated with open warfare. The symbol of the “sword,” not the “dove,” is more appropriate when describing the impact of Jesus’ messianic vocation. The metaphor of “sword” is not intended to convey the use of violent force, but symbolizes divided loyalties, even within family units, because of the demands of the kingdom. As the next two verses make clear (vv. 35–36), the closest of human relationships are sometimes divided by the “sword” that Jesus brings.

10:35–36. Jesus’ coming has the effect of turning members of the same household against one another. Using the language of Micah 7:6 (see v. 21), Jesus envisions discord and animosity among family members because the message of the kingdom places people in a crisis of decision, either for or against. Basic conventional norms and loyalties are shattered by the priority of the kingdom of God as announced by Jesus. There is no neutrality or mutual toleration, one either responds favorably to the message or violently rejects it. The result is that a man’s enemies will be members of his own household. Such disruptions are inevitable in households because light and darkness cannot mutually coexist.

10:37. In the midst of such conflict and the loss of familial security it is tempting to compromise one’s loyalties. However, Jesus insists that absolute priority must be given one’s relationship to him, even over family ties. In other words, when the “sword” of the kingdom results in family divisions the disciple must make his allegiance clear. The failure to be aligned with Jesus, even against family members, means the forfeiture of one’s status as a disciple (=not worthy of me). Jesus’ demand of total allegiance on such a personal level is certainly unprecedented within the rabbinic tradition.

10:38–39. The extravagant devotion called for by Jesus in verse 37 is graphically spelled out in verses 38–39. The vivid metaphorical reference to taking up one’s cross captures the imagery of a condemned man forced to carry the means of his own execution. Jesus charges the one who would follow him to actively take up the cross and follow him in a voluntary act of self-denial and obedience. Their solidarity with Jesus demands that the disciples walk the same path of sacrificial obedience. As noted by Hagner: “Taking up one’s cross refers not to the personal problems or difficulties of life that one must bear, as it is sometimes used in common parlance, but to a radical obedience that entails self-denial and, indeed, a dying to self. To take up one’s cross is to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, who is the model of such radical obedience and self-denial (cf. 4:1–11).”¹¹ With these words Jesus has provided the most explicit reference to the violent fate that awaits him (cf. 16:21–24). The paradoxical saying of verse 39 reinforces the message of verse 38 and puts it into proper perspective.¹² If the disciples are to emulate Jesus’ sacrificial ministry they must embrace a perspective wherein “life” for Jesus’ sake is perceived as of greater value than even one’s physical life. While alignment with Jesus may result in the sacrifice of one’s present life, in the end the faithful disciple reaps the reward of eternal life. It is thus in the interest of life in the fullest that the disciple fearlessly faces the prospects of death.

¹¹ Hagner, Matthew, p. 293.

¹² Weaver, Missionary Discourse, p. 116.

Chouinard, Larry: Matthew. Joplin, Mo. : College Press, 1997 (The College Press NIV Commentary), S. Mt 10:34

The Cost of Discipleship

10:34.
It was generally believed that there would be great sufferings before the end, and that the Messiah would lead his people in a triumphant war, followed by a time of peace. Jesus assures his listeners that the promised era of peace is yet some time off and goes on to explain the nature of the current sufferings and conflict.

10:35–36.
The context of Micah 7:6, cited here, describes the awful evils in the land and the untrustworthiness of even the closest relatives and friends that would continue until the Lord would come to vindicate those who hoped in him. Given the belief held by many Jewish people that a time of sufferings would precede the end, the disciples would probably have understood this saying as suggesting that they were already experiencing the sufferings of that time.

10:37.
Jesus here expounds on the text just cited (Mic 7:6) to make a point virtually inconceivable to most of his hearers. Loving family members, especially parents, was one of the highest duties in Judaism; the only one who could rightfully demand greater love was God himself (Deut 6:4–5; cf. Deut 13:6–11; 2 Macc 7:22–23).

10:38.
A condemned criminal would carry on his back the horizontal beam of the cross out to the site of his execution, generally amid an antagonistic, jeering mob. This verse means a shameful, painful road to a dreadful execution.

10:39.
Most Jewish people contrasted the life of this world with the life of the world to come.

Keener, Craig S. ; InterVarsity Press: The IVP Bible Background Commentary : New Testament. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1993, S. Mt 10:32-39

A Price to Pay 10:34–39

As noted above in the preview of the unit, verses 34–39 stress the high cost of following Jesus. Matthew has combined several shorter sayings here (cf. Luke 12:49–53; 14:25–33; 17:33). In the first saying (vv. 34–36), Jesus speaks of the conflict (sword) that his mission evokes and contrasts this with the peace expected in the messianic era (cf. Isa. 9:2–6). The source of this conflict is the need to decide for or against Jesus, which divides households right down the middle. As a result, family members may turn against each other, a situation described with language from Micah 7:6 (cf. v. 21).

