Jump to content

Josephus on Jesus: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Whiston: 18th not 19th century scholar
Duchamps comb (talk | contribs)
2,327 edits
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
''This article is part of the [[Jesus and history]] series of articles.
''This article is part of the [[Jesus and history]] series of articles.
[[Image:Josephusbust.jpg|250px|thumb|right|A Roman portrait bust said to be of Josephus<ref>Plagnieux, P. 'Les sculptures Romanes' Dossiers d'Archéologie (January 2001) pg 15</ref>]]
[[Image:Josephusbust.jpg|250px|thumb|right|A Roman portrait bust said to be of Josephus<ref>Plagnieux, P. 'Les sculptures Romanes' Dossiers d'Archéologie (January 2001) pg 15</ref>]]
'''[[Josephus]]''' (c.37 – 100, also known as ''Yosef ben Matityahu'', [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] יוסף בן מתתיהו, Joseph son of Matthias) was a renowned 1st-century [[List of Jewish historians|Jewish historian]]. Despite being a Roman apologist, his writings are considered authoritative and provide an important historical and cultural background for the era described in the [[New Testament]]. Books 18 to 20 of the ''Antiquities of the Jews'' are the most important in this regard.<ref>{{cite book|title=Flavius Josephus|author=[[Louis Feldman]], Steve Mason|publisher=Brill Academic Publishers|year=1999}}</ref> Josephus was fluent in [[Aramaic language|Aramaic]], Hebrew and Greek.
'''[[Josephus]]''' (c.37 – 100, also known as ''Yosef ben Matityahu'', [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] יוסף בן מתתיהו, Joseph son of Matthias) was a renowned 1st-century [[List of Jewish historians|Jewish historian]]. Despite being a Roman apologist, his writings are considered authoritative and accurate providing an important historical and cultural background for the era described in the [[New Testament]]. Books 18 to 20 of the ''Antiquities of the Jews'' are the most important in this regard.<ref>{{cite book|title=Flavius Josephus|author=[[Louis Feldman]], Steve Mason|publisher=Brill Academic Publishers|year=1999}}</ref> Josephus was fluent in [[Aramaic language|Aramaic]], Hebrew and Greek.


The surviving fragments of the writings by Josephus contain references of a Jewish sect led by [[James the Just]], whom he calls the [[#Reference to Jesus as brother of James|brother of Jesus]]. Josephus' history includes sections on [[John the Baptist]], the High Priest [[Annas]], [[Pontius Pilate]], and [[Jesus]] called the Messiah.
The surviving fragments of the writings by Josephus contain references of a Jewish sect led by [[James the Just]], whom he calls the [[#Reference to Jesus as brother of James|brother of Jesus]]. Josephus' history includes sections on [[John the Baptist]], the High Priest [[Annas]], [[Pontius Pilate]], and [[Jesus]] called the Messiah.

Revision as of 01:27, 27 December 2011

This article is part of the Jesus and history series of articles.

A Roman portrait bust said to be of Josephus[1]

Josephus (c.37 – 100, also known as Yosef ben Matityahu, Hebrew יוסף בן מתתיהו, Joseph son of Matthias) was a renowned 1st-century Jewish historian. Despite being a Roman apologist, his writings are considered authoritative and accurate providing an important historical and cultural background for the era described in the New Testament. Books 18 to 20 of the Antiquities of the Jews are the most important in this regard.[2] Josephus was fluent in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.

The surviving fragments of the writings by Josephus contain references of a Jewish sect led by James the Just, whom he calls the brother of Jesus. Josephus' history includes sections on John the Baptist, the High Priest Annas, Pontius Pilate, and Jesus called the Messiah.

Another passage, the famous Testimonium Flavianum found in the Antiquities of the Jews 18.63-64, in its current form describes the ministry and death of Jesus in confessional terms; the authenticity of this passage remains contested by many scholars, and has been the topic of ongoing debate since the 17th century. Currently, the most widely held scholarly opinion [clarification needed] is that the Testimonium Flavianum is partially authentic; but that those words and phrases that correspond with standard Christian formulae are additions from a Christian copyist.[3][4]

Some scholars suspect all these passages to be Christian interpolations, on the grounds that Josephus, who was a Pharisee and sympathetic to the Romans, would not have given such a glowing view of Jesus. [5][6][7]

