Josephus: What’s the Deal?
February 5, 2008
Josephus: What’s the Deal?
By Rook Hawkins
Far too often apologists and evangelicals bring up Josephus as a source for a historical Jesus. This is a continuing error among scholars, and it is fueled by secular scholars who are either persuaded by pseudo-scientific evaluations of the texts, or for reasons dealing only in their presuppositions, such as those discussed above. The Testimonium Flavianum is generally brought up by both apologists and historical Jesus questers more than any other document. Although other supposed mentions of Jesus exist, the subject, so as to not seem as if an Argument from Silence is the only means at which one can attain the position held in this book, will be limited to the Testimonium due to its importance and scope of usage. For this reason, included here in this section is a specific refutation towards the use of this passage, as will be provided ample evidence for its entire dismissal as an interpolation.
Arguments for the interpolation of this passage consist of the following: (1) Problems of textual conformity between manuscripts, (2) peculiar placement in the text, (3) odd use of Josephan language, (4) the use of pro-Christian language, (5) lack of mention specifically in any other earlier Christian source including Justin Martyr and Origen, (6) the earliest attestation we have, that of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical Histories, he places the Testimonium after Josephus’ account of John the Baptist, and finally (7) Eusebius has an alternate version of the text himself in another work.
The problems of conformity of the manuscripts are a huge deal, although generally not touched upon by dissenters of the Josephan controversy over the Testimonium. The first attestation to this passage is found in the forth century, and even then it seems to not have been set in stone, as Steve Mason<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–> cites that Jerome (p. 230) had a different version of the transcript in his Lives of Illustrious Men, and in the 10th century yet an additional manuscript is found in Agapius (ibid.). But it doesn’t stop there, as Michael, the Patriarch of Antioch quotes another variant text in the 12th century. So many alterations exist. Mason asks, “Where did such equivocal versions of Josephus’ account come from?” (p. 231) And not least of all, the fact that there are alternative translations which exist from Robert Eisler<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–> and John P. Meier<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[3]<!–[endif]–> spark additional questions. Why are there no copies of Josephus before Eusebius in the fourth century for scholarship to adequately translate? Perhaps Christians didn’t feel the need to preserve it beforehand, and that should raise additional red flags.
The peculiar placement of the text is additionally odd. Looking at the text from a distance, without really comparing the accounts of the context around the Testimonium, it may seem possible that it fits. It does deal with Pilate, that is for sure, and certainly it contains accounts of followers of a cult, referred to as a “tribe,” that Josephus didn’t hold to, much like those of the cult of Isis he discusses a section down. But further examination reveals a troubling reality. After Pilate arrives in Judea, Josephus follows with two incidents; (a) Pilate allows the Roman images into Jerusalem during the night, and (b) Pilate’s use of temple funds to build an aqueduct. Immediately following the Testimonium, (c) Josephus discusses the destruction of the temple of Isis and the crucifixion of Egyptian priests, (d) Jews are expelled from Rome because of Jewish troublemakers, and (e) Pilate destroyed the Samaritan movement and their settlement at Gerizim. Mason states that, “Like a tourist negotiating a bustling, raucous Middle-Eastern market who accidentally walks through the door of a monastery, suffused with light and peace, the reader of Josephus is struck by this sublime portrait.” (p. 227) Events (a), (b) and (e) involve incidents that look unfavorably upon Pilate, but the Testimonium blames the fiasco of the crucifixion not on Pilate—who seems more like a puppet being played—but on the “denunciation by the leading men among us.” Every single event save for the Testimonium in Antiquities 18 is described as some form of outrage or uprising, yet there is no tumultuous event here, no uprising to speak of. Overall, Mason makes the observance that “he is pointing out the follow of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers,” (ibid.) yet in the Testimonium, Josephus speaks highly of Jesus and his followers, a stark contrast to the rest of the context. Finally, Josephus starts the section concerning the Isis temple as “another outrage,” for which George A. Wells<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[4]<!–[endif]–> and others have argued both events (b) and (c) to have originally been adjacent, leaving the probability for the Testimonium to have been inserted later.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[5]<!–[endif]–>
The debate over the language of the Testimonium has been all over the place, to say the least. The hard fact is, however, that the passage reeks of Josephus but in a completely bizarre manner and at the same time seems to resemble normal Christian apologia. Mason cites several words and phrases which seem Josephan until considered in context;<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[6]<!–[endif]–> that being “doer (ποιετες) of wonderful deeds,”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[7]<!–[endif]–> “they did not cease,” “he was perhaps the Christ (Χριστος)” and “tribe (Φψλε) of the Christians.” The use and language of these words does not fit into the normal Josephan style, and even in the case that they were Josephan in style they would not fit into how Josephus used the terms,<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[8]<!–[endif]–> they are missing further explanation, or would make little sense to his intended audience; the Greeks and Romans who would be fully unaware of the meaning behind “Christ.” In the same manner, the high regard in which he holds Christ, even in the regard that our earliest attestation, Eusebius, has him being referred to specifically as Christ is downright ridiculous. Not only is the language reflective of a Christian apologist in the forth century, but it doesn’t sound like something a first century pious Jew would write, especially in the context that Josephus was writing in (Jewish apologetics).
