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

The three passages appear in separate sections of the Antiquities. The short Jesus notice comes first, followed by the longer accounts of John and the execution of James. Leaving the controversial Testimonium to last, let us first examine John and James, both in their Josephan context and in comparison with the corresponding Christian sources.

John the Baptist

In the Gospels, John, an eremitic prophet, preached repentance and baptism in the wilderness of the Jordan. He was the forerunner of Jesus, his follower and successor in Galilee. John was imprisoned and beheaded on the occasion of the birthday feast of the ruler of Galilee, Herod Antipas, for disapproving of his marriage to Herodias, his sister-in-law.  Josephus mentions no link between John and Jesus, places the venue of John's execution not in Galilee, but in Machaerus (Mukawir), a fortress in contemporary Jordan, and does not connect the downfall of the Baptist with his disapproval of the union between Antipas and Herodias. For Josephus, John was an exemplary character, a "good man", who "had exhorted the Jews...to practise justice towards their fellows and piety towards God, and so doing to join in baptism". He noted, however, that John "aroused" his followers to the highest degree by his sermons. The word "aroused" implies that he was a powerful and fiery preacher, and as such capable of igniting a revolt. 

So, Josephus continued, Antipas decided to "strike first and be rid of him before his work led to an uprising". The eloquent John was seen by Antipas — like Jesus, one may add, by the high priests after he had caused mayhem in the merchants' quarter in the Temple — as a potential threat to civic order. In consequence, both were eliminated. 

Josephus included John's story in his narrative because the annihilation of Antipas's army by Aretas, the Nabatean king and the enraged father of the wife abandoned by Antipas for Herodias, was interpreted by the Jews as a divine vindication that fairly closely followed John's murder. There is no reason to suspect here a Christian hand. The account fits Josephus's narrative style and explains the tragedy just as well as the anecdote of Herodias's dancing daughter, Salome, demanding the head of the Baptist on a platter. Against the Gospel version note that Machaerus on the distant Nabatean border would be a rather unsuitable location for a royal birthday party intended for the Galilean nobility (Mk 6:21).

James, the brother of Jesus

The authenticity of the mention of James is the least questionable of the three anecdotes. Josephus identifies James not as the son of "X", but as "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ". Paul also refers to him as "James the brother of the Lord". The atmosphere of the story reflects the political situation in Jerusalem in the first century CE, with Roman governors and Jewish high priests constantly vying with one another for power. 

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.