Josephus
Josephus Flavius (generally just Josephus) was a Romanised Jewish historian who wrote about Israel round about New Testament times. At least one Christian scribe tampered with his text and made it appear that Josephus considered Jesus the savior or “Christ”.[1]
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 Gentiles. 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.
If Josephus had written that he would have been a Christian, and there is no evidence that he was. He says throughout his writings that he believes the Roman emperor Vespasian was the Jewish Messiah, and probably believed in the Emperor's explicit claim to deity. Maybe he was just overly flattering of everybody?
Contents |
[edit] Modern views
Modern Christians sometimes cite Josephus and argue that even the “pagan” Josephus acknowledged Jesus.[2] Therefore, one should believe in Jesus' divinity. They are unlikely to give details of what Josephus is supposed to have written: if they did, people of average intelligence would notice that no pagan would write that.
Within the normative Jewish community (very active at the time through the efforts of Akiva et al.) at the time, Josephus' connections with the Romans make him a persona non grata to this day. He explicitly says that Vespasian was the Messiah.
Pagans today tend to ignore him and everything else that exists.
Literary critic Harold Bloom has suggested that in light of many other cases of Josephus falsifying evidence in his works, Josephus's judgement of Jesus is motivated entirely by his own politics, and admires Jesus on account of the political actions of his followers, James and John the Baptist (who he praises for their resistance of the rise Pharisaic Judaism) but may have had no first-hand knowledge of Jesus himself.
When atheists point out that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus, it is not uncommon for Christians to cite Josephus. How he was able to write with firsthand knowledge about events said to take place in 33 AD when he was born in 37 AD is a miracle in itself that would potentially warrant worshiping Josephus instead, but for some reason that always comes as a surprise to Christians who cite him. It's almost as if they just look up quotes without any understanding of what constitutes valid sources for determining historical events.
[edit] Josephus on Jesus
Supposedly the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius was the earliest non-Christian to mention Jesus. Josephus' birth in 37 CE, well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, means he could not have been an eyewitness. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 CE, even later than the first gospels. Despite Josephus having long been a favorite of apologists, many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius of Caesarea).
Antiquities of the Jews begins “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” and arduously parallels the Old Testament up to the time when Josephus is able to add equally tedious historical recountings of Jewish life during the early Roman period. In Book 18, Chapter 3, this paragraph is encountered (Whiston’s translation):
| 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 him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal man 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 to this day. |
This truly appears to give historical confirmation for the existence of Jesus. But is it authentic? Most scholars admit that at least some parts, if not all, of this paragraph cannot be authentic,[3] even the Catholic Encyclopedia concurring.[4] Many are convinced that the entire paragraph is a forgery, an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time.[5][6]. Even Christian scholars consider the paragraph to be an overenthusiastic forgery.[7][8][9]
- The first thing one notices about this paragraph is that it breaks the flow of the chapter. Book 18 (“Containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon”) starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and discusses various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, to which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus; Herod’s building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with sedition against Pilate, who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem. The Jews protested; Pilate sent spies into Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. Then in the middle of all these troubles comes the curiously quiet paragraph about Jesus, followed immediately by: “And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...” Josephus would not have thought the Christian story to be “another terrible misfortune.” It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who might have considered Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph three can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter; in fact, it flows better without it.[10]
- Then there is the issue of how many people do not mention it even when it would have been in their best interests to do so: Justin Martyr (c100 - c165), Theophilus (d. 180), Irenaeus (c120 - c203), Clement of Alexandria (c150-c215), Origen (c185-c254), Hippolytus (c170 - c235), Minucius Felix (d. c250), Anatolius (230-280), Chrysostom (c347-407), Methodius (9th century), and Photius (c820-891). There are many places in Origen's Against Celsus where he should have mentioned such a passage but didn't.[11]
- Structurally there is much wrong with the passage. Josephus doesn't explain things as he does in passages of other would be messiahs. Things such as what deeds and to what Jesus won over people are missing.[12] Also there is a 19 point unique correspondence between this passage and Luke's Emmaus account.[13][14]
- The term "Christ" only appears in the Testimonium Flavianum and in a later passage regarding James “brother of Jesus” (see below). But the purpose of the work was to promote Vespasian as the Jewish Messiah (ie 'Christ') so why would Josephus, a messianic Jew, use the term only here. More over the Greek word here used is the same as in the Old Testament but to Josephus' Roman audience it would read as the ointment rather than anointed one resulting in many a Roman scratching their head in befuddlement.[15]
- Josephus was in Rome from 64 to 66 CE to petition emperor Nero for the release of some Jewish priest that Gessius Florus sent there in chains.[16] Josephus makes no mention of the further misfortune of Jesus' followers that Tacitus and Suetonius record. If the Testimonium Flavianum was genuine in any way Josephus certainly have mentioned the further misfortune of Jesus followers under Nero since he was right there in Rome for two years when it was supposedly going on. So either the Testimonium Flavianum is a fake or the Tacitus and Suetonius accounts repeating are urban myth--both sets of accounts cannot be true.
The second, and lesser known, supposed reference in Josephus is to James the brother of Jesus:
| Festus was now dead, and Albinus was put upon the road; so he [Ananus, the Jewish high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, him 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. |
Though there are good reasons to think this too is not Josephus' original text:
- Again Josephus would have provided more details for he Gentile readership like just what was meant by "Christ". If the Josephus had mentioned "Christ" before he would have referenced back to it as he does to the Sadducess several times in this work.[17]
- After reading the rest of the text of this passage we find that the Jews were so angry about the stoning of James that they they demanded that King Agrippa fire Ananus. Why would the Jews be angered over the killing of a Christian, since Christians were seen as heathens by the Jews?[18]
- The end of the paragraph seems to identify the Jesus described within as Jesus the son of Damneus, and clearly states that this Jesus was made high priest by Agrippa.
