Josephus on Jesus

:"This article is part of the Jesus and history series of articles.

There are two extant references in Josephus on Jesus, the one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum. These passages appear in "The Antiquities of the Jews", written in the year 93 by the Jewish historian Josephus. All extant copies of this work, which all derive from Christian sources, even the recently recovered Arabic version, contain the two passages about Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was a forgery. This conclusion was questioned in the 20th century and the intellectual controversy will probably never be resolved. The other passage simply mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. Though most scholars consider this passage genuine [Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1.] , its authenticity as been disputed by Emil Schürer as well by several recent popular writers.

Testimonium Flavianum

The following passage appears in the Greek version of "Antiquities of the Jews" xviii 3.3, in the translation of William Whiston:

As usual with ancient texts, the surviving sources for this passage are Greek manuscripts, all minuscules, the oldest of which dates from the 11th century.Feldman (1989), p. 431] It is likely that these all derive from a single exemplar written in uncial, as is the case with most other ancient Greek texts transmitted to the present in medieval copies, and have come down through the hands of the church. The text of "Antiquities" appears to have been transmitted in two halves — books 1–10 and books 11–20. But other "ad hoc" copies of this passage also exist. The first to cite this passage of "Antiquities" was Eusebius, writing in about 324, who quotes the passage in essentially the same form. cite web
last = McGiffert
first = Arthur Cushman
title = Paragraph 7 of "Chapter XI.—Testimonies in Regard to John the Baptist and Christ" from Book I of Eusebius' "The Church History."
url= http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vi.xi.html
accessdate = 2007-08-12 (From the "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," Series II, Vol. 1, edited by Philip Schaff.)]

The topic of the "Testimonium"'s authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion. Louis Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part". [Feldman (1989), p. 430]

Arguments against authenticity

Origen

The Christian author Origen wrote around the year 240. His writings predate both the earliest known manuscripts of the "Testimonium" and the earliest quotations of the "Testimonium" by other writers. In his surviving works Origen fails to mention the "Testimonium Flavianum", even though he was clearly familiar with the "Antiquities of the Jews", since he mentions the less significant reference by Josephus to Jesus as brother of James, which occurs later in "Antiquities of the Jews" (xx.9), and also other passages from "Antiquities" such as the passage about John the Baptist which occurs in the same chapter (xviii) as the "Testimonium". Furthermore, Origen states that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ" [Origen, "Against Celsus", [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen161.html i:47] ] "he did not accept Jesus as Christ" [Origen, "Commentary on Matthew", [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-matthew.html x:17] ] , but the "Testimonium" declares Jesus to be Christ. Because of these arguments, it could be inferred that the version of "Antiquities" available to Origen did not mention Jesus at this point at all.

On the other hand, while this argument asserts that Josephus could not have written the "Testimonium" in its current form, it also demonstrates, according to some scholars,that the version of the "Antiquities" known to Origen must have written "something" about Jesus, for otherwise Origen would have no reason to make the claim that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ." cite book
first=Geza
last=Vermes
isbn=0800636236
title=Jesus in His Jewish Context
location=Minneapolis
publisher=Fortress Press
year=2003
url=http://books.google.com/books?id=9TDsYgyIPsw
pages=pp. 91-92]

Early Christian writers other than Origen

The absence of clear references to the "Testimonium" is consistent throughout the work of the Christian writers and apologists of the years 100-300 A.D. It is never clearly mentioned by any author of those two centuries, Christian or otherwise, although it is possible that Origen alludes to it indirectly (see above). For example, in the "Dialog With Trypho the Jew" [http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/martyr3.htm Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew ] , written about a hundred years after the death of Jesus, is Justin the Philosopher's account of a dialog between himself and a rabbi named Trypho. In it two men debated about whether Jesus was the promised Messiah: Trypho arguing that Christianity is based merely upon rumors. Justin makes no mention of the "Testimonium" in his efforts to persuade the rabbi, although it would have been an "extremely effective answer to Trypho's charge".

However, it is also not clear that any Christian before Origen had read 'Antiquities' at all,Fact|date=March 2008 and none before Origen makes any clear reference to Book 18 of Antiquities. For example, although it is has been shown by Michael Hardwick that Tertullian (ca. 193) had read Josephus' 'Against Apion' it is not clear that he knew 'Antiquities.' Tertullian's reference to "antiqitatum Judaicarum" (Apol. 19) is not a reference to 'Antiquities,' but rather a reference to 'Against Apion,' which in ancient times was known as "The antiquity (i.e. ancient-ness) of the Jews." [ Josephus as an historical source Hardwick p. 49-50.]