Silence is golden except when one is trying to prove their God existed, and then one should want to be as loud with information as possible. Yet early Christians seemed to be loud on everything except the Testimonium, which would have been completely revolutionary in terms of evidence in the early Christian centuries, especially against Trypho, Celsus and Prophyry. Yet strangely the reader of the polemics against these pagans seems to be missing the Testimonium, even though they cite from Josephus over and over again. Mason writes that “Origen expressed his wonder that the Jewish historian ‘did not accept that our Jesus is Christ’,” (p. 229) which is accurate. But there is more troubling information to consider here. That nowhere does Origen ever cite or attempt to cite anything remotely close to the Testimonium is damning. Instead one only sees reference to James, in which Origen seems to have recalled that Josephus referred to Jesus as “the one called Christ.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[9]<!–[endif]–> It is odd that this appears only in Origen and not before. For example, this passage is never brought up by Justin Martyr in his dialog with Trypho. What else is odd is that out of the blue you have Ananus killing James. The apologist would have one believe that he killed James because Jesus was his brother, but what purpose would that have served? Instead, looking at the context another probability possibility itself, and seems to be the more probable.
The order of Chapter 9 is as follows: (1) Ananus takes the high priesthood away from Josephus by order of Agrippa. (2) Ananus seems to have not been very patient, a member of the sect of the Sadducees, he felt the need to flex his muscles so, (3) while Albinus—the new procurator of Judea sent by Caesar after the death of Festus—was yet enroute, (4) he arrested James and some companions and (5) brought forth accusations against him. (6) He then had them stoned. (7) Citizens who felt James was just and upright sent out for Agrippa while others met Albinus on the road. (
Agrippa removed Ananus from the High Priesthood and gave it to Jesus, son of Damneus. James, in the context of the chapter, is said to be “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.”
There seems to be two possible solutions for this, and both seem adequate in light of the evidence. First, it seems more accurate that Josephus is here referring to Jesus, son of Damneus. Among our first solution, consider the passage is authentic with absolutely no tampering; even Mason agrees that the use of Christos in this fashion seems more appropriate as it is a nickname rather than a title. (p. 22 
Mason suggests that titles were common among first century Jews because of the lack of common names in use. Jesus here is nicknamed “anointed.” Jesus son of Damneus did in fact get selected to be the High Priest, in which he would have been anointed for the position which the scripture commands in Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1, and thus his nickname would apply. This example gives too much credit to the originality of the text, however, and although it certainly is possible that this section of the text could be authentic, it is still doubtful considering the list of early Christians who would have had no problems tampering with it. In the Greek, the text for Antiquities 20.9.1, 200 is as follows (translated here from the Koine):<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[10]<!–[endif]–>
“When Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. 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.”
It is odd that this verse is considered to be authentic completely, especially considering the almost nonchalant nature of Josephus’ discussion of James, as if he wasn’t the subject at all. Instead, it seems that Jesus was the subject of this verse specifically, which is why his name is brought up at all. What other reason would Josephus have to discuss Jesus in relation to James? How does Jesus fit into this discussion, especially if he was already dead which oddly enough is never mentioned in the text? Nowhere does Josephus say “Jesus who was called Christ, who had been crucified by Pilate.” Jesus doesn’t even get discussed in past tense in any way; in fact it could be argued that it seems as if Jesus is still alive when James was put on trial. These oddities lead to the position that Jesus son of Damneus is the Jesus who is the brother of James, who is being tried by Ananus.
This is even more anomalous then, that Origen notes that James is to blame for the fall of Jerusalem instead of Jesus, as he writes (emphasis added):
“Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless–being, although against his will, not far from the truth–that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),–the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.”
It should be obvious to those who would read this that Origen only knew of this passage in Josephus, and perhaps the only reason why he even considered it to be in regards to Jesus was that he had copies of Luke, and also of Paul which he would have read as being the same James. It does not even appear as though Jesus was called “the Christ” in this passage, but rather Origen simply interpreted it at this time to mean Jesus Christ. This should lead to some consideration as to how much Origen really read of the text in Josephus’ Antiquities. He certainly did not know of the Testimonium, as he never refers to it, where it would have been valuable to do so. Moreso the passage here in Antiquities 20 does not seem to mean what many think it does, and probably didn’t receive its final stature until either right before or immediately after Origen, but certainly before Eusebius. This can be witnessed in that Eusebius himself doesn’t seem to have a completed interpolation either, and perhaps even he had received a slightly reworked text before reading it himself.
Consider that, while returning to the list concerning the Testimonium, Eusebius’ understanding of the text is exactly the next subject to be discussed. For Eusebius quotes the Testimonium as if he didn’t know where it fit. He suggests for example that the passage of Jesus is found after the passage of John the Baptist, which is erroneous to the manuscripts we have today. Mason writes that “even at Eusebius’ time the form of the Testimonium was not yet fixed…in fact…[it] remained fluid.” (p. 230) Not only does it seem to be fluid, but Eusebius seems to have an alternate reading of the text—or perhaps he is altering it even more himself—in Demonstratio Evangelica 3:5 below:
“And Jesus arises at that time, a wise man, if it is befitting to call him a man. For he was a doer of no common works, a teacher of men who reverence truth. And he gathered many of the Jewish and many of the Greek race. This was Christus; and when Pilate (c) condemned him to the Cross on the information of our rulers, his first followers did not cease to revere him. For he appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets having foretold this, and very many other things about him. And from that time to this the tribe of the Christians has not failed.”
