Talk:Josephus on Jesus/testpage
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Josephus_Antiquitates_Iudaice.jpg/180px-Josephus_Antiquitates_Iudaice.jpg)
The writings of 1st century
The overwhelming majority of modern scholars consider the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" to be authentic and to have the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[4][1][2][5][6] Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to be also authentic.[7][8][9]
Scholars have differing opinions on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in
The references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as the Jewish War, written 20 years earlier, but scholars have provided explanations for their absence.[14] A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of James and John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts.[7][15] Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them.[7][16][15]
Part of a series on |
![]() |
The three passages
James the brother of Jesus
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... 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.[17]
In the
The context of the passage is the period following the death of
Modern scholarship overwhelmingly views the entire passage, including its reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ", as authentic and has rejected its being the result of later interpolation.[4][23][1][2] Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable.[22] However, a few scholars still question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in The Jewish War differ from it.[24][25]
John the Baptist
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Baptistry_%28Castiglione_Olona%29_003.jpg/170px-Baptistry_%28Castiglione_Olona%29_003.jpg)
Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.[26]
In the
Almost all modern scholars consider this passage to be authentic in its entirety, although a small number of authors have questioned it.[7][29][30] Because the death of John also appears prominently in the Christian gospels, this passage is considered an important connection between the events Josephus recorded, the chronology of the gospels and the dates for the Ministry of Jesus.[7] A few scholars have questioned the passage, contending that the absence of Christian tampering or interpolation does not itself prove authenticity.[31] While this passage is the only reference to John the Baptist outside the New Testament, it is widely seen by most scholars as confirming the historicity of the baptisms that John performed.[7][32][33][34]
While both the gospels and Josephus refer to Herod Antipas killing John the Baptist, they differ on the details and the motive. While the gospels present this as a consequence of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias in defiance of Jewish law (as in Matthew 14:4, Mark 6:18) Josephus refers to it as a pre-emptive measure by Herod to quell a possible uprising.[35][36][37][9]
While Josephus identifies the location of the imprisonment of John as Machaerus, southeast of the mouth of the Jordan river, the gospels mention no location for the place where John was imprisoned.[38] However, according to other historical accounts Machaerus was rebuilt by Herod the Great around 30 AD and then passed to Herod Antipas.[38][39][40] The 36 AD date of the conflict with Aretas IV mentioned by Josephus is, however, consistent (and shortly after) the approximate date of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias estimated by other historical methods.[39][41][8]
Testimonium Flavianum
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Testimonium.jpg/180px-Testimonium.jpg)
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.[42]
The Testimonium Flavianum (meaning the testimony of Flavius [Josephus]) is the name given to the passage found in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities in which Josephus describes the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the Roman authorities.[43][10] The Testimonium is likely the most discussed passage in Josephus and perhaps in all ancient literature.[1]
The earliest secure reference to this passage is found in the writings of the fourth-century Christian apologist and historian
Of the three passages found in Josephus' Antiquities, this passage, if authentic, would offer the most direct support for the crucifixion of Jesus. The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation.[10][11][12][13] James Dunn states that there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.[50] Among other things, the authenticity of this passage would help make sense of the later reference in Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 where Josephus refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus". A number of scholars argue that the reference to Jesus in this later passage as "the aforementioned Christ" relates to the earlier reference in the Testimonium.[1][2][51]
Ancient and medieval sources
Extant manuscripts
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/WorksJosephus1640TP.jpg/180px-WorksJosephus1640TP.jpg)
Josephus wrote all of his surviving works after his establishment in Rome (c. 71AD) under the patronage of the Flavian Emperor Vespasian. As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no surviving extant manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century, and the oldest of these are all Greek minuscules, copied by Christian monks.[52] (Jews did not preserve the writings of Josephus because they considered him to be a traitor.[53])
There are about 120 extant Greek manuscripts of Josephus, of which 33 predate the 14th century, with two thirds from the
There is considerable evidence, however, that attests to the existence of the references to Jesus in Josephus well before then, including a number of ad hoc copies of Josephus' work preserved in quotation from the works of Christian writers. The earliest known such reference to Josephus' work is found in the writings of the third century patristic author
One of the reasons the works of Josephus were copied and maintained by Christians was that his writings provided a good deal of information about a number of figures mentioned in the New Testamant, and the background to events such as the death of James during a gap in Roman governing authority.[4] Because manuscript transmission was done by hand-copying, typically by monastic scribes, almost all ancient texts have been subject to both accidental and deliberate alterations, emendations (called interpolation) or elisions. It is both the lack of any original corroborating manuscript source outside the Christian tradition as well as the practice of Christian interpolation that has led to the scholarly debate regarding the authenticity of Josephus' references to Jesus in his work. Although there is no doubt that most (but not all[58]) of the later copies of the Antiquities contained references to Jesus and John the Baptist, it cannot be definitively shown that these were original to Josephus writings, and were not instead added later by Christian interpolators. Much of the scholarly work concerning the references to Jesus in Josephus has thus concentrated on close textual analysis of the Josephan corpus to determine the degree to which the language, as preserved in both early Christian quotations and the later transmissions, should be considered authentic.