- The passage doesn't agree with any other account of James the Just and Acts make no mention of the event at all.[19]
- In Against Celsus 1.47, Origen states "this writer" (Josephus) ... "in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple" ... "says nevertheless" ... "that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)". This point is repeated in Against Celsus 2.13 where Origen states "But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes dear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God." Note that the Josephus passage above does NOT connect the death of this James with the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, or any other disaster despite Origen stating twice that the passage he is referring to does.
- Finally, and most importantly the James of Josephus died c. 62 CE by just stoning while Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Early Christian tradition all had James the Just dying c. 70 CE by being thrown from a battlement, stoned, and finally clubbed to death by passing laundrymen.[20] In fact, Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History, Book III, ch. 11 clearly writes "After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed..." but there are seven years and four High Priests[21] between these two events if the Josephus passage is genuine so either we have one of the wonkiest definition of "immediately followed" in the history of the world or these are two different James and the passage was added to make the connection. The later interpretation is supported by Rufinus of Aquileia in the 4th century who states James the Lord's brother was informed of the death of Peter (64 CE or 67 CE ie after the James in Josephus was dead and gone).[22]
The "him called Christ" makes most sense as a margin note by a later scribe copying the text, inserted by error in a paragraph about Jesus son of Damneus.[23]
Drews in The Witness To The Historicity of Jesus stated that, even if the passage was entirely genuine, "brother" could have just meant the James being referred to belonged to a sect that venerated a Messiah called Jesus.[24] Furthermore since "christ" means the same in Greek that "messiah" does in Hebrew ("the anointed one") it could be used in reference to the anointment of Jesus, son of Damneus as high priest.
However, Drews also stated "in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus"[25] which taken literally means as late as 1600 there was a Josephus manuscript with NO reference to Jesus anywhere in it.
It should be noted that our youngest copy of Josephus Antiquities is from the 9th to 10th century with the majority being in the 11th to 16th[26]
[edit] In other media
Josephus, hailing from 125th Street in Ethiopia, was portrayed by Gregory Hines in Mel Brooks' History of the World, Part I.
[edit] See also
- Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ, including the Josephus Flavius section.
- John the Baptist, also mentioned by Josephus.
Three other men called “Joseph” are relevant to the Abrahamic religions.
- Old Testament Joseph, who had family problems
- Saint Joseph, one of several possible fathers of Jesus
- Joseph of Arimathea who may have buried Jesus, if he was dead
[edit] External links
- See the Wikipedia article on Josephus on Jesus.
- The Historical Jesus
[edit] Footnotes
- ↑ Jesus in Josephus, Richard Carrier.
- ↑ Incidentally, Jews are not usually considered pagan: pagans are polytheists or those who practice other non-Abrahamic religions.
- ↑ [1], Testimonium Flavianum
- ↑ "Flavius Josephus." Catholic Encyclopedia. "Attempts have been made to refute the objections brought against this passage both for internal and external reasons, but the difficulty has not been definitively settled. The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations."
- ↑ [2], Josephus on Jesus: Forgery and Fraud?.
- ↑ [3], Eusebius of Caesarea forged Testimonium Flavianum.
- ↑ Bishop Warburton: "If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too." Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. iv.
- ↑ The Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England: "Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles, as to find this notice of Christ among the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How, then, could he have written that Jesus was the Christ? Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage under consideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new religion, and thus the passage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around it. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies with the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (I, ii), is the first who quotes it, and our reliance on the judgment or even honesty of this writer is not so great as to allow our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine." (Christian Records, p. 30)
- ↑ Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in Lost and Hostile Gospels: "This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A. D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi ; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (A. D. 140) Clement of Alexandria (A. D. 192), Tertullian (A. D. 193) and Origen (A. D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. i)."
- ↑ Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 336
- ↑ Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 334
- ↑ Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 334
- ↑ Goldberg, Gary J. (1995) "The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus" The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 pp. 59-77
- ↑ Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 333
- ↑ The Anointed One, Or The Ointment?
- ↑ When Gessius Florus sent some priests that Josephus knew in chains to Rome (64 CE), he followed to petition the emperor [Nero] to release them. The emperor's consort, Poppea, introduced the 26 year old Jewish aristocrat to the imperial court & supported his cause. This successful mission left Josephus favorably impressed by the grandeur & power of Rome & with a first-hand familiarity with imperial circles that few of his contemporary Jews could match. By the time he returned to Jerusalem, however, the Jewish revolt had already begun (66 CE). (Josephus [37-ca 100 CE])
- ↑ Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 339
- ↑ Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 339
- ↑ Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 340-341
- ↑ Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic, pg 189
- ↑ Joshua ben Damneus (ie Jesus son of Damneus) (63); Joshua ben Gamaliel (63-64); Mattathias ben Theophilus (65-66); and Phannias ben Samuel (67-70)
- ↑ "The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair and teaching..." Recognitions (Preface)
- ↑ Richard Carrier. "Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 20.4 (Winter 2012).
- ↑ Drews, Arthur (1912) The Witness To The Historicity of Jesus, page 9 (London: Watts & Co., 1912)
- ↑ Drews, Arthur (1912) The Witness To The Historicity of Jesus, page 9 (London: Watts & Co., 1912)
- ↑ Pearse, Roger .(2002) Josephus: the Main Manuscripts of "Antiquities"