In those parts of the Testimonium that some scholars commonly regarded as authentic, Jesus is described as a teacher and miracle worker, attracting a large following who revered him after his death. But, other than James, Josephus names none of the first-century founders of the Church such as St. Paul, St. Peter or any of the Twelve Apostles, nor does he refer to basic Christian doctrines, such as the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation or the Atonement, but these generally developed after the time of Josephus. William Whiston, an 18th-century scholar, suggested that Josephus may have been an Ebionite Christian.[8]

During the beginning of the twentieth century, a Russian version of The Jewish War was discovered, commonly called the "Slavoic Josephus" or Testimonium Slavianum [9] that is universally acknowledged by all scholars to contain Christian interpolations.[10][11]

James the brother of Jesus

According to Christian writings, after the Crucifixion of Jesus, James the brother of Jesus [12] became the leader of the Jewish sect that would become known as Jewish Christianity. James "the Just", remained its leader until he was martyred AD c. 62.[13]

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. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. 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: 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.[14]

Some suggest the above quotation from the Antiquities is directly contradicted by the equivalent historic account given in The Jewish Wars, which does not mention the martyrdom of James and cites the death of Ananus as the reason for the beginning of the destruction of Jerusalem. From the surviving fragments of The Jewish Wars: "I should not be wrong in saying, that with the death of Ananus began the capture of the city, and from that very day on which the Jews beheld their high priest and the guardians of their safety, murdered in the midst of Jerusalem, its bulwarks were laid low, and the Jewish state overthrown." [15] Others point out that the above quotation says nothing regarding the destruction of Jerusalem.

Isaac Mayer Wise believed that while the passage was historically accurate, the phrase "who was called Christ" was the addition of a Christian transcriber.[16] The notable freethinker John Remsburg in his 1909 book, The Christ, agreed that the "who was called Christ" passage was a 3rd-century addition citing the then-popular view based on a c. 170 CE work by Hegesippus that put the death of James the Just at c. 70, while the Josephus account puts it at c. 64.[17][18][19][20] Remsburg's theory that the passage was added as a marginal note by a Christian copyist and later incorporated into the main text by a later copyist was reiterated by George Albert Wells in 1986.[21]

In The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (1912), Arthur Drews wrote, "In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius (about 300 A.D., Ecclesiast. Hist., 1, 11). Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus." He believed this was proof that both this passage and the Testimonium Flavianum were interpolations.

Kenneth Humphreys points to the "Jesus, the son of Damneus" passage as identifying Jesus in this passage and dismissed the phrrase, "who was called Christ," as being inserted later.[22] Emil Schürer rejected the entire passage, largely on the a priori grounds that Josephus wanted to avoid mentioning Jewish belief in a Messiah to his Roman readers.[23]

This passage, and the Testimonium are the only two times that Josephus uses the word "Christ".[24]

John the Baptist

According to Christian writings, John the Baptist played a central role in the ministry of Jesus by baptizing him in the river Jordan. The historicity of John the Baptist is supported in all extant manuscripts of the Jewish Antiquities (book 18, chapter 5, 2) by Flavius Josephus (37–100):[25]

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, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. 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. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.[26]

The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars. But, over the years a minority of scholars have raised doubts.[4]

Testimonium Flavianum (Koine Greek)

The testimonium with a commentary from edition of 1631

Although there is consensus that most of the writings of Josephus are authentic, the following passage, which appears in the Greek version of Antiquities of the Jews 18.63-64, is the notable exception:

Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον   Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν  Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ   Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο: ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων. εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.

3.3 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.[27]

The scholarly debate can be divided into three main groups: those who believe it is authentic, those who do not and those who believe it is partially authentic.[28]

Authenticity

The first person to cite this passage of Antiquities was Eusebius, writing in about 324. In his Demonstratio Evangelica, he quotes the passage [29] in essentially the same form (he has πολλους των Ιουδαιων instead of πολλους Ιουδαιους, and inserts απο before του Ελληνικου).

As is common with ancient texts, The Antiquities of the Jews survives only in medieval copies. The manuscripts, the oldest of which dates from the 11th century, are all Greek minuscules, and all have been copied by Christian monks.[30] Jews did not preserve the writings of Josephus because they considered him to be a traitor. The text of Antiquities appears to have been transmitted in two halves i.e. (books 1–10 and books 11–20). Other ad hoc copies of the Testimonium also survive, as a quotation in the works of Christian writers.