Slavonic Josephus
The three references found in Book 18 and Book 20 of the Antiquities do not appear in any other versions of Josephus' The Jewish War except for a Slavonic version of the Testimonium Flavomium (at times called Testimonium Slavonium) which surfaced in the west at the beginning of the 20th century, after its discovery in Russia at the end of the 19th century.[59][60]
Although originally hailed as authentic (notably by
Arabic and Syriac Josephus
In 1971, a 10th century Arabic version of the Testimonium due to Agapius of Hierapolis was brought to light by Shlomo Pines who also discovered a 12th century Syriac version of Josephus by Michael the Syrian.[63][64][65] These additional manuscript sources of the Testimonium have furnished additional ways to evaluate Josephus' mention of Jesus in the Antiquities, principally through a close textual comparison between the Arabic, Syriac and Greek versions to the Testimonium.[11][66]
There are subtle yet key differences between the Greek manuscripts and these texts. For instance, the Arabic version does not blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. The key phrase "at the suggestion of the principle men among us" reads instead "Pilate condemned him to be crucified".[67][11] And instead of "he was Christ," the Syriac version has the phrase "he was believed to be Christ".[68] Drawing on these textual variations, scholars have suggested that these versions of the Testimonium more closely reflect what a non-Christian Jew may have written. [64]
Early References
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Origen.jpg/120px-Origen.jpg)
In the 3rd century,
The context for Origen's references is his defense of Christianity.
The 4th century writings of
In Book II, Chapter 23.20 of his Church History, Eusebius describes the death of James according to Josephus. In that chapter, Eusebius first describes the background including Festus, and mentions Clement and Hegesippus. In item 20 of that chapter Eusebius then mentions Josephus' reference to the death of James and the sufferings that befell those who killed him. However, Eusebius does not acknowledge Origen as one of his sources for the reference to James in Josephus.[73]
Detailed Analysis
Variations from the New Testament
There are some variations between the statements by Josephus regarding James and John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts. Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts.[7][16]
Josephus' account places the date of the death of James as 62 AD.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Nuremberg_chronicles_f_096v_1.png/130px-Nuremberg_chronicles_f_096v_1.png)
John Painter states that the relationship of the death of James to the siege is an important theologoumenon in the early church.[15] On the basis of the Gospel accounts it was concluded that the fate of the city was determined by the death there of Jesus.[15] To account for the 35 year difference, Painter states that the city was preserved temporarily by the presence within it of a 'just man' (see also Sodom); who was identified with James, as confirmed by Origen. Hence Painter states that the killing of James restarted the clock that led to the destruction of the city and that the traditional dating of 69 AD simply arose from an over-literal application of the theologoumenon, and is not to be regarded as founded on a historical source.[15] Moreover, the difference between the Josephus account and the New Testament method of death for James is seen as an indication that the Josephus account is not a Christian interpolation.[16]
The marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias is mentioned both in Josephus and in the gospels, and scholars consider Josephus as a key connection in establishing the approximate chronology of specific episodes related to John the Baptist.[7] However, although both the gospels and Josephus refer to Herod Antipas killing John the Baptist, they differ on the details and motives, e.g. whether this act was a consequence of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias (as indicated in Matthew 14:4, Mark 6:18), or a pre-emptive measure by Herod which possibly took place before the marriage to quell a possible uprising based on the remarks of John, as Josephus suggests in Antiquities 18.5.2.[35][76][39]
Louis Feldman has stated that there is "no necessary contradiction between Josephus and the gospels as to the reason why John was put to death" in that the Christians chose to emphasize the moral charges while Josephus emphasized the political fears that John stirred in Herod.[77]
Josephus stated (
Arguments challenging authenticity
The James passage
A comparative argument made against the authenticity of the James passage by scholars such as Tessa Rajak is that the passage has a negative tone regarding the High Priest Ananus, presenting him as impulsive while in the Jewish Wars Josephus presents a positive view of Ananus and portrays him as prudent.[80] [81]
A textual arguments against the authenticity of the James passage is that the use of the term "Christos" there seems unusual for Josephus.[80] An argument based on the flow of the text in the document is that given that the mention of Jesus appears in the Antiquities before that of the John the Baptist a Christian interpolator may have inserted it to place Jesus in the text before John.[80] A further argument against the authenticity of the James passage is that it would have read well even without a reference to Jesus.[80]
Some of the arguments for and against the authenticity of the James passage revolve around the similarities and differences between the accounts of Josephus, Origen, Eusebius and the New testament. Although Josephus' account of the method of death of James differs from that of the New Testament, this is seen as an indication that the Josephus account is not a Christian interpolation.[16]
John Painter states that Origen expresses surprise that given that a Josephus who disbelieves in Jesus as Christ (Commentary on Matthew Book X, Chapter 17) should write respectfully of James, his brother.[82] However, according to Painter unlike the Testimonium this issue has not generated a great deal controversy, although viewed as a potential reason for doubting authenticity.[82]
