Flavius Josephus, can he be trusted?

Josephus was a 1st century priest, scholar and historian whose written works include the 'Antiquities of the Jews', 'War of the Jews', 'Flavius Josephus against Apion' among others. In or around 69AD, Josephus became a close friend and advisor to Titus (son of the Roman Emperor Vespasian). After gaining his freedom as a slave, he served as Titus' translator and recorded the events as a first hand account eyewitness to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple.

One year ago 10/25/15 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during a television interview stated "there has never been a Jewish temple atop the Temple Mount, and that the site has been home to a mosque “since the creation of the world.”

As far as the temple mount, we know this not to be the truth. The Dome of the Rock was completed around 700AD with the Al-Aqsa Mosque shortly there after, the Mufti is full of hot air.

Yesterday, an article in the 'Times of Israel' reported on a story;
"Archaeologists find battle site where Romans breached Jerusalem walls"

The article states...

They said that the discovery, made last winter during an excavation of a construction site for the new campus of the Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design outside the Old City, also finally confirmed the description of the wall that was breached provided by the historian Josephus Flavius.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/archaeologists-find-battle-site-where-romans-breached-jerusalem-walls/

History as written by Josephus has been shown to be accurate by modern day archaeologists as reported in this article, at least as it relates to this latest discovery.

Question: Can Josephus be trusted as an eyewitness to the events as they unfolded in 70AD and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem and the temple? Can the historical accounts of other things recorded by Josephus be trusted? Is he legitimate? Why or why not.

Originally posted by leunammi
Question: Can Josephus be trusted as an eyewitness to the events as they unfolded in 70AD and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem and the temple? Can the historical accounts of other things recorded by Josephus be trusted? Is he legitimate? Why or why not.

As with any historical documents, its not a question of all out trust or no trust, but somewhere in between. Not everything he said should be trusted. There is however pretty good reason to think he was a real person and the overall events he wrote about took place. Just keep in mind that there may be bias in what he says and his text may have been modified later.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As with any historical documents, its not a question of all out trust or no trust, but somewhere in between. Not everything he said should be trusted. There is however pretty good reason to think he was a real person and the overall events he wrote about took place. Just keep in mind that there may be bias in what he says and his text may have been modified later.

Is there something in particular that you may be referring to that is untrustworthy? What do you think of the historical evidence in the OP. Reliable?

Originally posted by leunammi
Is there something in particular that you may be referring to that is untrustworthy? What do you think of the historical evidence in the OP. Reliable?

I'd say the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem is a common or garden demagogue whose claim to be a credible historical commentator cannot be taken seriously. The first mosques appeared in the 7th century so the idea that there was somehow one on the Temple Mount “since the creation of the world" is plain silly.

Originally posted by leunammi
Josephus was a 1st century priest, scholar and historian whose written works include the 'Antiquities of the Jews', 'War of the Jews', 'Flavius Josephus against Apion' among others. In or around 69AD, Josephus became a close friend and advisor to Titus (son of the Roman Emperor Vespasian). After gaining his freedom as a slave, he served as Titus' translat ...[text shortened]... al accounts of other things recorded by Josephus be trusted? Is he legitimate? Why or why not.

I'm missing how Josephus being right about a description of the wall verifies that Josephus can "be trusted as an eyewitness to *events* as they unfolded in 70AD and the subsequent destruction... and other things." Do the archeologists claim this? I did read the article and didn't see this.

Originally posted by JS357
I'm missing how Josephus being right about a description of the wall verifies that Josephus can "be trusted as an eyewitness to *events* as they unfolded in 70AD and the subsequent destruction... and other things." Do the archeologists claim this? I did read the article and didn't see this.

it was the question I asked, do you think he can be trusted? Why or why not.

Originally posted by leunammi
it was the question I asked, do you think he can be trusted? Why or why not.

I am not qualified to have an opinion.

Originally posted by leunammi
Is there something in particular that you may be referring to that is untrustworthy? What do you think of the historical evidence in the OP. Reliable?

His claim to divine revelation for a start.

Originally posted by twhitehead
His claim to divine revelation for a start.

Does "His claim" refer to Josephus or the Grand Muffi?

You must be referring to the Grand Muffi?

Does your logic run like this ?

1.) There is no divine revelation.

2.) The Grand Muffi claimed to have had divine revelation.

3.) Therefore the Grand Muffi did not receive any divine revelation.

How do you prove premise #1 ?

If there is the possibility that there may be divine revelation does this mean everyone claiming to have one is right?