Recent scholarly discussion has favoured partial authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum.[31] Louis Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part".[32]

Géza Vermes offers a speculative reconstruction of the original text of the Testimonium Flavianum, removing later Christian additions, indicating deletions with "…":[33]

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise 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 [called] 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; […] And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Arguments in favor of authenticity or partial authenticity

Until the 16th century, Christian writers took the position that Josephus wrote the Testimonium in its current form. Many modern scholars do claim that Josephus did write something about Jesus which has been corrupted, to an unspecified degree, in the surviving Greek text.[31]

Arabic version

In 1971, Shlomo Pines, a Jewish professor, published a translation of a different version of the Testimonium, quoted in an Arabic manuscript of the 10th century. The manuscript in question appears in the Book of the Title written by Agapius the historian, a 10th-century Arabic Christian and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis Bambyce (Manbij). Agapius' version of the Testimonium reads:

For he says in the treatises that he has written in the governance of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders." - Shlomo Pines' translation, quoted by J. D. Crossan

The text that Pines gives is mainly derived from the quotation of this portion of Agapius in the later Arabic Christian historian, Al-Makin, which contains extra material not found in the Florence manuscript that alone preserves the second half of Agapius.

Pines suggests that Agapius' Testimonium may be a more accurate record of what Josephus wrote, lacking as it does the parts which have often been considered to have been added by Christian copyists. He argued that this would add weight to the argument that Josephus did write something about Jesus.

But, Pines' theory, that Agapius' text largely reflects what Josephus wrote, has not been widely accepted. As the title of Josephus's work is inaccurate in this version suggests that Agapius is paraphrasing his source, which may explain the discrepancies with the Greek version.[34] Agapius explicitly claims that he used a lost, older Syriac chronicle by Theophilus of Edessa (d. 785) to write his chronicle. This suggests that his Testimonium is also a paraphrase of a Syriac version.[35] Because of some linguistic parallels between Agapius' Testimonium, the Testimonium of Michael the Syrian (see above and below) and that of the Syriac translation of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiasica, Alice Whealey has argued that Agapius' passage is a paraphrase of a Testimonium taken from the Syriac translation of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica that differed from the textus receptus in several ways, but most significantly in reading "he was thought to be the Christ." [36]

Whealey has suggested that Agapius' statement that Pilate condemned Jesus to be crucified "and to die" was a response to the Muslim belief that Jesus did not die on the cross. This aspect of Agapius' Testimonium is not unique, since a similarly enhanced reference to Jesus' death independently appears in Michael the Syrian's Testimonium and in one other Syriac Testimonium deriving from the Syriac translation of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica.[37] This parallel is one more piece of evidence indicating that Agapius' text is an Arabic paraphrase of a literal Syriac translation of the Testimonium.

Syriac version

Pines also refers to the Syriac translation of the Testimonium cited in the 12th century by Michael the Syrian in his World Chronicle.[38][39] It was left to Alice Whealey to point out that Michael's text is identical with Jerome's translation of the Testimonium at the most contentious point ("He was the Christ" becoming "He was believed to be the Christ"),[40] establishing the existence of a variant that must go back to a Greek manuscript. Latin and Syriac writers did not read each others' works in late antiquity, but both commonly read and translated Greek Christian texts.[41]

Origen

In his surviving works, Origen does not mention the Testimonium Flavianum, although he was familiar with the Antiquities of the Jews. Origen makes mention of the second passage about Jesus in Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (xx.9) as well as Josephus' reference to John the Baptist, which occurs in the same chapter (xviii) as the Testimonium.[30] Origen states that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ",[42] but the Testimonium declares Jesus to be Christ. This is why modern scholars suspect the original Testimonium was worded "he was called Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." According to Alice Whealey, this original version was also probably what Eusebius had at his disposal.[43] Whealey has argued that the wording of Michael the Syrian's Testimonium in particular, which employs the word mistabra, meaning "was supposed," has a skeptical connotation, as evidenced in the Syriac New Testament where it is used to translate Greek enomizeto of Luke 3:23. She has argued that Origen's probable exposure to a reading like Greek enomizeto (corresponding to the Syriac mistabra) in the original version of the Testimonium would readily explain Origen's statement that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ.[44][45]

Literary connection with the Gospel of Luke

In 1995, G. J. Goldberg, using a digital database of ancient literature, identified a possible literary connection between Josephus and the Gospel of Luke. He found a number of coincidences in word choice and word order, though not in exact wording, between the entire Josephus passage on Jesus and a summary of the life of Jesus in Luke 24:19-21, 26-27, called the "Emmaus narrative":