An issue that is subject to more debate is that in Commentary on Matthew (Book X, Chapter 17), Origen cites Josephus as stating the death of James had brought a wrath upon those who had killed him, and that his death was the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem.[69][71][83] A the end of Book II, Chapter XIII Origen disagrees with Josephus' placement of blame for the destruction of Jerusalem on the death of James, and states that it was due to the death of Jesus, not James.[82]
In Book II, Chapter 23.20 of his Church History, Eusebius mentions Josephus' reference to the death of James and the sufferings that befell those who killed him. In this reference Eusebius writes: “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.” However, this statement does not appear in the extant manuscripts of Josephus.[82] Painter states that whether the Book II, Chapter 23.20 statement by Eusebius is an interpolation remains an open question.[82]
Eusebius does not acknowledge Origen as one of his sources for the reference to James in Josephus.[73] However, John painter states that placing the blame for the siege of Jerusalem on the death of James is perhaps an early Christian invention that predates both Origen and Eusebius and that it likely existed in the traditions to which they were both exposed.[82] Painter states that it is likely that Eusebius may have obtained his explanation of the siege of Jerusalem from Origen.[73]
G. A. Wells has stated that the fact that Origen seems to have read something different about the death of James in Josephus than what there is now, suggests some tampering with the James passage seen by Origen.[84] Wells suggests that the interpolation seen by Origen may not have survived in the extant Josephus manuscripts, but that it opens the possibility that there may have been other interpolations in Josephus' writings.[84]
John the Baptist
Scholars such as Claudia Setzer have noted the differences between the rationale for the death of John the Baptist presented by Josephus, and the theological variations (e.g. whether immersion in water can result in the forgiveness of sins, etc.) and the New Testament accounts.[85] However, these differences are usually seen as indications of the lack of tampering, given that an interpolator would have made the accounts similar.[86]
Claire Rothschild has stated that the absence of Christian interpolations in the Josephus passage on John the Baptist can not by itself be used as an argument for its authenticity, but is merely an indication of the lack of tampering.[87]
Testimonium Flavianum
The Testimonium has been the subject of a great deal of research and debate among scholars, being one of the most discussed passages among all antiquities.[88] Louis Feldman has stated that in the period from 1937 to 1980 at least 87 articles had appeared on the topic, the overwhelming majority of which questioned the total or partial authenticity of the Testimonium.[89] While early scholars considered the Testimonium to be a total forgery, the majority of modern scholars consider it partially authentic, despite some clear Christian interpolations in the text.[90][91]
The arguments surrounding the authenticity of the Testimonium fall into two categories: internal arguments that rely on textual analysis and compare the passage with the rest of Josephus' work; and external arguments, that consider the wider cultural and historical context.[92] Some of the external arguments are "arguments from silence" that question the authenticity of the entire passage not for what it says, but due to lack of references to it among other ancient sources.[93]
The external analyses of the Testimonium have even used computer-based methods, e.g. the matching of the text of the Testimonium with the Gospel of Luke performed by Gary Goldberg in 1995.[94] Goldberg found some partial matches between the Testimonium and Luke 24:19-21, 26-27, but the results were not conclusive.[94] Goldberg's analyses suggested three possibilities, one that the matches were random, or that the Testimonium was a Christian interpolation based on Luke, and finally that both the Testimonium and Luke were based on the same sources.[94]
Internal Arguments
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Works_Translated_by_William_Whiston.djvu/page40-150px-Works_Translated_by_William_Whiston.djvu.jpg)
One of the key internal arguments against the total authenticity of the Testimonium is that the clear inclusion of Christian phraseology strongly indicates the presence of some interpolations.[95] For instance, the phrases "if it be lawful to call him a man" suggests that Jesus was more than human and is likely a Christian interpolation.[95] Some scholars have attempted to reconstruct the original Testimonium, but others contend that attempts to discriminate the passage into Josephan and non-Josephan elements are inherently circular.[96]
Another example of the textual arguments against the Testimonium is that it uses the Greek term poietes to mean "doer" (as part of the phrase "doer of wonderful works") but elsewhere in his works, Josephus only uses the term poietes to mean "poet," whereas this use of "poietes" seems consistent with the Greek of Eusebius.[97]
The concordance of the language used in the Testimonium, its flow within the text and its length have formed components of the internal arguments against its authenticity, e.g. that the brief and compact character of the Testimonium stands in marked contrast to Josephus' more extensive accounts presented elsewhere in his works.[98] For example, Josephus' description of the death of John the Baptist includes consideration of his virtues, the theology associated with his baptismal practices, his oratorical skills, his influence, the circumstances of his death, and the belief that the destruction of Herod's army was a divine punishment for Herod's slaughter of John.[99] G. A. Wells has argued against the authenticity of the Testimonium, stating that the passage is noticeably shorter and more cursory than such notices generally used by Josephus in the Antiquities, and that had it been authentic, it would have included more details and a longer introduction.[98]
