Josephus on Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A series of articles on
Jesus Christ and Christianity Christology Chronology Ministry Miracles Parables Names and titles Relics
Non-religious aspects Background Historicity Greek • Aramaic Race
Perspectives on Jesus New Testament view Christian views Religious perspectives Jewish view Islamic view Historical Jesus Jesus Seminar Jesus as myth
Jesus in culture Cultural depictions of Jesus Images This box: view • talk • edit

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

In 93, the Jewish historian Josephus published his work Antiquities of the Jews. The extant copies of this work, which all derive from Christian sources, even the recently recovered Arabic version, contain two passages about Jesus. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum, and its authenticity has been disputed since the 17th century. The other passage mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. The authenticity of this latter passage has been disputed by Emil Schürer as well by several recent popular writers.

1 Testimonium Flavianum
- 1.1 Authenticity
  - 1.1.1 Arguments against authenticity
  - 1.1.2 Arguments in favor of partial authenticity
    - 1.1.2.1 Arabic version
    - 1.1.2.2 Syriac version
- 1.2 Current state of the debate
2 Reference to Jesus as brother of James
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links

[edit] Testimonium Flavianum

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

^3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Greeks. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; 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. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

As usual with ancient texts, the surviving sources for this passage are Greek manuscripts, all minuscules, the oldest of which dates from the 9th century. 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.

[edit] Authenticity

[edit] Arguments against authenticity

[edit] 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. Furthermore, Origen states that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ" ^[1] "he did not accept Jesus as Christ" ^[2], but the Testimonium declares Jesus to be Christ. Because of these arguments, some scholars believe that the version of Antiquities available to Origen did not mention Jesus at this point at all.^{[citation needed]}

On the other hand, while this argument shows that Josephus could not have written the Testimonium in its current form, it also demonstrates, according to some scholars, ^{[attribution needed]} that Josephus 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." (While the claim that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ" can be based on the fact that he was by all accounts a traditional Jew, this fact would make his nonacceptance of Jesus go without saying; the fact that Origen said it at all suggests a context of Jesus existed in Josephus' work.) Presumably whatever he did write was sufficiently negative that Origen chose not to quote it.^{[citation needed]}

However, there are other arguments as to why Origen would have said Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Christ and is it worth noting that no "sufficiently negative" Josephus quote has ever surfaced. It may have been Josephus’ silence on the matter as well as his Judaism that lead to Origen’s comment. Or it could be Josephus'statement in Jewish War 6.5.4, where he declares that the Jewish messianic prophecies were really about the victorious emperor Vespasian that lead him to believe Josephus did not accept anyone as a messiah. Since Origen makes no mention of negative comments by Josephus it can be argued that if Origen had read these comments he would have attempted to rebuke them and not chosen to ignore them in his writings. The fact that he did not do so gives credibility to the argument that no such writings existed at the time, but were a later interpolation.

[edit] Justin, and other early Christian writers

The Dialog With Trypho the Jew ^[3], written about a hundred years after the death of Jesus, is Justin the Philosopher's account of a dialog between himself and a Jewish rabbi named Trypho. In it two men debated about whether Jesus was the promised Messiah. Justin makes no mention of the Testimonium in his efforts to persuade the rabbi, even though: (1) Justin was a noteworthy scholar and was known to have pored over the works of Josephus, whose Antiquities had been written fewer than fifty years earlier; (2) the passage was directly relevant to their discussion; (3) the rabbi would certainly have been impressed by an relevant evidentiary citation from the greatest known Jewish historian.

Justin also fails to mention the passage in his Apologies. In fact, the absence of 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 mentioned by any author of those two centuries, Christian or otherwise. This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (ca. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but contextual analysis indicates that it seems to have been unknown to Justin the Philosopher (ca. 140), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 192), Tertullian (ca. 193), and Origen (ca. 230), although each of them was acquainted with the work of Josephus. ^[4]

[edit] Textual continuity

The neutrality or factuality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words.
You can help Wikipedia by improving weasel-worded statements.