And he said to them, "What things?" And they said to him, "Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. ... Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory? And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.[46]

Goldberg points out explicit similarities in the Greek text, including a grammatical form of "the third day" which exists only in these two texts, and nowhere else in Christian literature; an unusual introduction of the first-person plural; as well as other consistent peculiarities of order and style that, he argues, have no parallel in other Jesus descriptions. From these, Goldberg writes, "The conclusion that can therefore be drawn is that Josephus and Luke derived their passages from a common Christian (or Jewish-Christian) source." Goldberg points out that Josephus' phrases: "if it be lawful to call him a man," "He was [the] Christ," "he appeared to them," and "And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day," have no parallel in Luke's passage, and takes this to support the position that the first two short phrases are Christian additions, while the latter two form the context of the Emmaus text and so were available to be transmitted by Josephus. Luke contains the phrases "but besides all this," four sentences on the women who witnessed the tomb, and "the Christ should suffer," for which there is no counterpart in Josephus' text; unless referred to in the summary "these and countless other marvelous things about him".[47]

An alternate theory has been argued by Steve Mason, who proposes that Luke-Acts may have used Josephus as a source.[48]

Arguments against authenticity

Early Christian writers other than Origen

It has been suggested by older scholarship that since Justin Martyr makes no mention of the Testimonium in his efforts to persuade the rabbi Trypho in the Dialog With Trypho the Jew,[49] the text must not have existed, since it would have been an "extremely effective answer" [30] to Trypho. However, there is no evidence that Justin Martyr knew Josephus' works: Josephus is never mentioned in his genuine works.[50] There is no evidence that any early Christian apologists used Josephus' works in apologies directed at Jews.[51] Early writers such as Eusebius of Caesarea and Jerome do not draw on the Testimonium for anti-Jewish apologetic reasons; rather, they use the text for anti-pagan apologetics.[52] The earliest use of the Testimonium for anti-Jewish disputation appears in an anonymous late 4th-century Latin text, known conventionally as Pseudo-Hegesippus's 'De excidio Hierosolymitano.'.[53]

Although some Christians before Origen had read parts of 'Jewish War' and 'Against Apion,' it is not clear that any Christian before Origen had read 'Antiquities' at all,[54] and none before Origen makes any clear reference to Book 18 of Antiquities, where the Testimonium appears.[55] Against this, Feldman had written that "no fewer than eleven church fathers prior to, or contemporary with, Eusebius cite various passages from Josephus (including the Antiquities) but not the Testimonium".[30] Both Michael Hardwick and Alice Whealey have conducted a closer reading of ante-Nicene Christian texts that cite or have been assumed to cite 'Antiquities' than Feldman and other earlier scholars, and both conclude that some prior assumptions that 'Antiquities' is cited are mistaken or debatable. For example, Hardwick has shown that Tertullian (ca. 193) had read Josephus' 'Against Apion' rather than 'Antiquities', as is sometimes assumed. Tertullian's reference to "antiqitatum Judaicarum" (Apol. 19) is not a reference to 'Antiquities,' but rather a reference to 'Against Apion,' which in ancient times was known as "The antiquity [i.e. ancient-ness] of the Jews." [56] Hardwick argues that contrary to the assumption of some older scholars,[57] not only is it not clear that Tertullian had ever read 'Antiquities' but it is not clear that any other writer of the Western church other than Tertullian was directly acquainted with any of Josephus' works at all.[58]

Whealey expresses more skepticism than Hardwick about Christians before Origen citing 'Antiquities'. For example, she argues that the authenticity of one catena fragment citing Book 2 of 'Antiquities' attributed to Irenaeus is debatable because catenae were often miscopied. She has pointed out that even if the attribution to Irenaeus is accurate, it is clear that he was unfamiliar with Book 18 of 'Antiquities' since he wrongly claims that Jesus was executed by Pilate in the reign of Claudius (Dem. ev. ap. 74), while Antiquities 18.89 indicates that Pilate was deposed during the reign of Tiberius, before Claudius.[59] As for writers of the Eastern church, Clement of Alexandria vaguely refers (Stromata 1.147) to Josephus' historical writings in a way that indicates that he knew directly or indirectly the claim of The Jewish Wars 6.440 that there were 1179 years between David and the second year of Vespasian. Direct familiarity with 'Antiquities' is, however, unclear in this passage. Clement's claim that there were 585 years between Moses and David may be based on Antiquities 8.61, which says that there were 592 years between the Exodus and the Temple, if one assumes that he subtracted the four years of Solomon's reign, and that a copying error was responsible for Clement's text reading 585 instead of 588. But what this conjectural explanation for Clement's claim about 585 years shows (a figure that does not explicitly appear in Antiquities) is that it is far from clear that Clement had direct acquaintance with Josephus' Antiquities. [60][61]