A further internal argument against the Testimonium's authenticity is the context of the passage in the Antiquities of the Jews.[100] Some scholars argue that the passage is an intrusion into the progression of Josephus' text at the point in which it appears in the Antiquities and breaks the thread of the narrative.[98]
External Arguments
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Eusebius_of_Caesarea.jpg/150px-Eusebius_of_Caesarea.jpg)
Origen's statement in his Commentary on Matthew (Book X, Chapter 17) that Josephus" did not accept Jesus as Christ", is usually seen as a confirmation of the generally accepted fact that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah.[66][101] This forms a key external argument against the total authenticity of the Testimonium in that Josephus, as a Jew, would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and the reference to "he was Christ" in the Testimonium must be a Christian interpolation.[64] Based on this observation alone, Paul L. Maier calls the case for the total authenticity of the Testimonium "hopeless".[64] Allmost all modern scholars reject the total authenticity of the Testimonium, while the majority of scholars still hold that it includes an authentic kernel.[64][102]
A different set of external arguments against the authenticity of the Testimonium (either partial or total) are "arguments from silence", e.g. that although twelve Christian authors refer to Josephus before Eusebius in 324 AD, none mentions the Testimonium.[103][104] Given earlier debates by Christian authors about the existence of Jesus, e.g. in Justin Martyr's 2nd century Dialogue with Trypho, it would have been expected that the passage from Josephus would have been used as a component of the arguments.[105]
Even after Eusebius' 324 AD reference, it is not until
A separate argument from silence against the total or partial authenticity of the Testimonium is that a 5th or 6th century table of contents of Josephus (although selective) makes no mention of it.[104]
A final argument from silence relates to Josephus' own writings and questions the authenticity of Testimonium based on the fact that it has no parallel in the Jewish War, which includes a discussion of Pontius Pilate at about the same level of detail.[107][14]
Timing of the interpolations
Kenneth Olson has argued that the entire Testimonium must have been forged by Eseubuis himself, basing his argument on textual similarities between the Testimonium and Eseubuis' writings in the Demonstrations of the Gospels.[46]
Zvi Baras, on the other hand, believes that the Testimonium was subject to interpolation before Eseubuis.[96] Baras believes that Origen had seen the original Testimonium but that the Testimonium seen by Origen had no negative reference to Jesus, else Origen would have reacted against it.[96] Baras states that the interpolation in the Testimonium took place between Origen and Eusebius.[96]
Paul Maier states that a comparison of Eusebius' reference with the 10th century Arabic version of the Testimonium due to Agapius of Hierapolis indicates that the Christian interpolation present in the Testimonium must have come early, before Eseubuis.[64] Richard Van Voorst also states that the interpolation likely took place some time between Origen and Eusebius.[66]
Arguments in favor of authenticity
The James Passage
Louis Feldman states that the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James has been "almost universally acknowledged"[108] Feldman states that this passage, above others, indicates that Josephus did say something about Jesus.[109] Feldman states that it would make no sense for Origen to show amazement that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus as Christ (Book X, Chapter 17), if Josephus had not referred to Jesus at all.[81] Paul L. Maier states that most scholars agree with Feldman's assessment that "few have doubted the genuineness of this passage"[2] Zvi Baras also states that most modern scholars consider the James passage to be authentic.[110]
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Jakov_brat_gospodnji.jpg/180px-Jakov_brat_gospodnji.jpg)
According to Robert E. Van Voorst the overwhelming majority of scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as authentic.[4][100] Van Voorst states that the James passage fits well in the context in the Antiquities and an indication for its uthenticity is the lack of the laudatory language that a Christian interpolator would have used to refer to Jesus as "the Lord", or a similar term.[111] Van Voorst also states that the use of a neutral term "called Christ" which neither denies nor affirms Jesus as the Messiah points to authenticity, and indicates that Josephus used it to distinguish Jesus from the many other people called Jesus at the time, in the same way that James is distinguished, given that it was also a common name.[111]
Richard Bauckham states that although a few scholars have questioned the James passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic", and that among the several accounts of the death of James the account in Josephus is generally considered to be historically the most reliable.[112] Bauckham states that the method of killing James by stoning, and the description provided by Josephus via the assembly of the Sanhedrin of judges are consistent with the policies of the Temple authorities towards the early Christian Church at the time.(Bauckham page 231)
Andreas Köstenberger considers the James passage to be authentic and states that the James passage attests to the existence of Jesus as a historical person, and that his followers considered him the Messiah.(Köstenberger pages 104-105) Köstenberger states that the statement by Josephus that some people recognized Jesus as the Messiah is consistent with the grammar of Josephus elsewhere but does not imply that Josephus himself considered Jesus the Messiah.(Köstenberger pages 104-105) Köstenberger concurs with John Meier that it is highly unlikely for the passage to be a Christian interpolation given that in New Testament texts James is referred to as the "brother of the Lord" rather than the "brother of Jesus", and that a Christian interpolator would have provided a more detailed account at that point.(Köstenberger pages 104-105)