This is a very damning case for Eusebius and his Testimonium. What is worse is that all seven of these problems, with the addition of the James passage, make Josephus’ testimony hard to take seriously. The Testimonium appears completely nonexistent prior to the forth century, and even then we don’t have any manuscript evidence until after the tenth century. And all the manuscript data we do have conflict with each other in ways you shouldn’t expect to find, especially among the same people! Admitting these problems as well as the fact that many, albeit not near a consensus, in the scholarly community have suggested the complete removal of the Testimonium, Mason suggests that a complete interpolation seems unlikely. It is hard to believe that somebody can truly feel this is the case after looking over the evidence, and one has to wonder if there are any additional motivations in wanting the text to be authenticated. However, suffice from ever gaining that knowledge one can only hope that Mason can provide some sort of sound evidence for his claims. He does put forth a few reasons why such a complete interpolation would not seem likely. (1) He claims that Christian copyists were “quite conservative in transmitting texts.” (p. 232) His evidence for this point is that (a) there seems to be no other suspicious tampering in Josephus and that, (b) no evidence exists in Philo which would also have been helpful to their cause. Mason states, “But in the case of Philo and Josephus…one is hard pressed to find a single example of serious scribal altercation.” (ibid.)
But Mason’s claims here are dubious, and full of pseudo truths. For starters, his final claim that one is hardpressed to locate any “serious” scribal altercations is hard to take seriously, as he is discussions a very serious scribal altercation in his very paragraph! Indeed, the whole reason why Christian scribes were conservative is because to interpolate more would be to cause additional problems. In fact, it is probably the reason why textual critics did not find more than just one paragraph, as had the interpolators used any additional space it would have made copying the rest of the manuscript much more difficult, and perhaps they would have even run out of room. This is why when we see interpolations they are minimal, and not extensive. For example, we do not see the Gospel narratives fully embedded in Josephus precisely because such a thing would be difficult for an interpolator to accomplish while still recalling the other two full books he would have to copy.
Bart Ehrman<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[11]<!–[endif]–> shows how this is impossible due to scroll length. Papyrus scrolls—basically glued-together sections of papyrus sheets—seldom measured longer than 35 feet in length due to convenience. Thus, authors, and later those copyists who would transmit the texts onto fresh scrolls later—would generally separate long works into “books,” each accommodating one scroll. Josephus’ Antiquities was made up of 20 such books, so the scribal interpolator would need to be conservative in order to avoid running out of space. This is perhaps why textual critics see small interpolations in the Gospels, such as 1 John 5:7, and not whole sections of text, at least not until much later when the cost of codifying made it cheaper to transmit texts.
Indeed, it seems that when Christians started using Codices<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[12]<!–[endif]–> as opposed to scrolls, it would have become much easier to interpolate a selection of text. It would have cost significantly less than interpolating a scroll—Ehrman<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[13]<!–[endif]–> recounts that in terms of value one would save up to 44% by having something copied in Codex form as opposed to Scrolls—and even more so when the Christian copyists started using parchment sheets instead of papyrus leaves. Such a change from papyrus to parchment made copying texts onto both sides of a sheet much easier to accomplish than using the sheets of papyri, in which the direction of the fibers made transmission difficult and annoying.
This would explain then why we don’t really see an interpolation until after Eusebius, after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Not only was the use of Codices more popular as is discussed by Eusebius concerning the fifty copies of the scripture to be Codified by the order of Constantine, but the fact that there were now whole groups of professional scribes focused on transmitting texts just for Christians, something that probably was state sanctioned if Constantine were commanding it. Prior to this time, it would probably still have been too expensive for the Christian to pay for a copyist to transmit the texts in this great a number, and additionally we know many of the early Christians were slaves, criminals, women and their children,<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[14]<!–[endif]–> who would probably not have had the means at interpolating any specific passages themselves.
That aside, the notion that Christian scribes were always conservative is truly bunk. Especially when one considers the Old Russian copies of Josephus’ Wars of the Jews, where there seem to be several interpolated passages attesting to Jesus. In refutation of Mason’s claim that “Christian copyists were quite conservative,” George A. Wells<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[15]<!–[endif]–> writes, “This seems to overlook the considerable interpolations…in the Old Russian translation of The Jewish War, and there are extensive Christian interpolations in other Jewish writings of the period, now known as the OT Pseudepigrapha.” (p. 51-52) For a complete viewing of these manuscripts, Frank Zindler has an informative article on the Old Russian manuscripts in his work The Jesus the Jews Never Knew (2003), p. 60-71.
In the end it must be concluded that there is not a single reason to accept any part of the Testimonium, indeed any reference to Jesus in Josephus should be looked at skeptically and avoided as any use for evidence of a historical Jesus. To accept the Testimonium is to cherry pick the translation, the text variant and the church father one likes the best, and nothing more. This is not the means to attaining honest research and certainly should not be considered good scholarship.
<!–[if !supportEndnotes]–>
<!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–> Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament; 2nd Edition, (2003)
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–> Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist (1931)
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[3]<!–[endif]–> John P. Meier, The Testimonium: Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible, Biblical Review 7/3 (June 1991): 23
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[4]<!–[endif]–> G.A. Wells, The Jesus Legend (1997), p. 47-52
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[5]<!–[endif]–> Other than Wells and Mason, Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle (2005), p. 206-207; Frank R. Zindler, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew (2003), p. 31-71
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[6]<!–[endif]–> Josephus in the New Testament, p. 231
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[7]<!–[endif]–> In the Greek, as even Mason agrees (p. 231) that by the time Josephus started writing, the term poie4te4s has become a designation to mean ‘poet’ and not describe ‘doing.’ In fact, according to the Complete Concordance of Flavius Josephus: Study Edition Vol. II, Josephus uses the term poie4te8os to refer to somebody doing or making something. He only ever uses poie4te4s when referring specifically to poets, such as Antiquities 1.3, 16. He uses the term to refer to Theodectes as ‘”the tragic poet” (Antiquities 12.3.14, 113), as well as referring the following people as poets: Cherilus (Against Apion 1.22.172) and Homer (Apion 2.2.14). There is not one other time at which poie4te4s is used to refer to anybody doing something, or as somebody being a ‘doer’ of great deeds. This word is only used in Antiquities 18, in the Testimonium. This smacks of oddities, when had it been Josephus himself, we would see poie4te8os.