Vocabulary and style

It has been claimed that some of the passage fails a standard test for authenticity, in that it contains vocabulary not otherwise used by Josephus;[62] for example, the Testimonium uses the Greek term poietes with the meaning "doer" (as part of the phrase "doer of wonderful works"), but elsewhere Josephus only uses the term poietes to mean "poet," while it is Eusebius who uses poietes to mean "doer of wonderful works" when referring to Jesus.[63][64][65] However, it has been argued that Eusebius' use of the term "doer of wonderful works" for Jesus (and in later works for God) is evidence of the influence of the Testimonium's vocabulary on his own vocabulary about Jesus (and by extension about God in later works), rather than evidence of his fabrication of the Testimonium.[66]

On the other hand, John P. Meier states that "the vocabulary and grammar of the passage (after the clearly Christian material is removed) cohere well with Josephus' style and language...almost every word in the core of the "Testimonium" is found elsewhere in Josephus---in fact, most of the vocabulary turns out to be characteristic of Josephus".[67] C. Guignebert has claimed that Josephus's style is not difficult to imitate, so that vocabulary proves little one way or the other.[68]

The brief and compact character of the Testimonium stands in stark contrast to Josephus' more voluminous detailing[69] of other individuals, even including those of minor importance;[70] for example, Josephus' account of John the Baptist and his death, describes his virtues, the theology associated with his baptismal practices, his oratorical skills, that John's influence was so great that Herod was afraid of John's ability to incite the people to rebel against his regime, 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.[71]

Interruption to the text

The paragraph before the Testimonium flows naturally into the paragraph after it, which might indicate either that the entire paragraph is a later insertion, or that it was substantially rewritten. As Guiguebert put it, "the short digression, even with the proposed corrections, interrupts the thread of the discourse into which it is introduced".[72] On the other hand, this argument has been rejected as inconclusive or unconvincing by some modern scholars, who have argued that Josephus was a "patchwork" writer, who often employed such digressive techniques, inserting passages, sometimes based on barely revised sources, that do not fit smoothly with, and sometimes even contradict, surrounding narratives.[73]

Josephus's faith

It is often argued that "He was [the] Christ" can only be read as a profession of faith, and Josephus was almost certainly not a Christian, instead remaining a conventional Jew; Josephus's lack of Christianity was mentioned by early Christian writers before Eusebius, such as Origen[74] (as noted above). For example, John Dominic Crossan has put it this way: The problem here is that Josephus' account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish.[75]

Consequently, some scholars regard at least certain parts of the Testimonium as later additions. In particular three passages stood out[75]:

  • if it be lawful to call him a man …
  • He was [the] Christ …
  • 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

The phrase "he was the Christ" has been viewed as particularly problematic because it seems to indicate that the author thought that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Some scholars have argued that Josephus thought that Jewish messianic promises were fulfilled in Vespasian,[76] and view it as unlikely that Josephus would explain too clearly or underline too sharply the existence of alternative messianic fulfilments before Vespasian.[77] In contrast, Meir has argued that the phrase "he was the Christ" was meant as an identification only, rather than an assertion of Jesus' Messiahship, since the audience for the work were Romans of the late 1st century, and the earliest extant Roman writers, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, writing shortly after Josephus in the early 2nd century, identify Jesus as Christus, rather than Jesus, without implying anything about Jesus' Messianic status.[78]

Although the standard text says "he was the Christ", a recent study by Alice Whealey has argued that a variant Greek text of this sentence existed in the 4th century — He was believed to be the Christ;[79] following Whealey's argument, the standard text would represent a corruption of the original, namely the loss of the main verb and a subsequent scribal "correction" of the prolative infinitive. [citation needed]

