The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing
during the second half of the first century CE, produced two major
works: History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews. Two
apparent references to Jesus occur in the second of these works.
The longer, and more famous passage, occurs in Book 18 of
Antiquities and reads as follows (taken from the standard accepted
Greek text of Antiquities 18:63-64 by L. H. Feldman in the Loeb
Classical Library):
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought
to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and
was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won
over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When
Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing
amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the
first place come to love him did not give up their affection for
him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the
prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous
things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after
him, has still to this day not disappeared.
This passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum, and is sometimes
cited by propagandists as independent confirmation of Jesus'
existence and resurrection. However, there is excellent reason to
suppose that this passage was not written in its present form by
Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later
Christians:
The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT
recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the
above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we
may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later
insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome
and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome's Latin version, however,
renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the
Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite
this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do
so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with
at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus.
The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that
Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage
about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage
seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was
certainly not the case.
Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a
later Christian insertion. However, some maintain that Josephus's
work originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists
later expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus. These
scholars cite such phrases as "tribe of Christians" and "wise man"
as being atypical Christian usages, but plausible if coming from a
first century Palestinian Jew. Of course, a suitably clever
Christian wishing to "dress up" Josephus would not have much
trouble imitating his style.
Philip Burns ([email protected]) has provided some of the
following material on the following alternate versions or
reconstructions of the Testimonium Flavianum.
One possible reconstruction of the Testimonium Flavianum, suggested
by James Charlesworth, goes like this, with probably Christian
interpolations enclosed in brackets:
About this time there was Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed one ought
to call him a man]. For he was one who performed surprising works,
(and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual.
He stirred up both many Jews and also many of the Greeks. [He was
the Christ.] And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he
was accused by the first-rate men among us, those who had been
loving (him from) the first did not cease (to cause trouble), [for
he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the
prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous
things about him]. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named
from him, is not (yet?) extinct.
In Charlesworth's version, references to Jesus' resurrection,
Messiahship, and possible divinity ("if indeed one ought to call
him a man") are removed. These elements are clearly unacceptable
coming from a non-Christian Jew such as Josephus. If in fact
Josephus's original text mentioned Jesus at all, it was certainly
much closer to this version than to the highly pro-Christian one
which has survived. One possible problem with Charlesworth's
reconstruction is the use of the term "Christians"--it is not clear
from the reconstructed text why "Christians" would be named after
Jesus, unless Josephus had previously referred to him as "Christ".
It seems inconsistent to delete the reference to Jesus being
"Christ", but to keep the suggestion that this is how Christians
got their name.
A reconstruction by F.F. Bruce sidesteps this particular problem by
having Josephus take a more hostile stance towards Jesus:
"Now there arose about this time a source of further trouble in one
Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men
who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also
many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate,
acting on information supplied by the chief men among us, condemned
him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first
did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which
has taken this name from him, is not extinct even today.
Bruce's version also seems somewhat inconsistent, calling Jesus a
"wise man" while also identifying him as a source of trouble and as
someone who "led away many Jews". A further problem concerns the
reference to Jesus's ministry among the Gentiles. In Jesus: A
Historian's Review of the Gospels, Michael Grant argues that Jesus
in fact avoided ministering to Gentiles, and that a Christian
Gentile ministry arose only after his death. If Grant is right,
then Josephus is confusing the actions of Jesus with the actions of
the early Christian church.
A late Arabic recension of this passage in Josephus comes from
Agapius's Book of the Title, a history of the world from its
beginning to 941/942 C.E. Agapius was a tenth century Christian
Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis. The following translation is
by S. Pines:
"Similarly Josephus, the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that
he has written on the governance (?) of the Jews: "At this time
there was a wise man who was called Jesus. 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. But those who had become his
disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he
had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he
was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom
the prophets have recounted wonders."
While some have argued that this passage may be close to the
original, one should note especially that this version is from a
much later text, and that Josephus at least admits the possibility
that Jesus was the Messiah, which seems unlikely. These two facts
make this version suspect. In fact, E. Bammel argues that the
passage reflects the conflicts between Christianity and Islam in
Agapius's time, rather than being a genuine reflection of the
original text.
The consensus, if there is such a thing, would seem to be
that:
The Testimonium Flavianium preserved in the extant Greek is not the
original text. At best, certain phrases within it are later
Christian insertions. At worst, the entire passage is a later
insertion.
In particular, Josephus probably did not claim that Jesus was the
Messiah, or that he rose from the dead. At best, he only confirms
that Jesus existed and perhaps was killed by Pilate.
Josephus apparently refers to Jesus in passing later in the
"Antiquities", where we find this passage:
"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the
sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus,
who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others (or
some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation
against them, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities
20.9.1)
Opinion about this passage is mixed. Some scholars believe that it
is a later Christian insertion, like the Testimonium Flavianium may
be, but of course much less blatantly so. Others believe that the
passage may in fact be genuine. No adequate means of deciding the
issue exists at this time. However, those who argue for Jesus's
non-existence note that Josephus spends much more time discussing
John the Baptist and various other supposed Messiahs than he does
discussing Jesus. However, while there is some reason to believe
that this second passage is a fabrication, there is not enough
evidence to definitely conclude this.
On the whole, it seems at least plausible that Josephus made some
references to Jesus in the original version of Antiquities of the
Jews. However, the extent of these references is very uncertain,
and clear evidence of textual corruption does exist. While Josephus
may be the best non-Christian source on Jesus, that is not saying
much.
More detailed information and references to other discussions on
Josephus may be found in:
Bruce, F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament.
Eerdmans, 1974.
Charlesworth, James H. Jesus Within Judaism. Doubleday (Anchor
Books) 1988.
France, Richard T. The Evidence for Jesus. Intervarsity Press,
1986.