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[8]<!–[endif]–> Even if Josephus would have used the term Christos, which in itself is odd as the word Christ merely means “anointed” or “wetted” and would have made no sense to the Gentile reader who did not know of the significance of the Jewish tradition of anointing a High Priest with oil, there is no explanation of the tradition following the peculiar use of the term. This should cast doubts as to why the term appears here, at least without any explanation, as Mason suggests that Josephus is usually very sensitive to who he is writing to (p. 228).
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[9]<!–[endif]–> Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1, 200
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[10]<!–[endif]–> Transliterated from Louis Feldman, Josephus XIII: Jewish Antiquities Book XX, Loeb Classical Library 456 (2004)
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[11]<!–[endif]–> The Text of the New Testament, p. 12
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[12]<!–[endif]–> Ehrman writes that a codex is papyri sheets bound together in a leather book. Christians are considered to be the first to popularize the use of the Codex, as the differences in Pagan vs. Christian texts transmitted in the second century show a large difference between the amounts of Codices to Scrolls. Ehrman writes that out of 871 pagan manuscripts, 14 are written in Codex form, while 11 Christian texts from the same period—all the textual evidence we have of Christians in this century—are all in Codex form. (ibid. p. 13)
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[13]<!–[endif]–> Text of the New Testament, p. 14
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[14]<!–[endif]–> Celsus, in his On the True Doctrine, writes that the Christians, “Their injunctions are like this: ‘Let no one educated, no one wise, no one sensible draw near. For these abilities are thought by us to be evils. But as for anyone ignorant, anyone stupid, anyone uneducated, anyone childish, let him come boldly.’ By the fact that they themselves admit that these people are worthy of their god, they show that they want and are only able to convince only the foolish, dishonorable and stupid, and only slaves, women and little children.” Celsus, trans. by R. Joseph Hoffmann, Celsus On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians (1987)
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[15]<!–[endif]–> George A. Wells, The Jesus Legend (1997)
I will not respond to comments on this blog. Please go here to leave comments on my entries: http://www.rationalresponders.com/blog/rook_hawkins
February 5, 2008 at 3:38 am
Wow, what a great essay. 10 points to you, my friend.
February 5, 2008 at 4:04 am
You have obviously worked hard at this but I must respectfully disagree. The problem is that no serious Josephus scholar denies that Josephus said something about Jesus. The passages about James and John the Baptist are not controversial. Yes Christians did add to Josephus’ bare bones account of Jesus but that does not change the fact that there was something there in the beginning to add to. Why did the early church fathers not use Josephus? Because once the Christian additions are removed, it is not that helpful. All it tells us is that Jesus was around, which was something no one was denying. The Gospels and Paul were much more useful for their purposes. That Jesus existed is almost universally agreed upon from Christian, non-Christian, religious non-religious, biblical, religious studies and historical scholars. To deny his existences is like bringing back the flat earth theory or suggesting that the sun revolves around the earth.
February 5, 2008 at 4:27 am
Stephen,
Thank you for your comment. But you are grossly mistaken. The passages are obviously in dispute, or scholars would not be disagreeing on them. You are assuming, as I’ve shown in this blog post (which I must question whether you read it) and many others here, and elsewhere.
Instead of assuming the very point in dispute, I hope next time you’ll be goodly enough to refute the arguments I present. While I appreciate criticism, your post was just blind accusation and false assertion. I would recommend you read the post in question before replying next time.
The best to you,
Rook Hawkins
February 5, 2008 at 11:17 am
I re-read your post and I am still very unconvinced. I focused on the big picture because your post comes across as if it was pre-decided: “Jesus did not exist, therefore Josephus could not have mentioned him and so no lets see what questions and inconsistencies we can find Josephus to cast doubt on his report.” As I already mentioned, the early lack of reference to Josephus by the early church fathers is because the existence of Jesus was a non-issue. Even the Talmud, despite its 6th century date has traditions much earlier, assumes Jesus existed, while still being critical of him. Steve Mason makes a very good case for the basic witness of Josephus while acknowledging Christian additions. I have not seen any quotes by Josephus scholars supporting your thesis. Are there any? Yes you quote George Wells, but a professor of German does not really qualify as a Josephus scholars. Yes, there are sone strange things in Josephus with these passages but when you study Josephus as a whole, not just trying to attack the passages about Jesus, you find that he is full of strange things and inconsistencies. He is not a 21st century western historian! I encourage you to read John Dominic Crossan’s (a scholar far from being an evangelical apologist so I hope you give hime a chance) Historical Jesus, where in the first half of his book he does a great job of working through Josephus’ agenda and how these passages fit into his overall argument. If there is a specific part of your argument that you would like to discuss, let me know. Thank you though for starting this discussion. The questions you ask are good, even if we disagree on the answers.
