You are here:   Faith > Jesus in the Eyes of Josephus
 

Once the Christian supplements are removed, the original notice is reduced to the description of Jesus as "wise man" and "performer of paradoxical deeds", the epithet "Christ" attached to the name of Jesus; the crediting of the death sentence to Pilate; and the mention of the existence of the followers of Jesus at the time of the writing of the Testimonium in the 90s CE.

Both "wise man" and "performer of paradoxical deeds" take us to plain Josephus territory. Great biblical and post-biblical characters like the priest Ezra, the miracle-worker Honi-Onias (Hame'agel, the circle-maker), and the Pharisaic leader Samaias are regularly portrayed as "just men" and John is called a "good man". More specifically, the legendary King Solomon and the Prophet Daniel carry the title of "wise man", and the miracle-working prophet Elisha is said to have performed "paradoxical deeds". The notion of a paradox is commonly used by Josephus in relation to extraordinary events caused by God (the manna or the burning bush) and to miracles performed by Moses (Ant. 3:37-38) and by the prophet Elisha (Ant. 9:182).

In contrast, the phrase "wise man" has no New Testament parallels in reference to Jesus and falls far short of an honorific title that a Christian forger would choose to describe the divine Christ. Note that in Paul "wise man" has a pejorative connotation (1 Cor 1:18-31) and in a saying of Jesus "the wise" are unfavourably compared to "babes" (Mt 11:25; Lk 10:21). Furthermore, a Christian interpolator would be presumed to use phrases borrowed from the New Testament such as "mighty deeds" or "signs" instead of the neutral "paradoxical deeds". The term "paradoxical" is found only once in the New Testament on the lips of uncommitted witnesses of a Gospel miracle (Lk 5:26). 

The fact that Josephus makes Pilate responsible for the crucifixion is highly significant. It is perfectly in line with Josephus's critical attitude towards the prefect of Judaea, the perpetrator of a series of dreadful acts. One would imagine that a later Christian forger would try to exculpate him and place the blame for the death of Jesus on the shoulders of the Jews, as do the New Testament and especially later church tradition. Finally, the detached picture of the followers of Jesus is in harmony with the attitude of an outsider, but would be odd in the case of a Christian apologist. 

The Jesus notice is a veritable tour de force. Josephus plays the role of a neutral witness. We know that when he wants to disapprove of someone, he knows how to do it. In his description of two pseudo-Messiahs, Theudas and "the Egyptian", both mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (5:26; 21:38), Josephus calls them "imposters". 

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Tyler Smith
December 20th, 2009
2:12 AM
The solution Prof. Vermes arrives at in this article re: the Testimonium Flavium is well-reasoned, but is at the end of the day only a best guess. We might also consider the equally likely possibility that Josephus wrote about Jesus as a false messiah in terms like those he used for Theudas and "the Egyptian," but that his evaluation was cleaned up by Christian copyists.

Fabio P.Barbieri
December 19th, 2009
1:12 PM
The reference to Jesus attracting to himself "many Greeks" is without Gospel support. Nevertheless, if Josephus knew of a mixed Jewish-Gentile church in Rome, he may have believed that a similar structure existed at the time of Jesus. That is to place an unnecessary hypothesis to explain a statement that is at least tendentious. Greeks certainly did try to meet Jesus (John 12.20-26), an affair that seems to have caused a great deal of fluttering among his followers, and which Jesus himself took as the sign that His day of glorification was coming. What we do not know is whether there were any Greeks (that is, non-Jews) among the thousands of followers of Jesus; but the appearance of these Greeks is certainly no secondary affair. It disconcerts the disciples to the point where Philip feels he has to discuss it with Andrew (both apostles with Greek names) before either of them speaks to Jesus, and it is sandwiched between two tremendous events - the resurrection of Lazarus, and the royal entrance into Jerusalem. The resurrection appearances on the third day, together with the relevant prophecies, are part of the apologetic arsenal of the early church and have nothing to do with Josephus. Certainties are such nice things. Considering that Bowersock has shown, what hardly needed being proved anyway, that the story of Jesus, including death and resurrection, was known in Rome from the seventh decade AD and widely known and imitated in various aspects of middle Roman culture (Glenn Bowersock, Fiction as History, passim), there is absolutely no need to postulate, as you so clearly do, that Josephus must have been ignorant of it. To the contrary, it makes perfect sense as an explanation of why that weird sect of Christians has still (!) not died out: it is because they believe their leader to have performed the paradoxon ergon of rising from the grave.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.