Interpolations

The entire passage is also found in one Greek manuscript of Josephus' earlier work, The Jewish War. (This Greek manuscript of "Jewish War" with an interpolated Testimonium is known as the "Codex Vossianus.") A passage about Jesus that appears to have been inspired by the Testimonium, but that differs widely from it in content also appears in an Old Russian adaptation of Jewish War written c.1250.[80] The passage dealing with Jesus is not the only significant difference between the Old Russian and Greek versions of Jewish War. Robert Eisler has suggested[81] that it was produced from one of Josephus's drafts (noting that the "Slavonic Version" has Josephus escaping his fellow Jews at Jotapata when "he counted the numbers [of the lot cast in the suicide pact] cunningly and so managed to deceive all the others", which is in striking contrast to the conventional version's account:

"Without hesitation each man in turn offered his throat for the next man to cut, in the belief that a moment later his commander would die too. Life was sweet, but not so sweet as death if Josephus died with them! But Josephus - shall we put it down to divine providence or just luck - was left with one other man....he used persuasion, they made a pact, and both remained alive."[82]

Other unique passages in the Old Russian version of "Jewish War" include accounts of John the Baptist, Jesus's ministry (along with his death and resurrection), and the activities of the early church.

Alleged fabrication by Eusebius

Ken Olson has argued that the Testimonium was fabricated by Eusebius of Caesarea, who was the first author to quote it in his Demonstratio Evangelica.[83] Olson argues that the specific wording of the Testimonium is closely related to the argument Eusebius makes in his Demonstratio, in particular that Jesus is a "wise man" and not a "wizard", as shown by the fact that his followers did not desert him even after he was crucified. Whealey rejects Olson's thesis of Eusebian fabrication based on a comparison of the Testimonium's style with that of Eusebius' undisputed works, and the fact that there is no known case of complete fabrication ex nihilo by Eusebius of any other text that he quotes in his works.[84]

Modern stylometric studies, which use a concordance of Josephus' works that did not exist before the 20th century, has revealed some Josephan vocabulary and phrases (see above). As a consequence, it has more recently been argued that even "some proponents of the forgery thesis would agree that it is a good one" (i.e. good forgery).[85]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Plagnieux, P. 'Les sculptures Romanes' Dossiers d'Archéologie (January 2001) pg 15
  2. ^ Louis Feldman, Steve Mason (1999). Flavius Josephus. Brill Academic Publishers.
  3. ^ J.P. Meier, "Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990): 76-103.
  4. ^ a b Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1.
  5. ^ G. A. Wells, The Jesus of the Early Christians, page 190 (Pemberton Books, 1971). ISBN 0301710147
  6. ^ On the Testimonium Flavianum S. G. F. Brandon commented:

    "if it had been written by Josephus, must surely mean that he himself was a Christian or at least admitted to the truth of the Christian case. There is reason for thinking however, that this account was either a Christian interpolation or an emendation of something unpalatable that Josephus had actually written about Jesus. The fascination of the problem lies in the fact, which we have noted, that Josephus was eminently well placed for knowing the origins of Christianity; and the value of his testimony as an independent witness would be immense, if it could be recovered." Cited from S.G.F. Brandon (editor), Religion In Ancient History: Studies In Ideas, Men and Events, page 309 (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1969). ISBN 0-04-2000020-5

