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

Jesus

The Jesus story is presented by Josephus as one of four misdeeds that Josephus blamed on Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judaea 26-36 CE. The first was the introduction of Roman standards bearing the emperor's effigy into Jerusalem (26 CE). The second was the misappropriation of Temple funds (date unknown). The third was the sentencing of Jesus (30 CE), while the last was the upheaval in Samaria (35 CE), which led to Pilate's dismissal from office.

Regarding the authenticity of the Testimonium, three stances are possible: 

1. One may accept it lock, stock and barrel, as did all the pre-16th-century authorities. 

2. With more recent scholars, one may reject the entire passage as a Christian interpolation. 

3. In the company of an increasing number of recent students, it is possible to recognise some parts of the notice as authentic and discard the remainder as spurious. 

I belong to the third group and will argue the case for a partial authenticity. The textual evidence — the Greek manuscripts of Josephus, the quotation of the passage in Eusebius, and the Latin, Syriac and Arabic translations — contains no significant variants. Consequently, only historical and literary-critical analysis can serve as a filter to separate the authentic from the inauthentic elements. I reproduce here Antiquities 18:63-64 in English:

(63) About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed paradoxical deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Christ. (64) When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

The Christian passages, those that cannot be ascribed to the Jew Josephus, are easily distinguishable. 

  • The gloss, "If indeed one ought to call him a man", is the interpolator's reaction to the superhuman/divine Jesus being called a mere "wise man".
  • "He was the Christ" is a common Christian interpolator's confession of the messianic status of Jesus. Nevertheless, the original text must have contained the epithet, "Christ", to account for the later statement about "the tribe of the Christians" named after the founder. The most likely original version read, "He was called the Christ", as Josephus puts it in the James passage. 
  • 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. 
  • 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. 
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.