Hardwick has also argued that contrary to the assumption of some older scholars ["Lost and Hostile Gospels," Rev. Sabine Baring-Gould ] , not only is it is not clear that Tertullian had ever read 'Antiquities' but it is not clear that any other writer of the Western church other than Tertullian was directly acquainted with any of Josephus' works at all. [ 'Josephus as an historical source' Hardwick p. 112] . Although one catena fragment attributes a citation of Book 2 of 'Antiquities' to Irenaeus, its authenticity is debatable because catenae were often miscopied. In any case, even if the attribution to Irenaeus is accurate, it is clear that Irenaeus was unfamiliar with Book 18 of 'Antiquities' since he wrongly claims that Jesus was executed by Pilate in the reign of Claudius (Dem. ev. ap. 74), while Antiquities 18.89 indicates that Pilate was deposed during the reign of Tiberius, before Claudius. As for writers of the Eastern church, Clement of Alexandria vaguely refers (Strom. 1.147) to Josephus' historical writings in a way that indicates that he knew directly or indirectly the claim of Jewish War 6.440 that there were 1179 years between David and the second year of Vespasian. Direct familiarity with 'Antiquities' is, however, unclear in this passage. Clement's claim that there were 585 years between Moses and David may be based on Antiquities 8.61, which says that there were 592 years between the Exodus and the Temple, if one assumes that he subtracted the four years of Solomon's reign, and that a copying error was responsible for Clement's text reading 585 instead of 588. But what this conjectural explanation for Clement's claim about 585 years, a figure that does not explicitly appear in 'Antiquities,' shows is that it far from clear that Clement had direct acquaintance with Josephus' 'Antiquities.' [ Josephus on Jesus Whealey p. 8; Josephus as an historical sourceHardwick p. 31 ] Similarly, Whealey argues that there is no clear evidence that any Christians before Origen were familiar with Book 18 of 'Antiquities,' where the Testimonium appears, although some early Christians did know of the other works of Josephus, namely 'Jewish War' and 'Against Apion.' Moreover, it has also been shown by Whealey that ante-Nicene Christians are not known to have used Josephus' works in apologies directed at Jews. The earliest undisputed citations of the Testimonium by known church fathers--that by Eusebius of Caesarea and that by Jerome--are not made in apologies directed at Jews like 'Dialog with Trypho.' The earliest use of the Testimonium for anti-Jewish disputation appears in an anonymous late fourth century Latin text, known conventionally as Pseudo-Hegesippus's 'De excidio Hierosolymitano.' [ 'Josephus on Jesus'Whealey p. 11, 14-15, 28-29, 34] ] There is no evidence at all that the real Justin Martyr had read any of Josephus' works. A Pseudo-Justin text 'Cohortatio ad Graecos,' wrongly attributed to Justin Martyr, which according to current scholarly consesus does not date before the mid-third century, [ 'Josephus as an historical source,'Michael Hardwick, p. 37-46] alludes vaguely to the fact that Josephus wrote about Moses, but even this Pseudo-Justin text does not show any familiarity with Book 18 of 'Antiquities' where the Testimonium appears. Against this, Feldman writes that "no fewer than eleven church fathers prior to or contemporary with Eusebius cite various passages from Josephus (including the "Antiquities") but not the "Testimonium".

Vocabulary

It has been claimed that some of the passage fails a standard test for authenticity, in that it contains vocabulary not otherwise used by Josephus. ["Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus," edited by K. H. Rengstorff, 2002. ] However, many scholars state that the vocabulary and grammar of the passage cohere well with Josephus' style and language. Almost every word in the core of the "Testimonium" is found elsewhere in Josephus---in fact, most of the vocabulary turns out to be characteristic of Josephus. [ "A Marginal Jew, Volume I" by John P. Meier. ]

Josephus's faith

It is argued that "He was [the] Christ" can only be read as a profession of faith. If so, this could not be right, as Josephus was not a Christian.