If there is the possibility that there may be divine revelation then what would you accept as evidence someone received one ?

If you are pointing out the Josephus was claiming divine revelation could you provide evidence of this ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
His claim to divine revelation for a start.

Would that invalidate the things we have come to know to be true via other means?

Originally posted by sonship
Does "His claim" refer to Josephus or the Grand Muffi?

You must be referring to the Grand Muffi?

The Grand Muffi is a nut who should simply be ignored. I was referring to Josephus.

Does your logic run like this ?
1.) There is no divine revelation.
2.) The Grand Muffi claimed to have had divine revelation.
3.) Therefore the Grand Muffi did not receive any divine revelation.
No.
My logic runs like this:
1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
2. We should not 'trust' claims of divine revelation without at least some reasonable evidence.
I am not claiming he was wrong, I am only claiming that he should not be trusted with regards to that claim - just as you would most certainly not trust me if I made a similar claim without evidence.

I suspect that you would claim to trust even the Grand Muffi if his claims matched up with what you want to believe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The Grand Muffi is a nut who should simply be ignored. I was referring to Josephus.

[b]Does your logic run like this ?
1.) There is no divine revelation.
2.) The Grand Muffi claimed to have had divine revelation.
3.) Therefore the Grand Muffi did not receive any divine revelation.
No.
My logic runs like this:
1. Extraordinary claims requi ...[text shortened]... ould claim to trust even the Grand Muffi if his claims matched up with what you want to believe.[/b]

The Grand Muffi is a nut who should simply be ignored. I was referring to Josephus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The historian Josephus claimed divine revelation ?
Why do you say Josephus claimed divine revelation?

And if he did then I assume you do not, as Muffi, dismiss him as a nut automatically..
And if he did then I assume unlike Muffi, you think he should not be ignored automatically.

Does your logic run like this ?
1.) There is no divine revelation.
2.) The Grand Muffi claimed to have had divine revelation.
3.) Therefore the Grand Muffi did not receive any divine revelation.

No.
My logic runs like this:
1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
2. We should not 'trust' claims of divine revelation without at least some reasonable evidence.

Do you think Josephus claimed divine revelation and made some extraordinary claims ?

And do you feel those extraordinary claims of Josephus should be examined to see if they are accompanied with some reasonable evidence that his claims were true?

I am not claiming he was wrong,

You are not claiming that Josephus was wrong ?
That is the Josephus the historian who claimed divine revelation ?

Do I follow you?

I am only claiming that he should not be trusted with regards to that claim - just as you would most certainly not trust me if I made a similar claim without evidence.

One complaint I have heard about the axion "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is that , then extraordinary evidence then requires more extraordinary evidence which in turn requires even more extraordinary evidence.

This is somewhat by memory of something I have not read for a long time.
It has been objected that requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims can be an infinite regress of endlessly moving the goalpost.

I suspect that you would claim to trust even the Grand Muffi if his claims matched up with what you want to believe.

I expect you only to show me where Josephus claimed to be writing his histories from divine revelation.

Now I do not know that much about Josephus. So for all I know maybe he did. But I don't volunteer to make your argument for you.

YOU shoulder the justification for your saying that Josephus claimed divine revelation and wrote about those divine revelations.

As for the red herring about what I want to believe ? Well, maybe a big fat VISA VERSA to you Mr. Atheist. But that is a distraction at this juncture. Just demonstrate Josephus's claim that his histories were from divine revelation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The Grand Muffi is a nut who should simply be ignored. I was referring to Josephus.

[b]Does your logic run like this ?
1.) There is no divine revelation.
2.) The Grand Muffi claimed to have had divine revelation.
3.) Therefore the Grand Muffi did not receive any divine revelation.
No.
My logic runs like this:
1. Extraordinary claims requi ...[text shortened]... ould claim to trust even the Grand Muffi if his claims matched up with what you want to believe.[/b]

Beliefs set aside from historical fact/evidence... or whatever word you would like to insert there. Do you think Josephus can be trusted with things that are historical in nature, i.e. dimensions of the city, geographical locations, sizes of things? These are not questions that are theological or that rely on 'divine revelation' but physical, eyewitness accounts.

Do you think Josephus' eyewitness account can be trusted? Should be trusted?

Originally posted by leunammi
Do you think Josephus' eyewitness account can be trusted? Should be trusted?

What was he an eyewitness to?

Originally posted by FMF
What was he an eyewitness to?

Did you read the OP?