Claudia Setzer states that few have questioned the authenticity of the James passage, partly based on the observation that a Chrisian interpolator would have provided more praise for James.[113] Setzer states that the passage indicates that Josephus, a Jewish historian writing towards the end of the first century, could use a neutral tone towards Christians, with some tones of sympathy, implying that they may be worthy of Roman protection.[113]
John the Baptist
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Oberzell_Alte_Kirche_Decke_Johannes_im_Kerker.jpg/150px-Oberzell_Alte_Kirche_Decke_Johannes_im_Kerker.jpg)
Craig Evans states that almost all modern scholars consider the Josephus passage on John to be authentic in its entirety, and that what Josephus states about John fits well both with the general depiction of John in the New Testament and within the historical context of the activities of other men, their preachings and their promises during that period.[7]
Louis Feldman, who believes the Josephus passage on John is authentic, states that Christian interpolators would have been very unlikely to have devoted almost twice as much space to John (163 words) as to Jesus (89 words).[115] Feldman also states that a Christian interpolator would have likely altered Josephus' passage about John the Baptist to make the circumstances of the death of John become similar to the New Testament, and to indicate that John was a forerunner of Jesus. [116]
James Dunn states that the accounts of Josephus and the New Testament regarding John the Baptist are closer than they may appear at a first reading.[117] Dunn states that Josephus positions John as a righteous preacher (dikaiosyne) who encourages his followers to practice "righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God" and that Mark 6:20 similarly calls John "a righteous (dikaios) and holy man".[117] Dunn states that Antipas likely saw John as a figure whose asceic lifestyle and calls for moral reform could give rise to a poplar uprising on moral grounds, as both Josephus and the New Testament suggest.[117]
Justin Meggitt states that there are fundamental similarities between the Josephus' portrayal of John the Baptist and the New Testament narrative in that in both accounts John is positioned as a preacher of morality, not as someone who had challenged the political authority of Herod Antipas.[118] W. E. Nunnally states that the John passage is considered authentic and that Josephus' emphasis on the egalitarian nature of John's teachings fit well into the biblical and historical traditions.[119]
Testimonium Flavianum
The three perspectives
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Flavius_Josephus_1582_by_Froben.jpg/150px-Flavius_Josephus_1582_by_Froben.jpg)
Paul L. Maier, and separately Zvi Baras state that scholars generally fall into three camps over the authenticity of the Testimonium: 1. It is entirely authentic, 2. It is entirely a Christian forgery and 3. It contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus' authentic material about Jesus.[64][120]
Paul Maier states that the first case is generally seen as hopeless, given that a Jew, Josephus would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and that the second option is hardly tenable given the presence of the reference in all Greek manuscripts; thus a large majority of modern scholars accept the third alternative, i.e. partial authenticity.
While before the advent of
Origen and Eusebius
The writings of Origen make no reference to the Testimonium. However, Louis Feldman has presented arguments that Origen may have seen a copy of the Testimonium (in a different form than quoted by Esebeius) and not commented on it for there was no need to complain about its tone.[48] Feldman states that "The most likely assumption is, then, that the 'Testimonium' as read by Origen contained historical data in a neutral form."[48]
Zvi Baras also believes that Origen had seen the Testimonium, and that at the time of Origen the Testimoniumincluded no interpolations.[49] Baras believes that the Testimonium seen by Origen had a neutral tone, and included no negative tone towards Christians, and hence required no reaction from Origen.[49] Baras states that the neutral tone of the Testimonium seen by Origen was then modified between the time of Origen and Eusebius.[49]
Arguments in favor of partial authenticity
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Rakow_josephus.jpg/150px-Rakow_josephus.jpg)
Some arguments in favor of partial authenticity rely on the language used in the Testimonim, e.g. that the passage calls Jesus "a wise man" which is not laudatory enough for an interpolator, neither is the reference to "amazing deeds".[122] According to Van Voorst, the statement "those that loved him at the first did not forsake him" has the characteristics of Josephus' writing and points to the continuation of Christianity. Van Voorst states that this sentence argues for the continuation of Christianity based on the love for its leader, not the reported appearances after his death.[122] Van Voorst states that it is hard to imagine that the phrase "receive the truth with pleasure" used in the Testimonium is the work of a Christian interpolator, for Christian writers generally avoid the use of the word "pleasure (ηδονή in Greek) in a positive sense due to its association with hedonism.[127]
Regarding the arguments from silence about the scarcity of references to Josephus prior to Origen and Eusebius , Louis Feldman states that Josephus was ignored by early Christian writers before Origen because they were not sufficiently learned, and not sophisticated enough in historical matters.[128]
Claudia Setzer, who believes in the authenticity of a kernel in the Testimonium, states that while "tribe is an odd way to describe Christians" it does not necessarily have negative connotations.[130] Setzer argues for the existence of an authentic kernel because "the style and vocabulary are Josephan" and specific parts (e.g. the use of "wise man") are not what one would expect from a Christian forger.[130] Setzer argues that the Testimonium indicates that Josephus had heard of Jesus and the basic elements surrounding his death, and that he saw Jesus as primarily a miracle worker.[130] Van Voorst also states that calling Christians a "tribe" would have been very out of character for a Christian scribe, while Josephus has used it to refer both to Jewish and Christian groups.[122]