However, the supposed confession of Josephus relies on the standard text. But a recent study by Alice Whealey has argued that a variant Greek text of this sentence existed in the 4th century—"He was believed to be the Christ." [ [http://pace.mcmaster.ca/media/pdf/sbl/whealey2000.pdf "The "Testimonium Flavium" Controversy from Antiquity to the Present"] Alice Wealey, 2000.] The standard text, then, has simply become corrupt by the loss of the main verb and a subsequent scribal "correction" of the prolative infinitive. Fact|date=May 2007 In any event, the audience for the work was Roman, and Roman sources always write of "Christus", never of "Jesus", which could make this merely an identification.Fact|date=May 2007 It is also important to note that the word "Christ" simply means "the anointed," so Josephus may have been simply including this as a detail.

Anachronisms

Some of the deepest concerns about the authenticity of the passage were succinctly expressed by John Dominic Crossan, in "The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant": [1991, ISBN 0-06-061629-6.] "The problem here is that Josephus' account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish." Three passages stood out: "if it be lawful to call him a man … He was [the] Christ … for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." To some these seem directly to address Christological debates of the early 4th century. Consequently, some scholars regard at least these parts of the "Testimonium" as later interpolations.

Interpolations

The entire passage is also found in one Greek manuscript of Josephus' earlier work, "The Jewish War". (This Greek manuscript of "Jewish War" with an interpolated Testimonium is known as the "Codex Vossianus.") A passage about Jesus that appears to have been inspired by the Testimonium, but that differs widely from it in content also appears in an Old Russian adaptation of "Jewish War" written c.1250.pgs 470-471, appendix F of "The Jewish War", Josephus. (trans. G. A. Williamson; introduction, notes and appendixes E. Mary Smallwood. Penguin Books, Penguin Classics imprint, 1981. ISBN 0-14-044420-3)] Interestingly, the passage dealing with Jesus is not the only significant difference between the Old Russian and Greek versions of "Jewish War." Robert Eisler has suggested"Iesous Basileus ou Basileusas" ("Jesus the King who was never King"), by Robert Eisler. Published in Heidelberg in 1929.] that it was produced from one of Josephus's drafts (noting that the "Slavonic Version" has Josephus escaping his fellow Jews at Jotapata when "he counted the numbers [of the lot cast in the suicide pact] cunningly and so managed to deceive all the others", which is in striking contrast to the conventional version's account:

"Without hesitation each man in turn offered his throat for the next man to cut, in the belief that a moment later his commander would die too. Life was sweet, but not so sweet as death if Josephus died with them! But Josephus - shall we put it down to divine providence or just luck - was left with one other man....he used persuasion, they made a pact, and both remained alive."pg 220 "The Jewish War", Josephus. (trans. G. A. Williamson; introduction, notes and appendixes E. Mary Smallwood. Penguin Books, Penguin Classics imprint, 1981. ISBN 0-14-044420-3)]

Other unique passages in the Old Russian version of "Jewish War" include accounts of John the Baptist, Jesus's ministry (along with his death and resurrection), and the activities of the early church.

Alleged fabrication by Eusebius

Ken Olson has argued that the "Testimonium" was fabricated by Eusebius of Caesarea, who was the first author to quote it in his "Demonstratio Evangelica". [ [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/4869 "Eusebian fabrications: the Testimonium Flavianum"] Ken Olson. July 29, 2000.] Olson argues that the specific wording of the "Testimonium" is suspiciously closely related to the argument Eusebius makes in his "Demonstratio", in particular that Jesus is a "wise man" and not a "wizard", as shown by the fact that his followers did not desert him even after he was crucified.

The argument that Eusebius fabricated the Testimonium is supported by some popular writers, such as Marshall Gauvin [ [http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html Did Jesus Christ Really Live? ] ] and Earl Doherty [ [http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesRefut3.htm CritiqueFour-3 ] ] . According to Gauvin, "Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist." Furthermore, according to Gauvin, Eusebius had written in his "Demonstratio Evangelica", (Book III, pg. 124), "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness." However, Whealey has already shown that Gauvin's assumption that ante-Nicene Christians were "eager to hurl" anything from any of Josephus' works in controversies directed at Jews is unsupported by the extant evidence. Likewise unsupported is Gauvin's assumption that Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria knew Josephus' works generally and "Antiquities" specifically well enough to know of the Testimonium. [ Whealey, 'Josephus on Jesus' p. 7-11.] Regarding Olson's arguments about Eusebian fabrication,Carleton Paget [ 'Josephus and Christianity' p. 562, 577-578. ] and Whealey [ 'Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum,'in "Josephus und das neue Testament," Tuebingen, 2007, 73-116 ] have criticized them on stylistic and other grounds.