February 5, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Stephen,
Thanks again for your reply. I’ll ignore the cases of hyperbole which make up a large portion of your reply, because it makes you look bad and I do not think you know what you’re talking about. In that regard I’ll break down your reply to me and answer the main assertions you’ve laid down.
1.) You say the existence of Jesus was a non-issue to early church fathers. I would agree. The question isn’t whether or not Jesus existed to them, but rather in what regard did he exist? Certainly Paul believed in Jesus, but in what way? You are making a leap in logic, and doing so with “Gospel-colored glasses.” You are assuming the very point in dispute, once more - that Jesus had to exist historically for people to believe in him. Maybe Augustine believed Jesus was a real historical individual, but did the Gospel of Mark? I doubt it. Certainly Matthew didn’t. They were writing edifying fiction, like Tobit, or Ester, or 1 Enoch, or the Testament of Abraham. None of these characters were real either, but in the novelization, the authors of these works assumed the historicity as well.
2.) There are many Josephan scholars who find a lot of trouble with the Testimonium. In fact, in his Loeb series on this issue, Louis Feldman lists several who agree with its tampering. But here comes the major problem with scholarship - many assume the authority of a consensus without question, and do so with the same “Gospel-colored glasses” that you have on at the moment. Several decades ago, the Old Testament was considered to be a historically founded document based on the hypotheses of Eissfeldt, Alt and Albright. It was a consensus - until somebody challenged the literary borrowing taking place in the text, and then another did, and another, until we come to today, where now nobody uses the Old Testament as a historical source, nor try to defend the Biblical accounts as anything more than a selection of literature. Your concern with this issue shows a naivety about you, especially with how scholarship functions as a whole.
3.) Josephus was not a historian at all. Josephus was an apologist, writing to a largely Gentile audience to promote his idealism while fictionalizing his own cultures history. Did Alexander the Great really have a dream with God who told him he was going to defeat Persia? And once that happened, did he march on Israel because of their treason, only to find that they believed and worshiped the God he had his dream about? Of course not. Josephus fictionalized the whole event. He fictionalized a lot of events. People assumed his historical reliability but only in the past. Today, there are serious doubts about his reliability. And many don’t even trust what he has to say concerning recent events. Much like Philo, Josephus easily fudged numbers, made estimates that were way off count, and probably exaggerated his own rule in the Jewish War.
4.) Dominic and I know each other. I consider him a colleague. He was even on my show a few months back, where he could not defend the authority of the Josephan passage. I still find his books excellent, but even he admits that he starts from a presupposition. You should listen to that show. I also do not think Crossan knows of the Slavic version of Josephus which contain even more numerous and more apparent forgeries than the Greek or Arabic versions, which prove more consistently that Christians were inserting whole passages in Josephus everywhere.
5.) The Talmud (Which even Crossan admits comes way to late to be used as historical verification of Jesus) is considered part of the Toldoth Yesu, or specifically, the Jewish writing polemics against the Christians. They assume the historicity because at the time they were collected the historicity of Jesus had already been assumed. This was 300 years after the first ecumenical council and the Gnostics had all been (save for the Cathars) extinguished. You mention of the Talmud does not bode well for you here.
6.) Your disagreement with me using Wells is humorous, being that your use of Crossan is a hypocritical move. Crossan is not a Josephan scholar either. You show your naivety again when you assume that only Josephan scholars matter in this debate. Not at all. A monograph is a monograph, and a scholarly publication is just that. The facts presented are what matter, not qualifications.
Again, I’ll remind you that this debate does not begin nor end with this Josephus entry. I have several others which conclusively paint a very detailed look at the socio-cultural world of the 1st Century ancient Near East. In fact, I succeed where Crossan fails - in all his books he assumes the historical reliability of Mark, while showing how Matthew and Luke utilized tropes and mimetic writing to create their stories, all the while Crossan ignores (because of his presuppositions) the same use of tropes by Mark. Crossan also assumes the reliability of the Q hypothesis, and doesn’t seem to realize, yet agaon, that there are parallels where “Q” is really just the reuse of earlier tropes found in scripture and other Greek tracts (pointed out by Burton L. Mack). Additionally, Crossan’s painting of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, drawing on phrases that obviously come from the Septuagint which again he is unaware of. And the position that Jesus really said something similar to the children, about having to be like them to enter the kingdom of God, is also right out of the scripture. Again the question is asked, did the author of Mark think he was writing history, or was his intent scripture reinterpretation, a common genre of writing among Diaspora Jews (which Mark was)?
The best to you,
Rook
February 5, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I hope you are not dismissing my statements as the ravings of another zealous fundamentalist. I am actually published in this field, although I am certainly no Josephus scholar. I will attempt to respond to some of your points.
1) Jesus’ existence was accepted by the New Testament and early church fathers, not just as a theological construct but as a historical figure. Have you read the church fathers? Irenaeus considered him historical enough to debate whether Jesus died at 30 or 50. Paul also accepted Jesus as historical not just as the glorified Christ (although that was his emphasis). There is some info on my blog http://www.1peter315.wordpress.com on that.
2) I know that many Josephus scholars comment on the tampering. But you have not offered one scholar who accepts it as a complete falsehood. It is interesting that you quote the John Meier article in passing and yet when you read that article, he makes it clear that it is based on some authentic Josephus material (By the way, in your footnotes it should be Bible Review and not Biblical Review). As for the consensus - and you accuse me of hyperbole! The change in OT scholarship you mention came about because of some recognized scholars in the field working with the material in a careful way. We do not have anything like that with the Testamonium. To say that because one consensus was seriously challenged means that we should abandon the Testamonium consensus because MAYBE one day something like that will happen here is pretty poor logic.