Alice Whealy, who supports the partial authenticity of the Testimonium, has rejected the arguments by Kenneth Olson regarding the total fabrication of the Testimonium by Eusebius, stating that Olson's analysis includes inaccurate readings of both the works of Josephus and Eusebius, as well as logical flaws in his argument.[131]
Craig Evans states that an argument in favor of the partial authenticity of the Testimonium is that the passage does not exaggerate the role played by the Jewish leaders in the death of Jesus.[121] According to Evans, if the passage had been an interpolation after the emergence of conflicts between Jews and Christians, it would have had a more accusative tone, but in its current form reads as one would expect it to read for a passage composed by Josephus towards the end of the first century.[121]
Reconstruction of an authentic kernel
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Works_Translated_by_William_Whiston.djvu/page11-150px-Works_Translated_by_William_Whiston.djvu.jpg)
Craig Blomberg states that if the three elements "lawful to call him a man", "he was the Christ" and the reference to the resurrection are removed from the Testimonium the rest of the passage flows smoothly within the context, fits the style of Josephus and is likely to be authentic.[132] Blomberg adds that after the removal of these three elements (which are likely interpolations) from the Greek versions the remaining passage fits well with the Arabic version and supports the authenticity of the reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate.[132] Joel B. Green also states that the removal of some elements from the Testimonium produces a passage that is likely to be an authentic reference to the death of Jesus.[133]
James Dunn states that the works of Josephus include two separate references to Jesus and although there are some interpolations in the Testomonium, there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.[50] Based on the reconstruction, the original passage would have read like:[50][133]
- Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
In this passage, which is based on
Relationship to the Jewish Wars
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Gar._15_f.3r.jpeg/150px-Gar._15_f.3r.jpeg)
Louis Feldman states that it is significant that the passages on James, John and the Testimonium are found in the Antiquities and not in the Jewish Wars, but provides three explanations for their absence from the Jewish Wars.[14] One explanation is that the Antiquities covers the time period involved at a greater length than the Jewish Wars.[14] The second explanation is that during the gap between the writing of the Jewish Wars (c. 70 AD) and Antiquities (after 90 AD) Christians had become more important in Rome and were hence given attention in the Antiquities.[14] Another explanation is that the passages were added to the Antiquities to highlight the power of the Pharisees, but he considers the last explanation less likely than the others.[14]
One of the arguments against the authenticity of the James passage has been that in the Jewish Wars Josephus portrays the High Priest Ananus in a positive manner, while in the Antiquities he writes of Ananus in a negative tone.[81] Louis Feldman rejects these arguments against the authenticity of the James passage and states that in several other unrelated cases the Jewish War also differs from the Antiquities, and that an interpolator would have made the two accounts correspond more closely to each other, not make them differ.[81]
The twenty year gap between the writing of the Jewish Wars and the Antiquities has also been used to explain some of the differences in tone between them.[134] Clemens Thoma provides an explanation for this based on the observation that Josephus may have learned of the details of the actions of Annanus in the twenty year gap between the writing of the Jewish Wars and the Antiquities, and thus avoided a positive tone when writing of Ananus in the Antiquities.[134]
John Painter states that the difference in the context for the Jewish Wars and the Antiquities may also account for some of the differences in tone between them, e.g. when writing of Ananus in a positive tone in the Jewish Wars the context was Ananus' prudence in avoiding a war and hence Josephus considered that a positive aspect.[135] However, when writing in the Antiquities about the actions of Ananus which resulted in his demotion from the High Priesthood, the context required the manifestation of a negative aspect of Ananus' character.[135]
See also
Notes
- ^ a b c d e f g Feldman & Hata 1987, pp. 54–57.
- ^ a b c d e f Flavius Josephus & Maier 1995, pp. 284–285.
- ^ Flavius Josephus & Maier 1995, p. 12.
- ^ a b c d Van Voorst 2000, p. 83.
- ^ a b Bauckham 1999, pp. 199–203.
- ^ a b c d e f Painter 2005, pp. 134–141.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Evans 2006, pp. 55–58.
- ^ a b c Bromiley 1982, pp. 694–695.
- ^ a b c White 2010, p. 48.
- ^ a b c d Schreckenberg & Schubert 1992a, pp. 38–41.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Kostenberger, Kellum & Quarles 2009, pp. 104–108.
- ^ a b Evans 2001, p. 316.
- ^ a b Wansbrough 2004, p. 185.
- ^ a b c d e f Feldman 1984, p. 826.
- ^ a b c d e f Painter 2005, pp. 143–145.
- ^ a b c d e Eddy & Boyd 2007, p. 130.
- ^ Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 Text at Wikisource
- ^ a b Harding 2003, p. 317.
- ^ Freedman, Myers & Beck 2000, p. 670.
- ^ Neale 2003, pp. 2–3.
- ^ a b Mitchell & Young 2006, p. 297.
- ^ a b Painter 2004, p. 126.
- ^ Richard Bauckham states that although a few scholars have questioned this passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic" (Bauckham 1999, pp. 199–203).
- ^ Habermas 1996, pp. 33–37.
- ^ Wells 1986, p. 11.
- ^ Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews Book 18, 5, 2 Text at Wikisource
- ^ Dapaah 2005, p. 48.
- ^ Hoehner 1983, pp. 125–127.
- ^ Flavius Josephus, Whiston & Maier 1999, pp. 662–63.
- ^ Feldman 1992, pp. 990–991.