  7. ^ Robert Eisler on The Testimonium Flavianum [1]
  8. ^ William Whiston, The works of Flavius Josephus, the learned and authentic Jewish historian and celebrated warrior, Volume 4, T. & J. Allman Publisher, 1826. pp 380-385 Google Scholar Google Books Google Web
  9. ^ http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/josephus/slavonic.htm
  10. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside The New Testament: An Introduction To The Ancient Evidence, page 85 (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000). ISBN 0-8028-4368-9
  11. ^ http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/gnostic_john_baptist/gjb-3.htm
  12. ^ Some scholars believe "brother" did not mean "brother" but rather cousin or relative.
  13. ^ Barrie Wilson, How Jesus Became Christian, Random House, 2009. pp 1 - 20
  14. ^ Online Reader - Project Gutenberg
  15. ^ The Jewish War of Flavius Josephus: A New Translation Book IV. (Boston: John P. Jewett and Company, 1858). Available from Google Books [2]
  16. ^ Wise, Isaac Mayer (1868) The Origin of Christianity Bloch and Co; Page 137
  17. ^ "Testimonium Flavianum". EarlyChristanWritings.com. Retrieved 2006-10-07.
  18. ^ "Hegesippus (Roberts-Donaldson translation). On Early Christian Writings". EarlyChristanWritings.com. Retrieved 2010-09-24.
  19. ^ Remsburg, John (1909) The Christ
  20. ^ "In spite of obvious knowledge of Josephus, from whom he may have derived the motif of the stoning of James, Hegesippus has produced his own account with irreconcilable conflicts with Josephus." Chilton, Bruce; Jacob Neusner (2001) The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission Westminster John Knox Press, Page 53
  21. ^ George Albert Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, (1986) Pemberton Publishing Co., p. 11
  22. ^ Humphreys, Kenneth (2004) "The Real James?"
  23. ^ Whealey (2003), p. 170.
  24. ^ Josephus writing in Jewish War says: I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city (of Jerusalem), and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. Josephus, Jewish War 4.5.2
  25. ^ "Josephus, Flavius." In: Cross, F. L. (ed.) (2005) The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press
  26. ^ Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18. 5. 2. (Translation by William Whiston).
  27. ^ William Whiston, The New Complete Works of Josephus, Kregel Academic, 1999. p 662
  28. ^ Edwin M. Yamauchi, Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence? p. 212.
  29. ^ McGiffert, Arthur Cushman. "Paragraph 7 of "Chapter XI.—Testimonies in Regard to John the Baptist and Christ" from Book I of Eusebius' "The Church History."". Retrieved 2007-08-12. (From the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 1, edited by Philip Schaff.)
  30. ^ a b c d Feldman (1989), p. 431
  31. ^ a b See Louis H. Feldman, Josephus: A supplementary bibliography (New York, 1986) 618-619; 677.
  32. ^ Feldman (1989), p. 430
  33. ^ Geza Vermes, Jesus in the eyes of Josephus, Standpoint Jan/Feb 2010
  34. ^ Louis Feldman and Gohei Hata, Josephus, the Bible, and History (1989), p. 433.
  35. ^ Whealey (2008, pp.) 575-578.
  36. ^ Whealey (2008), pp. 580-587.
  37. ^ Whealey (2008) pp. 582-585.
  38. ^ Michael the Syrian, World Chronicle (@ textexcavation.com)
  39. ^ Shlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications, page 31:
    Michael's text reads מסתברא דמשיחא איתו הוא — He was thought to be the Messiah; there is another possible translation: It seemed that he was the Messiah, for מסתברא may mean it seemed. Agapius' text reads fa-la'alla huwa al-masīh — Accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah. The meaning of this sentence approximates closely to that of the Syriac sentence if the second rendering is adopted. There is, in my opinion, a distinct possibility that whoever translated the Testimonium from the Syriac into Arabic, be it Agapius himself or somebody else, found in the Syriac text a phrase identical with, or very close to, Michael's phrase quoted above, and that he rendered מסתברא by la'alla — perhaps.
  40. ^ Jerome, On Famous Men, 13 (@ textexcavation.com)
  41. ^ "The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Antiquity to the Present", by Alice Whealey, Berkeley, California (presented at the SBL Seminary 2000), page 8/11 (PDF @ pace.mcmaster.ca)
  42. ^ Origen, Commentary on Matthew, x:17
  43. ^ Whealey (2003), pp. 41;190.
  44. ^ Whealey (2008) p. 581
  45. ^ Vermes, Geza (2003). Jesus in His Jewish Context. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. pp. 91–92. ISBN 0800636236.
  46. ^ English Standard Version translation of Luke 24:16-28
  47. ^ Goldberg, G. J. The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus. The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (1995), pp. 59-77
  48. ^ Steve Mason, "Josephus and Luke-Acts," Josephus and the New Testament (Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody, Massachusetts, 1992), pp. 185-229
  49. ^ http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/martyr3.htm Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew
  50. ^ Because a work called "Cohortatio ad Graecos" mentioning Josephus was wrongly ascribed to Justin, some older works erroneously claim that Justin Martyr knew Josephus, but the "Cohortatio ad Graecos" of Pseudo-Justin was not written before the third century and therefore cannot be by him (Hardwick (1989), pp. 37-46
  51. ^ Whealey (2003), p. 11.
  52. ^ Whealey (2003), pp. 27-29.
  53. ^ Whealey (2003), pp. 11, 14-15, 28-29, 34
  54. ^ Whealey (2003), pp. 7-11.
  55. ^ Whealey (2003), pp. 7-8, 11.
  56. ^ Hardwick (1989), pp. 49-50.
  57. ^ Lost and Hostile Gospels, Rev. Sabine Baring-Gould
  58. ^ 'Josephus as an historical source' Hardwick p. 112
  59. ^ Whealey (2003), pp. 7-8
  60. ^ Whealey (2003) p. 8
  61. ^ Hardwick (1989), p. 31
  62. ^ Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, edited by K. H. Rengstorff, 2002.
  63. ^ Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospels, 3:5
  64. ^ Eusebius, History of the Church, 1:2:23
  65. ^ Ken Olson, Eusebian Fabrication of the Testimonium (2001)
  66. ^ Alice Whealey notes in particular that Eusebius does not commonly use the word poietes to mean "doer" for anyone except Jesus or God; thus poietes meaning "doer" in general was "not Eusebius' typical mode of expression." Alice Whealey (2007), p. 83; also pp. 80-83; 115.
  67. ^ John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the historical Jesus. Volume I. (New York, 1991) 62; 80-83.
  68. ^ "It may be admitted that the style of Josephus has been cleverly imitated, a not very difficult matter ...", Jesus by C. Guignebert, University Books, New York, 1956, p. 17.
  69. ^ Raphael Patai, The Jewish Mind (1996), page 84
  70. ^ Marshall Gauvin, Did Jesus Christ Really Live? (1922), preserved in the University of Manitoba Archives (MSS 47, PC 36, box 15, folder 13), and available online
  71. ^ Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18:5:2
  72. ^ Jesus by C. Guignebert, University Books, New York, 1956, p. 17
  73. ^ John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (New York, 1991) p. 86, n. 54. Meier cites H. St. John Thackeray, Charles Martin and other scholars who reject the argument that the Testimonium must be an addition because it seems to break its surrounding narrative thread.
  74. ^ Origen, Contra Celsus, 1:47
  75. ^ a b John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant
  76. ^ John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus, page 199
  77. ^ John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus, page 199.
  78. ^ Meier, Marginal Jew, p. 73 n. 14; 76-77 n. 26.
  79. ^ "The Testimonium Flavium Controversy from Antiquity to the Present" Alice Wealey, 2000
  80. ^ pgs 470-471, appendix F of The Jewish War, Josephus. (trans. G. A. Williamson; introduction, notes and appendixes E. Mary Smallwood. Penguin Books, Penguin Classics imprint, 1981. ISBN 0-14-044420-3)
  81. ^ Iesous Basileus ou Basileusas ("Jesus the King Who Never Reigned"), by Robert Eisler. Published in Heidelberg in 1929.
  82. ^ pg 220 The Jewish War, Josephus. (trans. G. A. Williamson; introduction, notes and appendixes E. Mary Smallwood. Penguin Books, Penguin Classics imprint, 1981. ISBN 0-14-044420-3)
  83. ^ "Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (1999): 305-322
  84. ^ "Josephus, Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum" in Josephus und das Neue Testament Tuebingen, 2007
  85. ^ Josephus and Christianity Carlton Paget p. 575-576