The second saying (vv. 37–38) continues to address the topic of family opposition, making it clear that discipleship must take precedence over all other relationships (cf. the even stronger language in Luke 14:26). In this saying we find the first of two references in Matthew to taking up one’s cross (cf. 16:24). Here the metaphor denotes a readiness to endure family hostility—and the violent end to which that ultimately might lead. The final saying, on finding and losing one’s life (v. 39), is found in one form or another in all four of the gospels (cf. Mark 8:35; Luke 17:33; John 12:25). According to Jesus, faithful witnesses who endure maryrdom will find life anew in the kingdom. Those who deny Jesus to preserve their lives, however, will lose the life that matters most.

Gardner, Richard B.: Matthew. Scottdale, Pa. : Herald Press, 1991 (Believers Church Bible Commentary), S. 178

Constantine and Christianity

Dr Greg Clarke of the Centre for Public Christianity discusses Constantine and early Christianity with Emeritus Professor Edwin Judge. This is just one of a number of interviews with Professor Judge on a number of historical issues and their relation to Christianity which can be found here.

Importance of the Historicity of Jesus (Quote)

"...despite numerous attempts in this century to turn Christianity into a philosophy of life, it is and has always been a historical religion - one that depends on certain foundational events, particularly the death and resurrection of Jesus, as having happened in space and time.

A faith that does not ground the Christ of personal experience in the Jesus of history is a form of docetic or gnostic heresy, for it implies that what actually happened in and during Jesus' life is inconsequential to Christian faith."

Ben Witherington III, 'The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth' p.11

Brief Commentary: Was Jesus Crucified? (Answering-Christian-Claims.com)

The claim by Ehteshaam Gulam of answering-Christian-claims goes:

Some Christian Apologetics claim that Jesus had to have been killed on the cross, due to the historical record. They claim that there are several documents in the 1st century that prove that Jesus was crucified. However the fact is that these "sources" of the crucifixion of Jesus come from authors who lived after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus.none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence for any alleged crucifixion of Jesus. There were over 60 historians in the 1st century in the Roman world. Yet only two non-Christian sources in the entire 1st century mention that Jesus was crucified. Here I'll analyze both Josephus and Tacitus sources and explain why they shouldn't be trusted as evidence.

Interestingly enough, a Muslim who bases their belief in the actions of Muhammad from traditions penned hundreds of years after the death of Muhammad is attacking the reliability of first century historians. The crucifixion of Jesus in the minds of even the most skeptical of historians is seen as a historical fact. As stated by John Dominic Crossan, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.”[1]

We are informed that there were over 60 historians in the Roman world in the first century, yet we only have two non-Christians recording Jesus’ crucifixion. I invited anyone to take note of the size of the Roman Empire within the first century here. Now, tell me the logic behind expecting every non-Christian historian to record an event that occurred on the outskirts of the Empire in a region not even seen worthy enough to be ruled by the senatorial class or aristocracy of Rome.

If we look at what we do have, we have a substantial number of independent historical witnesses that testify to the crucifixion of Christ.

The author then goes on to dismiss Josephus and Tacitus without any solid justification. because they were not primary witnesses to the event. They claim that “many scholars’ believe Josephus’ reference to Jesus to be interpolations. This is incorrect, and a misrepresentation of textual critical scholarship on Josephus. It is to be noted, that the majority of scholars believe Josephus to have authentically mentioned Jesus and his crucifixion. The claims of interpolation refer to embellishments such as admission of Jesus being the Christ. To dismiss Josephus’ account on this bases is scholarly dishonest.

Furthermore, without establishing reasons against the historicity of Josephus and Tacitus they are simply dismissed for writing after the event. In fact, they go as far to say that Christians “unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself.” With regard to this, I hate to point out that all literary historical evidence is composed after the event. That is why it is history and not the present – or a real-time media source such as a photograph or video from the first century.

As all historians know, simply dismissing a historical source as hearsay for being composed within a generation or two is simply bad history. This is especially significant in the case where oral testimony of historical matters was generally reliable and the true way in which the people of the time engaged in history. It is not Christian apologists who embarrass themselves by allegedly abandoning historical method but our Muslim friend. In short, no reason to reject the historical evidence is presented.

Our friend then turns to the Bible to prove his point, and I shall touch on this briefly before I end this part:

Now it gets interesting, nowhere in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John does it say that Jesus was resurrected. In the words of Dr.Naik "Not a single verse in any of the Gospels mention that Jesus was resurrected."

This is very interesting, especially as the historical account for the resurrection is so firmly grounded in these texts. I am sure this is another semantics game – although the text clearly and repeatedly state that Jesus was crucified, died, buried, rose again and visisted the disciples – it did not happen unless the text states verbatim “Jesus was resurrected on Easter.”

If we turn to the Gospel of John, for example:

1. Jesus is crucified and died:

When he had received the sour wine, Jesus said, “It is completed!” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

John 19:30

2. Jesus was checked and confirmed dead:

But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

John 19:33

3. Just incase they double checked:

But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out immediately.