- ^ Rothschild 2011, pp. 257–258.
- ^ Murphy 2003, p. 2003.
- ^ Jonas & Lopez 2010, pp. 95–96.
- ^ a b Chilton & Evans 1998, pp. 187–198.
- ^ a b Van Voorst 2003, pp. 508–509.
- ^ Meyers, Craven & Kraemer 2001, pp. 92–93.
- ^ Jensen 2010, pp. 42–43.
- ^ a b Freedman, Myers & Beck 2000, p. 842.
- ^ a b c Gillman 2003, pp. 25–31.
- ^ Knoblet 2005, pp. 15–17.
- ^ Hoehner 1983, p. 131.
- ^ Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 Text at Wikisource
- ^ Flavius Josephus, Whiston & Maier 1999, p. 662.
- ^ a b Louth 1990.
- ^ McGiffert 2007.
- ^ a b Olson 1999.
- ^ Wallace-Hadrill 2011.
- ^ a b c Feldman 1984, p. 823.
- ^ a b c d Baras 1987, pp. 340–341.
- ^ a b c d Dunn 2003, p. 141.
- ^ Vermes 2011, pp. 33–44.
- ^ Feldman & Hata 1989, p. 431.
- ^ Flavius Josephus et al. 2003, p. 26.
- ^ Baras 1987, p. 369.
- ^ Mason 2001, p. LI.
- ^ Feldman 1984.
- ^ Bowman 2011, pp. 186–187.
- ^ For example, an ancient Table of Contents of the eighteenth book of the Antiquities omits any reference to the passage about Jesus, as does the Josephus codex of the patriarch Photius. Nor is it clear if the Testimonium existed in the Josephus exemplar used by Origen. See Schreckenberg & Schubert 1992b, pp. 57–58.
- ^ Van Voorst 2000, p. 85.
- ^ Creed 1932.
- ^ a b Bowman 1987, pp. 373–374.
- ^ Chilton & Evans 1998, p. 451.
- ^ Pines 1971, p. 19.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Maier 2007, pp. 336–337.
- ^ Feldman 2006, pp. 329–330.
- ^ a b c d Van Voorst 2000, p. 97.
- ^ The historical Jesus: ancient evidence for the life of Christ by Gary R. Habermas 1996 ISBN page 194
- ^ Vermes, 2011 & 33-44.
- ^ a b c d e f Mizugaki 1987.
- ^ Flavius Josephus, Whiston & Maier 1999, p. 15.
- ^ a b Painter 2005, p. 205.
- ^ Bartlett 1985, pp. 92–94.
- ^ a b c Painter 2005, pp. 155–167.
- ISBN 0802837816page 692
- ^ Painter 2005, pp. 221–222.
- ^ ISBN 0800697472page 48
- ISBN 3110081385page 675
- ISBN 0761831096page 48
- ISBN 0310422515pages 125-127
- ^ a b c d Eddy & Boyd 2007, pp. 128–130.
- ^ a b c d Feldman & Hata 1987, p. 56.
- ^ a b c d e f Painter 2005, pp. 132–137.
- ^ Quoting Mizugaki, page 335: "Origen notes with favour that Josephus seeks the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in the assassination of James the Just but gravely adds that Josephus ought to have stated that the calamity happened because the Jews killed Christ."
- ^ ISBN 0812693345pages 54-55
- ISBN 978-0195297706page 576
- ISBN 9004149066pages 330-331
- ISBN 978-3-11-024751-0page 271
- ^ a b Feldman & Hata 1987, p. 55.
- ISBN 0814319823page 430
- ISBN 978-0-8204-5241-8. Retrieved 19 February 2012.
- ^ Meier, 1990 (especially note 15)
- ISSN 0022-5185.
- ^ Van Voorst 2000, pp. 91–92.
- ^ a b c Goldberg, G. 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 [1]
- ^ a b Van Voorst 2000, p. 91.
- ^ a b c d Baras 1987, p. 340.
- ISBN 156563795Xpage 231
- ^ ISBN 0812693345pages 49-56
- JSTOR 3267541.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Van Voorst 2003, p. 509.
- ISBN 0334029155pages 91-92
- ^ a b Van Voorst 2003, pp. 509–511.
- ^ ISBN 3110247518page 274
- ^ a b c Feldman & Hata 1987, p. 57.
- ^ Feldman & Hata 1987, p. 431.
- ^ Jewish historiography and iconography in early and Medieval Christianity by Heinz Schreckenberg, Kurt Schubert Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991 page 39
- ^ Van Voorst 2000, p. 88.
- ISBN 9004085548pages 55-57
- ISBN 9004085548. page 56
- ^ Baras 1987, p. 341.
- ^ a b Van Voorst 2000, pp. 83–84.
- ISBN 9004115501pages 199-203
- ^ ISBN 080062680Xpages 108-109
- ISBN 0521166411Cambridge University Press pages 187-189
- ISBN 9004149066pages 330-331
- ISBN 9004085548. page 56
- ^ a b c Dunn 2003, p. 377.
- ^ Meggitt 2003, p. 508.
- ISBN 1405195479page 303
- ^ a b Baras 1987, p. 339.
