Archaeologists believe they've found cross of Jesus of Nazareth

[Warren DeMontague]

193. Josephus is invariably referenced because it's the ONLY one. And considered suspect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

(yes, an obviously biased blog here-)

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-josephus-so-called-testimonium.html

Here's an interesting link: Note how (non-Biblical) historical experts kind of leave the whole mess alone, i.e. "There are discrepancies in the perspectives of Bellum and Antiquitates and other noted biases"?

...Because they don't even want to get into it, instead focusing on the obviously non-forged important historical work of the guy.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/josephus/g/Josephus.htm

Or this:

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=2&nav=messages&webtag=ab-ancienthist&tid=1175

I failed to mention Josephus much debated passage in Antiquities, as well as his less controversial references to John the Baptist and
James, the brother of the "so-called Christ", condemned to death by the high Priest Ananas (one of several using that name). Josephus seems to genuinely regret the execution of James. It would follow that he had similar sympathies with the character, if not the teachings, of Jesus. Of course we will probably never know since
Eusebius appears to have tampered with the one passage where Josephus may have focused on Christ directly. He has Josephus describing Jesus with reverence as if he WERE in fact the Christ, and believing implicitly in Jesus' wonder-working, as well as the rising of Christ
three days after his crucifixion...all of course totally out of character for Josephus, a Jew of the priestly caste.

Short answer, it clearly was altered. The idea of this great Jewish historian suddenly doing a 180 and speaking in the voice of a converted Christian is flat-out ludicrous. So the narrative on Jesus from Josephus can't be trusted 100%- question is, how much of it can be trusted.

Again, there is debate on how much is forged and how much authentic or original. Interestingly enough, there seems to be -and this is borne out in the book I recommend, The Jesus Puzzle- far more historical evidence for the existence of John the Baptist. (You'll note, too, the book isn't positing an answer so much as asking the question if Jesus -the historical biblical figure we've been taught to accept more or less at face value- existed. It's a legitimate question.)

So- why? You're assuming a linear progression of "small group of people had this experience and then set out to relay it in a direct fashion which continued more or less uninterrupted through the course of several centuries of upheaval". Again, there's a good deal of evidence that "mystery cults" similar to early Christianity- which may have been a very different animal than later Christianity- were very popular in that area around the time Jesus was said to have existed. Early Christian writings are all over the map as far as the physical existence of Jesus versus his being a purely spiritual "savior" deity or entity.

And yes there obviously were "Christians" who were persecuted in the Roman Empire, whether or not there was an actual historical Christ. But the records from these early Christians for the most part date back, again, to years 100-200 AD. And if they're coming from people who were converted instead of people who were actually there, is it so difficult to imagine a process whereby a spiritual savior deity embodying Mithras or Osiris ideas of deicide and resurrection could be changed- or merged with a historical life, like JTB- and turned retroactively into a literal birth-death-rebirth tale?

I'd recommend the book. Don't really have the energy to dive intellectually into the discussion much more than this right now, but it's an interesting topic. And I'm not interested in "winning" or "proving" but I find the truth; and attempts to uncover it; endlessly fascinating.

As for MIRT, I'll ask inside.