References

  • Bell, Albert A., Jr. "Josephus the Satirist? A Clue to the Original Form of the Testimonium Flavianum." Jewish Quarterly Review 67(1976), 16-22.
  • Carleton Paget, James. "Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity", Journal of Theological Studies 52.2 (2001) pp. 539–624. A survey of all the theories, all the scholars and all the evidence.
  • Eisenman, Robert. James the Brother of Jesus (Viking Penguin) 1997
  • Feldman, Louis H (1989). "A Selective Critical Bibliography of Josephus". In Feldman, Louis H; Hata, Gohei (eds.). Josephus, the Bible, and History. Leiden: E.J. Brill. ISBN 9004089314.
  • Goldberg, G J (1995). "The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus" (PDF). The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 13. pp. 59-77.
  • Hardwick, Michael E. (1989). Josephus as an historical source in patristic literature through Eusebius. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. ISBN 1555403115.
  • Pines, Shlomo. An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications, (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971) .
  • Whealey, Alice (2003). Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times. New York: Peter Lang. ISBN 0820452416.
  • Whealey, Alice (2007). "Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum". In Böttrich, Christfried; Herzer, Jens; Reiprich, Torsten (eds.). Josephus und das neue Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 3161493680.. Criticizes the thesis that Eusebius of Caesarea fabricated the Testimonium.
  • Whealey, Alice. "The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic," New Testament Studies 54.4 (2008) pp. 571–590.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josephus_on_Jesus&oldid=467841084"