- ^ ISBN 0391041185page 43
- ^ a b c d e Van Voorst 2000, pp. 89–90.
- ^ ISBN 0567040909page 185
- ISBN 0805443657pages 104-108
- ^ ISBN 0334043794pages 35-43
- ISBN 0391041185page 316
- ^ a b Van Voorst 2000, p. 90.
- ^ Feldman & Hata 1987, pp. 53–57.
- ISBN 0670894516page 276
- ^ ISBN 080062680Xpages 106-107
- ISBN 3161493680 pages 73-76 [2]
- ^ ISBN 0805444823pages 434-435
- ^ ISBN 0521796784page 89
- ^ ISBN 9004089314pages 212-213
- ^ a b Painter 2005, p. 157.
Bibliography
- Baras, Zvi (1987). "The Testimonium Flavianum and the Martyrdom of James". In )
- Bartlett, John R. (1985). Jews in the Hellenistic World: Volume 1, Part 1. )
- )
- )
- )
- Eddy, Paul; Boyd, Gregory (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. )
- Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (1982). International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J. )
- Chilton, Bruce; )
- Creed, John Martin (1932). "The Slavonic Version of Josephus' History of the Jewish War". The Harvard Theological Review. 25 (4).
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - Dapaah, Daniel S. (2005). The relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth. )
- Davies, William David, ed. (2000). The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 3: The Early Roman Period. )
- )
- ISBN 9780691009926.)
{{cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|editor2=
(help); Invalid|ref=harv
(help - )
- )
- Feldman, Louis H. (1992). "Josephus". In Freedman, David Noel (ed.). Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 3. pp. 990–1.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - )
- )
- )
- ISBN 9789004114388.)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link - ISBN 082542948X.)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link - ISBN 978-0-8254-3260-6.)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link - Freedman, David Noel; Myers, Allen C.; Beck, Astrid B., eds. (2000). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. )
- Gillman, Florence Morgan (2003). Herodias: at home in that fox's den. )
- Habermas, Gary R. (1996). The Historical Jesus. )
- Harding, Mark (2003). Early Christian Life and Thought in Social Context. Sheffield Academic Press. )
- Hoehner, Harold W. (1983). Herod Antipas. )
- Jensen, Morten H. (2010). Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources. )
- Jonas, Glenn; Lopez, Kathryn Muller (2010). Christianity: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Guide. Mercer University Press. )
- Knoblet, Jerry (2005). Herod the Great. )
- Kostenberger, Andreas J.; Kellum, L. Scott; Quarles, Charles L. (2009). The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. )
- Louth, Andrew (1990). "The Date of Eusebius' " Historia Ecclesiastica"". Journal of Theological Studies. 41 (1): 111-123.
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - )
- Mason, Steve, ed. (2001). Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 9, Life of Josephus, Translation and Commentary by Steve Mason. Leiden: Brill. )
- McGiffert, Arthur Cushman (2007). "Paragraph 7 of "Chapter XI.—Testimonies in Regard to John the Baptist and Christ" from Book I of Eusebius' "The Church History."". In ISBN 9781602065086. Retrieved 14 February 2012.)
{{cite book}}
: External link in
(help); Invalid|chapterurl=
|ref=harv
(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help - Meggitt, Justin (2003). "John the Baptist". In Houlden, James Leslie (ed.). Jesus in history, thought, and culture: an encyclopedia. Vol. 1. )
- Meyers, Carol; Craven, Toni; Kraemer, Ross Shepard (2001). Women in scripture. )
- Mitchell, Margaret M.; Young, Frances M. (2006). The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1: Origins to Constantine. )
- Mizugaki, Wataru (1987). "Origen and Josephus". In )
- Murphy, Catherine M. (2003). John the Baptist: prophet of purity for a new age. )
- Neale, John Mason (2003). A History of the Holy Eastern Church. )
- Olson, K. A. (1999). "Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum". The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 61 (2): 305.
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - )
- )
- Pines, Shlomo (1971). An Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its implications. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Rothschild, Claire (2011). ""Echo of a Whisper": The Uncertain Authenticity of Josephus' Witness to John the Baptist". In Hellholm, David; Vegge, Tor; Norderval, Øyvind; Hellholm, Christer (eds.). Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity. Walter de Gruyter. )
- Schreckenberg, Heinz; Schubert, Kurt (1992a). Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature. Vol. 2. )
- Schreckenberg, Heinz; Schubert, Kurt (1992b). Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christianity. Assen: Van Gorcum. )
- Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. )
- )
- )
- Wallace-Hadrill, D. S. (2011). "Eusebius of Caesarea and the Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII. 63f.)". The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 25 (4): 353. )
- Wansbrough, Henry (2004). Jesus and the oral Gospel tradition. )
- Wells, George Albert (1986). Did Jesus Exist?. Pemberton Publishing Co.)
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help - )
- White, Cynthia (2010). The Emergence of Christianity: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective. )
- Zeitlin, Solomon (1948). "The Hoax of the 'Slavonic Josephus'". The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series. 39 (2).
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help); Text "pages 172-177" ignored (help)
External links
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/38px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png)