John 19:34

4. Jesus’ body was laid in a tomb:

And so, because it was the Jewish day of preparation and the tomb was nearby, they placed Jesus’ body there.

John 19:42

5. The tomb is then found empty:

So she went running to Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved and told them, “They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

John 20:2

6. Jesus was then alive, visiting his disciples who confirmed the marks of his crucifixion:

When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.

John 20:20

Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and examine my hands. Extend your hand and put it into my side. Do not continue in your unbelief, but believe.

John 20:27

This reminds me of an explicit resurrection. Some might even say that the text talks about that Jesus rose from the dead and the disciples were not expecting it, “For they did not yet understand the scripture that Jesus must rise from the dead.” (John 20:9)

…To be continued

See also:

• Can we take the resurrection seriously? (Video with Dr John Dickson)

---

[1] Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145.

A 'Scholarly' Polemic/Apologetic site?

Another Muslim site that I probably would never have come across if David Wood had not debated its author. Wood recently debated Ehteshaam Gulam on the topic of Was Jesus Crucified?

What they do right...

I empathise with the motives of the site. Gulam wishes to propagate his beliefs and he wishes to do so at a convincing academic and scholarly level:

Because here I use the best scholarship possible to respond to various claims about Christianity and Islam. This site is a “academic” site in favor of Islam.[1]

This claim seems to be a hallmark which is often appealed to. Of course, it is a noble idea and he attempts to carry it out with integrity. For example, Gulam reviews the book What Did Jesus Really Say by Misha’al Ibn Abdullah. Gulam takes the initiative to critique the complete disregard for solid scholarship of a fellow Muslims polemicist against Christianity which is something I do not see from most amateur Muslim polemicists.

However, although he can recognise the flaws in other polemics what if we were to turn the light on his use of scholarship? It is one thing to claim to endorse a scholarly approach - and it is also another thing to employ it within your own writings.

Who are the scholars?

As a student of history, specifically Second Temple Judaism, Sectarian writings and Early Christianity, I am well aware of where the mainstream of academic scholarship stands. When illinformed critics present outdated and generally poor arguments about Christainity I can get rather irritated. So at the forefront of my mind when applying this historical method to early Islam, I am always conscious of where my sources stand within the generally accepted scholarly view.

In observing the references of Gulam's site, it seems his claims are far from the scholarly level he wishes to believe in. His main references seem to be those of fringe scholars at best, and often people who are neither scholars nor proficient in the topic they present. Among them:

• Richard Carrier
• Robert Funk
  
• Gerald Massey
  
• Zakir Naik
• Ahmed Deedat
  

This is not all, but most of those whom I have seen cited or praised across the website. Within the list, only two would be considered scholars. Ahmed Deedat and Zakir Naik are by no stretch of the imagination scholars - nor can any of their works even almost be passed off as something scholarly. Their respective texts are generally no more than unreferenced fantastical criticisms or affirmations with a sole agenda of propagating Islam, often through deception. With regard to Gerald Massey, he was a 19th century poet and hobby Egyptologist.

Now, with the remaining two - they are indeed educated scholars. The late Robert Funk was one of the few real and reputable scholars of the controversial Jesus Seminar and Dr Carrier is prominent online Greco-Roman historian and naturalistic philosopher. However, these scholars and their works stand in a special place on the scholarly spectrum - that is, to the fringe. Their controversial theses are thoroughly contested by the mainstream of both believing and unbelieving scholarship. Personally, with my background in sectarian literature of the Second Temple periodS I feel very strongly against Dr Carrier's approach but that is another issue.

The Point...

When people claim to utilised scholarly argumentation you must ask yourself who are their scholars. If, like in the above case, the majority are not scholars and the few scholars only represent a fringe of academic thought - is their representation truly honest?

Just some final recommendations to Ehteshaam Gulam. To broaden your spectrum on the issues of the historical Jesus and early Christianity I recommend a few books:

• Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth by Professor Ben Witherington III. This text covers where the majority of scholars stand on the issue of historical Jesus studies. It emphasises the Jewish context of the historical Jesus, among other things.
  
• The Missing Gospels by Professor Darrell L. Bock - on early Christian diversity and 'alternative' texts.
• A few books by N.T. Wright on the historicity of Jesus and the physical resurrection.
  

Post Script:

Just to reitarate something I have mentioned earlier while commenting on the abuse of scholarship. I am not setting a caveat against the use of fringe scholars. I myself have used fringe scholars - however, for my readers I do employ caution and point out that to most the thesis is not widely accepted. Why I use controversial scholars sometimes, as do others, is not for the personal affinity to the scholarship for polemic or apologetic reasons. I use them when I find their arguments convincing and sound in some way or another.

See also:

• The Myth: The Early Church did not Believe Christ to be Divine
• Can we take the resurrection seriously? (Video with Dr John Dickson)
• Atheism and Its Reliance on Radical Scholarship
• Rant on Wikipedia and Biblical Scholarship
• The 'New' Atheist's Questionable History