3) Sure there are problems with Josephus. He said all kinds of things (which makes it funny that they think he would be conservative in mentioning Jesus). But just because he said some fantastic things about Alexander does not mean we question Alexander’s existence. Josephus took historical events and reshaped them for his own purposes.
4)I will look into that.
5) The Toldoth Yesu is something separate from the Talmud. The Toldoth Yesu are a collection of Jewish medieval legends and folk stories about Jesus. The Talmud as a 6th century work should be used carefully but it was not created in the 6th century, it includes earlier traditions and it assumes the historical figure of Jesus.
6) You must be kidding with this one? Do you really believe that a New Testament scholar who has studied the same time and culture as Josephus is no different than a German scholar writing about Josephus? You seem intelligent, please don’t tell me that you really believe that. This is the problem with the Jesus myth authors. Most of them have very little formal training in any of these areas but they would suggest that they are ready to overturn all of recognized scholarship in religion and history on these matters. The book I co-wrote, Unmasking the Pagan Christ (Clements 2006) is a response to Tom Harpur who at least has a Ph.D. in New Testament. But Harpur’s Pagan Christ is based almost completely on the work of Gerald Massey (no formal education) and Alvin Boyd Kuhn (Ph.D. in theosophy). If any of this was true, you would think that someone in the recognized academic world (most of who are NOT evangelical Christian) would have seen some of this or would agree now that the truth has been revealed. Instead we have amateur “scholars” writing books that sell because of our love of controversy and at the same time with no scholarly support.
If you are open minded about this subject, I hope you will read our book and at least look at the other side. I certainly am willing to read both sides.
February 5, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I unfortunately have no time to answer your assertions at the moment. I am preparing for a lecture tonight that I am giving and I’ve already spent enough time over the past few days working on this blog that I need to spend some time in preparation.
On a quick note, I agree with you: Most mythicists lack training. I am not one of them. In fact I am being peer reviewed for possible publication by one of those careful scholars who changed the course of Old Testament studies (Thomas L. Thompson). I am very aware of the likes of the so-called experts such as Acharya S, and Joe Atwill. I am not one of those. I suggest you read into Richard Carrier, who hodls an M.Phil. in Classical Civ. and who just submitted his doctoral dissertation on Classical Science. He also studied under the worlds foremost papyrologists, and he agrees with me (or I should say, I agree with him) on his position of Josephus. There is also Robert M. Price, who I don’t always agree with, but respect greatly. He has written several books on this subject, and holds the same perspective. Thomas L. Thompson also agrees with me, and his book The Messiah Myth is one I highly recommend to you for reading.
I will get to your other concerns, but it will probably be tomorrow. The presentation tonight starts at 7pm, I have to be there at 6pm to set up, and will not be home until late, especially if several of us go out for dinner and drinks after. I look forward to our continued discussions.
February 5, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Good luck on your lecture. I’m glad that you are trying to distance yourself from the amateurs and are seeking guidance from recognized academics. Just out of curiosity, what educational background do you have? I saw on one of your web sites that you specialize in history and philosophy. My specialty is in New Testament and early Judaism although I have wide interests including OT, and ANE mythogy. I have 3 Masters degrees from McMaster in Hamilton, ON. As for the Thompson book, it is on my list. But alas, so many books so little time!
February 5, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I shouldn’t be responding because I feel as though I owe your reply and my presentation more attention, but I do enjoy this discussion so I’ll break for a moment.
I don’t specialize in philosophy, as much as I specialize in philosophy in antiquity. Although, I have a focus in the Jewish Diaspora, particularly in the literature, as well as Greek and Roman mystery religions, particularly the Orphics, which share a lot with modern and ancient Christianity. The ANE is one of my favorite regions in history, particularly because of the influences of the cultures on each other. In fact I own the ANET, and several other paralleled OT and ANE literature.
Thank you for your regards on tonights lecture. Until tomorrow then.
The best,
Rook
February 6, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Stephen,
Thank you for your patience. The lecture last night went very well, I am pleased with the questions I received and the audience was great. Some fifty people showed up, it was very exciting to see such an interest in what I had to say. I was very humbled, but I shall not waste your time with details. On to the point at hand.
To make it clear, I am not dismissing you because you are or are not a fundamentalist zealot. In fact I’m not dismissing you at all; I was more or less ignoring your attempts at hyperbole. But I do not want to linger on such negativity. So let us both move on.