One of the earliest ecclesiastical authorities to condemn the Testimonium Flavianum as a forgery was Bishop Warburton of Gloucester (circa 1770). He described it as "a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too."cite web
last = "Acharya S." (2006)
first =
title = The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ
url= http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins2.htm
accessdate = 2007-08-12 ] Frank R. Zindler commented that Eusebius simply improved "the germ of the "Testimonium" (that) had already begun to infect certain Christian-copied versions of "Antiquities of the Jews"." [Frank R. Zindler, "The Jesus the Jews Never Knew" (American Atheist Press, 2003).]

Arguments in favor of partial authenticity

Until the 16th century, Christian writers took the position that Josephus wrote the "Testimonium" more or less in its current form. Many writers claim that Josephus did write "something" about Jesus which has been corrupted in the surviving Greek text.

Arabic version

In 1971, Shlomo Pines, a Jewish professor, published a translation of a different version of the "Testimonium", quoted in an Arabic manuscript of the tenth century. The manuscript in question appears in the "Book of the Title" written by Agapius the historian, a 10th-century Arabic Christian and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis Bambyce (Manbij). Agapius appears to be paraphrasing, for even Josephus' title is an approximation. In addition, Agapius explicitly claims that his work was based on a lost, older Syriac chronicle by Theophilus of Edessa (d. 785). This suggests that his Testimonium is also a paraphrase of the Testimonium that appeared in Theophilus' lost chronicle. Agapius' version of the Testimonium reads:

The text that Pines gives is mainly derived from the quotation of this portion of Agapius in the later Arabic Christian historian, Al-Makin, which contains extra material not found in the Florence manuscript that alone preserves the second half of Agapius.

Pines suggests that this may be a more accurate record of what Josephus wrote, lacking as it does the parts which have often been considered to have been added by Christian copyists. This would add weight to the argument that Josephus did write something about Jesus.

However, Pines' theory has not been widely accepted. The fact that even the title of Josephus's work is inaccurate suggests that Agapius is paraphrasing his source, which may explain the discrepancies with the Greek version. In addition, the claim that Pilate condemned Jesus to be crucified "and to die" has been interpreted as a reaction to the Muslim belief that Jesus did not really die on the cross. [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html] .

yriac version

Pines also refers to the Syriac version cited by Michael the Syrian in his "World Chronicle". It was left to Alice Whealey to point out that Michael's text in fact was identical with that of Jerome at the most contentious point ("He was the Christ" becoming "He was believed to be the Christ"), establishing the existence of a variant, since Latin and Syriac writers did not read each others' works in late antiquity.

Literary connection with the Gospel of Luke

In 1995, G. J. Goldberg, using a digital database of ancient literature, identified a possible literary connection between Josephus and the Gospel of Luke. He found a number of coincidences in word choice and word order, though not in exact wording, between the entire Josephus passage on Jesus and a summary of the life of Jesus in Luke 24:19-21, 26-27, called the "Emmaus narrative":

From these coincidences in wording, Goldberg writes that "The conclusion that can therefore be drawn is that Josephus and Luke derived their passages from a common Christian (or Jewish-Christian) source." Goldberg points out that Josephus' phrases "if it be lawful to call him a man," "He was [the] Christ," "he appeared to them," and "And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day," have no parallel in Luke's passage, and takes this to support the position that the first two short phrases are Christian interpolations. Luke contains the phrases "but besides all this," four sentences on the women who witnessed the tomb, and "the Christ should suffer," which there is no counterpart in Josephus' text. [Goldberg, G. J. [http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/LUKECH.htm The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus] . "The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha" 13 (1995), pp. 59-77]

Reference to Jesus as brother of James

The other reference in the works of Josephus often cited to support the historicity of Jesus is also in the "Antiquities", in the first paragraph of book 20, chapter 9. It concerns the execution of a man whom traditional scholarship identifies as James the Just.

The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars. [Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1.] Unlike the "Testimonium", the passage was mentioned in several places by Origen.