The interruption of the narrative by the Testimonium Flavium also suggests that it is an interpolation. In its context, passage 3.2 runs directly into passage 3.4, and thus the thread of continuity, of "sad calamities," is interrupted by this passage. The context, without the testimonium passage, reads:

^3.2 So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition. ^3.4 About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome.

However, the ragged structure of Antiquities involves frequent disruptions to the narrative, not least because it was mainly composed by a number of scribal assistants, and therefore this argument is not conclusive.^[5]

[edit] Vocabulary

The passage 3.3 also fails a standard test for authenticity, in that it contains vocabulary not otherwise used by Josephus^[6]

On the other hand, linguistic analysis has not proven conclusive when compared with other passages in Josephus which likewise exhibit unusual features.^{[citations needed]}

[edit] 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; he characterized his patron Emperor Vespasian as the foretold Messiah.

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." The standard text, then, has simply become corrupt by the loss of the main verb and a subsequent scribal "correction" of the prolative infinitive. 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.

[edit] 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:^[7] "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. More recently, it has been pointed out by G. J. Goldberg that the last section ("for he appeared to them...") parallels that of Luke 24.

[edit] Interpolations

The entire passage is also found in one manuscript of Josephus' earlier work, The Jewish War, in an Old Russian translation written c.1250.^[8] Interestingly, the passage dealing with Jesus is not the only significant difference from the usual collations; Robert Eisler has suggested^[9] 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."^[10]

The passages in question give accounts of John the Baptist, Jesus's ministry (along with his death and resurrection), and the activities of the early church in which it resembles nothing so much as a faith healing movement; they are, however, bizarre in their inaccuracy and distortions of the matters. Lower criticism has concluded that this is an interpolation as other extant manuscripts do not contain it.

[edit] 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. [1]. 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.

However Olson's arguments have not won acceptance by any other scholar.^[11]

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[2].

[edit] Arguments in favor of partial authenticity

For centuries Christian writers took the position that Josephus wrote the Testimonium more or less in its current form; until the 16th century, in fact.

Today almost no secular scholar holds that position: however, most scholars accept that Josephus did write something about Jesus which has been corrupted in the surviving Greek text.

[edit] Arabic version

In 1971, professor Shlomo Pines 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, a 10th-century Christian Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis. Agapius appears to be quoting from memory, for even Josephus' title is an approximation:

For he says in the treatises that he has written in the governance of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders" - Shlomo Pines' translation, quoted by J. D. Crossan

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 quoting from memory, 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. [3].

[edit] Syriac 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.

[edit] Current state of the debate

Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree.

Alice Whealey writes:

Twentieth century controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum can be distinguished from controversy over the text in the early modern period insofar as it seems generally more academic and less sectarian. While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text’s authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question. In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.

[edit] 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.

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; 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; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."[4]

This paragraph is generally accepted as authentic by scholars, although there is debate as to whether the words who was called Christ were in the original passage, or were a later interpolation.^{[citation needed]} The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic by the majority of scholars.^[12] Even most scholars who hold that the Testimonium is inauthentic regard the xx 9.1. reference as original to Josephus. Unlike the Testimonium, the xx 9.1. reference was mentioned in several places by Origen. A small minority, including 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.

[edit] Notes

^ Origen, Against Celsus, i:47
^ Origen, Commentary on Matthew, x:17
^ http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/martyr3.htm Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew
^ Lost and Hostile Gospels, Rev. Sabine Baring-Gould
^ http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#josephus
^ Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, edited by K. H. Rengstorff, 2002.
^ 1991, ISBN 0-06-061629-6.
^ 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)
^ Iesous Basileus ou Basileusas ("Jesus the King who was never King"), by Robert Eisler. Published in Heidelberg in 1929.
^ 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)
^ J.Carleton Paget, Journal of Theological Studies 52
^ Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1.

[edit] References

Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus (Viking Penguin) 1997
G. J. Goldberg, "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.
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.
Shlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications, (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971)
Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times,Peter Lang Publishing (2003). How the TF has been seen down the centuries.
Frank R. Zindler, The Jesus The Jews Never Knew, Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the Quest of the historical Jesus in Jewish Sources (AAP), 2003

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/s/Josephus_on_Jesus_9e8f.html"