With that out of the way, let’s look at your points:
1.) I have read the church fathers, in fact I have the ten volume set of all the Ante-Nicene fathers, and the Lightfoot edition, as well as the new LCL edition of the Apostolic Fathers. I feel though, that like many scholars which have preceded you, you are looking at the earliest texts with “Gospel-colored glasses.” This is not necessarily your fault. In other words, this is more of a “Johnson mistake” instead of a “Nixon mistake.” The most important thing you mentioned, though, is Irenaeus’ very interesting discussion on the age of Jesus at his death. How fascinating that this information would not have been passed down accurately, especially if Jesus was said to have been killed under Pilate, and born in the time of Herod. And these traditions preceded Irenaeus, so it is odd that he would not agree with them. You may suggest that this is due to the fact that he came later, and that information was transmitted in a way that made it unstable and inaccurate. Well, that helps my point. Even in Paul’s day, Paul had trouble with the different factions of Christians running around making all these claims “I am with Cephas, I am with Paul, I am with Christ, I am with such and such…” And then there was that gross misunderstanding where people thought Paul was the Christ…but, if Jesus had just lived ten years prior, and his disciples still lived and had been sent unto the nations, why is it that Paul is being confused as Jesus? Very odd indeed. The poor communication between sects of Christianity seems so strikingly similar to those problems that arise out of a growing legend. One that was never intended to be meant as fact, but because of misinformation, probably in the Diaspora, it became “fact.” Sort of like how Dionysus was said to have had been entombed at Delphi, with the limbs by which the Titans had pulled him apart. People flocked there, just to see the tomb. Was he really buried there? No. It was all allegorical, and became fact. That the early church fathers sought to make this history does not surprise me. Today, we still have fundamentalist Christians attempting to historicize a lot of events we know never happened. But I digress. You really should read more of my blogs.
2.) There are several, although you will probably dismiss them on whatever grounds you deem it. Aside from G.A. Wells, Earl Doherty, and Frank Zindler, the scholars who are “more worthy” (in your eyes perhaps) are Thomas L. Thompson, Robert M. Price, and Richard Carrier. All three have doctorates (in Carrier’s case, a M.Phil. and two masters, and is going for his doctorate now). All have a focus in antiquity, and both Price and Thompson are “atheist Christians” – a philosophical idealism which makes them pretty impartial. I think your dependency on consensus is hurting you. Consensus’ come and go – the consensus in many areas is already shifting in so many areas. From the use of Homer’s epics as a mimetic model for the Gospel author of Mark, to the dating of Luke-Acts to the second century. Your being content with the fact that assuming the consensus will change as “poor logic” is actually poor logic. Because it has changed, so frequently, in so many ways. You say you’re published in this field. If that is the case, I would expect you to have understood that by now. As for your conclusion on the change and shift in O.T. scholarship, you are uninformed. I know personally the scholars who instituted the change. I am, myself, a part of the Copenhagen school, which is the most heavily published on the new scholarship of Old Testament studies. It was Van Seters and Thompson who wrote the books which made scholarship take a second look. It wasn’t field work – it was argumentation based on the best possible explanation. It may have used the field results of dig sites, but in that same regard, we have no archaeological evidence for a Jesus either. Not to mention contemporary accounts.
3.) Your dismissal of this fact, so nonchalantly, is troublesome. No, you’re right, we don’t question Alexander’s existence because we have a whole ton of archaeological evidence for him. I would however question the existence of the high priest in that story – which Josephus probably just invented. I would not doubt the existence of Pilate in the Gospel stories similar to the way I wouldn’t doubt the existence of Alexander, but like the high priest, I would question Jesus’. We also have archaeological evidence, inscriptions, or testimonies to both Pilate and Alexander which are not in dispute. The Josephan passage is in dispute. This is why I say you are assuming the case in point. If it were not in dispute, I wouldn’t be disputing it, now would I? And I am not the only one.
On a side note, Josephus also talks about Moses, but we do question Moses’ existence, and the patriarchs. Fictionalizing history was a commonplace among Jewish literature. It didn’t stop with the Gospels, it continued. The Gospels were just a part of that fictionalizing. It continued long after, such as the reinterpretation of the Gospels by later Christians. The Gospels became a part of scripture for them, just as Jews fashioned new histories of the Patriarchs (1 Enoch, Testament of Abraham, Testament of Elijah), and just as the scriptures were a springboard for creativity to Hellenistic Jews, the Gospels, and Paul’s letters, were a springboard for creativity as well. So much so, that rhetoricists wrote up fake letters assigned to Paul and the disciples as part of the Second Sophistic period, much like they fashioned fake letters of Apollonius, Diogenes, Aristotle and Plato, Philostratus, and many others.
4.) Thank you.
5.) You are correct that the Toldoth Yesu is separate from the Talmud, that was a flaw in my phrasing. I apologize. Yet, you assumption that it includes earlier traditions is speculative. Oral tradition is only known to us through the writing down of that tradition – but we only have the tradition that was written down. We can not ever know what the tradition was prior to that moment, nor if the author was true to the tradition, or changed the tradition to fit their own motivations. To claim “earlier traditions” is a step towards speculation. It is a dirty road one should not venture so carelessly.
6.) I’ve already responded to this subject above.
I do look forward to our continued correspondence.
The best,
Rook
February 7, 2008 at 2:04 am
That’s great that you had good turnout. It is encouraging when people come out to learn. I did a lecture in response to Tom harpur’s book and I was going to cancel it because there was a blizzard that day. To my surprise, fifty people came out and we had a wonderful discussion.
As for our discussion on Josephus, I am not sure it can go any farther. The fact is that by far the majority of scholars (not just Christian) accept a core testimony in Josephus and even more so in the historical existence of Jesus. Consensus does not prove anything but until the tide turns, it must be taken into account. If Jesus was not such a controversial figure, people would not read the Gospels and Josephus and say: “Obviously he is only a mythological construct.” We would assume by what we have in the Gospels, Paul and Josephus that he was real, even if we disagreed on the details.
The parallel with OT scholarship is not exact. While most scholars do not use archaeology any longer to try and prove the Bible, the Copenhagen school have yet to win the day in OT studies. Many intelligent scholars continue to believe in a Davidic kingdom and his ancestors. Even so, those who deny the historicity of Jesus are far from where the Copenhagen school is.