Some popular writers have asserted that the words "who was called Christ" were not in the original passage, or were a later interpolation. [G. A. Wells, "The Jesus Of The Early Christians, A Study in Christian Origins" (Pemberton Books, 1971), p.193-194.] Earl Doherty has suggested that the original may have said no more than "and brought before them [a good man] whose name was James, and some others". A small minority, including Frank Zindler, challenge the passage in its entirety, noting contradictions in both the characterization of Ananus and the chronology of his tenure between the passages in the "Antiquities" and the "Jewish Wars."Fact|date=May 2007

Kenneth Humphreys takes the tack that the Jesus James is the brother of is the 'Jesus, the son of Damneus' mentioned at the end of the passage and that the 'who was called Christ' passage was "doubtless inserted by a Christian editor" and is not the Jesus of the Bible (Jesus, son of Josheph) [Kenneth Humphreys. "Jesus Never Existed". Historical Review Press (December 2005). ISBN 0906879140.] cite web
last = Humphreys
first = Kenneth
title = A Plethora of James
url= http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/james.html#jamesian
accessdate = 2008-05-16 ]

Josephus does not mention the martyrdom of James in his "Wars of the Jews", there he attributes the fall of Jerusalem as a consequence of someone else's death - the death of the person responsible for the death of James as mentioned in the "Antiquities". Josephus writing in "Jewish Wars":

See also

* Textual criticism

Notes

References

* Robert Eisenman, "James the Brother of Jesus" (Viking Penguin) 1997
* citation
first=Louis H
last=Feldman
contribution=A Selective Critical Bibliography of Josephus
editor-first=Louis H
editor-last=Feldman
editor2-first=Gohei
editor2-last=Hata
title=Josephus, the Bible, and History
location=Leiden
publisher= E.J. Brill
year= 1989
isbn=9004089314
url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lV70mR-E0DQC
* James Carleton Paget, "Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity", "Journal of Theological Studies" 52.2 (2001) pp. 539-624. A survey of all the theories, all the scholars and all the evidence.
* Michael E. Hardwick, "Josephus as an historical source in patristic literature through Eusebius"(Scholars Press) 1989.
* Shlomo Pines, "An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications", (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971) .
* cite book
title=Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times
first=Alice
last= Whealey
location=New York
publisher=Peter Lang
year=2003
isbn=0820452416
url=http://books.google.com/books?id=k5IAAAAACAAJ
*citation
first=Alice
last=Whealey
contribution=Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum
editor-first= Christfried
editor-last=Böttrich
editor2-first=Jens
editor2-last=Herzer
editor3-first=Torsten
editor3-last=Reiprich
title=Josephus und das neue Testament
location=Tübingen
publisher=Mohr Siebeck
year= 2007
isbn=3161493680
url=http://books.google.com/books?id=JRl1T876naAC. Criticizes the thesis that Eusebius of Caesarea fabricated the Testimonium.
* Frank R. Zindler, "The Jesus The Jews Never Knew, Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the Quest of the historical Jesus in Jewish Sources" (AAP), 2003.

External links

* [http://www.studylight.org/his/bc/wfj/antiquities/view.cgi?book=18&chapter=3 Book 18, Chapter 3 of "Antiquities of the Jews"]
* [http://www.studylight.org/his/bc/wfj/antiquities/view.cgi?book=20&chapter=9 Book 20, Chapter 9 of "Antiquities of the Jews"]
* [http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/gno/gjb/gjb-3.htm Interpolated references to Jesus in the Slavonic Wars of the Jews by Josephus]
* [http://pace.mcmaster.ca/media/pdf/sbl/whealey2000.pdf Scholarship on the Testimonium Flavianum down the centuries. A paper by Dr. Alice Whealey presented at 2000 SBL Josephus Seminar: expanded into a book subsequently]
* [http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm Josephus' Account of Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum]
* [http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/josephus_antiquities.htm Manuscripts]
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html Historicity of Jesus FAQ]
* [http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm Josephus Unbound by Earl Doherty]
* [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/josephus.html Collection of resources on Josephus]
* [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html "Testimonium Flavianum" an essay by Peter Kirby]
* [http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm "Did Josephus Refer to Jesus? A Thorough Review of the Testimonium Flavianum" by Christopher Price]
* [http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0406-marks "Jewish Light on the Risen Lord", New Oxford Review, by Frederick W. Marks]
* [http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appe.html Fuller discussion of the textual evidence]
* [http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html A strong critique of Josephus' Testimonium]