As for the church fathers, I think you misunderstand. The disagreements about details of Jesus’ life are not evidence against the historicity. If there was not a strong belief in the historicity, there would be no point in working out the details. We do not argue those things when it comes to Osiris or Mithras. Look at Origen. If anyone you would expect him to allegorize the Bible to the point where Jesus disappears as a historical figure. But Origen warns his readers to not lose the literal historical core of the Gospel.
I don’t expect to change your mind and I am sure that you don’t expect to convince me. We have both presented our positions and now we must agree to disagree.
My advice to you is to continue to seek the truth. Take care!
February 7, 2008 at 2:28 am
You say, “Consensus does not prove anything but until the tide turns, it must be taken into account.”
You are absolutely correct. It should be taken into account - but it should NOT be taken for granted. Please consider that carefully.
You also state that, “If Jesus was not such a controversial figure, people would not read the Gospels and Josephus and say: “Obviously he is only a mythological construct.” We would assume by what we have in the Gospels, Paul and Josephus that he was real, even if we disagreed on the details.” - You are again very correct. But literary criticism of the Gospels is only a very recent speciality. It started with Charles Talbert, advanced through Mary Ann Tolbert, and has really started to gain popularity with Dennis R. MacDonald. To so easily dismiss a new, growing field because it has not yet spread beyond the historical critical area of scholarship is again, I’m sorry to say, naive.
Again you grossly misunderstand the debate on the Old Testament. You say, “While most scholars do not use archaeology any longer to try and prove the Bible, the Copenhagen school have yet to win the day in OT studies.”
There is not a single scholar today who would publish a disagreement with the Copenhagen school. In a monograph put out called “In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel”, after ranting and raving, the conclusions were that the Copenhagen school was right, not the other way around.
You then almost border on the absurd when you claim, quite erroneously that, “Many intelligent scholars continue to believe in a Davidic kingdom and his ancestors.” - Yes, they believe it, but they would never publish an article on the subject - the evidence does not match their belief. You can wish that belief and fact were the same thing, but in the end they are not the same. Please remember to separate the two.
And again, to the absurd, “Even so, those who deny the historicity of Jesus are far from where the Copenhagen school is.” - This is a testament to your ignorance of the literature put out by the Copenhagen school. Considering that Thomas L. Thompson wrote an excellent book called “The Messiah Myth” in which he makes the case that the historicity of Jesus is in serious doubt.
You write, “As for the church fathers, I think you misunderstand. The disagreements about details of Jesus’ life are not evidence against the historicity.” - That is wishful thinking.
“If there was not a strong belief in the historicity, there would be no point in working out the details.” - That is also wishful thinking. Working out the details is part of legendary development! This is why the looking at the details in the different accounts helps us review the legend as it forms and grows - such as the resurrection account in all four Gospels and in Acts with the ascension. Again, it is troublesome you are compartmentalizing these details.
“I don’t expect to change your mind and I am sure that you don’t expect to convince me. We have both presented our positions and now we must agree to disagree.” - I find this rather disheartening. I think it ironic that you tell me to “seek the truth” - but are so unwilling to continue this discussion. I am a critical historian, Stephen. That does not mean my mind cannot be changed. If you can present a very good argument, I would have no choice but to agree with you. I am not intellectually dishonest, my friend. Your claim that you will not change your mind is a sign of close-mindedness, not of an open mind.
In any case, I have appreciated our discussion. The best to you and good luck in your endeavors.
Rook
February 7, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I am not against continuing some sort of conversation but I think we have come to the end of Josephus. I accept that Josephus said something about Jesus that Christians added to, a position held by majority of scholars. You hold that it was completely a Christian addition, a position held by a minority of scholars. We are both confident in our opinions. I am not sure of the value of still working on this one. Let’s find something else to work through. I am interested in discussing the Copehagen school but it is not my area so I woul need to read up on it. Why don’t you review my article on Paul and the Historical Jesus (the link can be found on my blog) or better yet my book Unmasking the Pagan Christ? I am sure we can find lots to talk about.
February 8, 2008 at 12:17 am
I can understand your position, and you may be accurate in your interpretation of our opinions. I would add that I have read a bit concerning Paul and the Epistles, especially by Historical Jesus scholars. The problem is, Paul wrote his Epistles before the Gospel authors wrote their narratives, and the Gospel authors used the narratives to supplement their stories. This seems to be ignored by a great majority of Jesus scholars, especially those who continue to read Paul through “Gospel-colored glasses.” Again, we come to the major presupposition of New Testament scholarship.
I will look into your book Unmasking the Pagan Christ. Would you also look into the monograph put out by Robert M. Price called “The Empty Tomb?” I think you’ll find it pretty fascinating.
February 8, 2008 at 12:55 am
Stephen,
I don’t know how well this will work (I’m not html expert). I made these videos about four-five months ago, so they are not as up to date as I’d like, but they represent my case on the supposed historical references to Jesus in the Epistles (4 parts).
http://video.rationalresponders.com/item/XP76T55XDXM66XT2
http://video.rationalresponders.com/item/KBYBXZ0RW9WFRS40
http://video.rationalresponders.com/item/4TL9C3VJB2GW0CTQ
http://video.rationalresponders.com/item/NGH9QC3GJ99W3CR3
My lecture was actually recorded, and will be online soon. When that is up, I will link you so you can see what my postion is.
The best,
Rook