(20 votes, average: 4.90 out of 5)
Loading...I recently received a succinct but very important question about whether Jesus is ever mentioned by any Jewish sources of the first century.
The premise behind the question is that if Jesus was the miracle-working son of God who was healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead – wouldn’t everyone be talking about him, all the time? It turns out, the answer is – we don’t know! We have hardly any Jewish writings from his time and place.
At the end of the first century we do have the copious and massively important historical writings of Flavius Josephus, and there is one passage in particular where he does indeed refer to Jesus. The passage is typically called the “Testimonium Flavianum” (that is, “Flavius [Josephus’s] Testimony to Jesus”). But did Josephus actually write this passage? Or has it been inserted into his work by a later scribe? Or did a later Christian scribe “touch it up” a bit?
Here is the simple but crucial question I have received.
QUESTION:
How much of the Testimonium Flavianum do you think is original?
RESPONSE:
I will put my response in terms of the broader question of Jewish sources (of any use) for the life of Jesus. I have taken this from my book The New Testament: A Historical Introduction…
**************************************************
In contrast to pagan sources, we have very few Jewish texts of any kind that can be reliably dated to the first century of the Common Era. There are references to Jesus in later documents, such as those that make up that great collection of Jewish lore and learning, the Talmud. This compilation of traditions was preserved by rabbis living in the first several centuries of the Common Era. Some of the traditions found in the Talmud may possibly date back to the period of our concern, but scholars have increasingly realized that it is difficult to establish accurate dates for them. The collection itself was made long after the period of Jesus’ life; the core of the Talmud is the Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic opinions about the Law that was not written until nearly two centuries after his death. Moreover, Jesus is never mentioned in this part of the Talmud; he appears only in commentaries on the Mishnah that were produced much later. Scholars are therefore skeptical of the usefulness of these references in reconstructing the life of the historical Jesus.
There is one Jewish author, however, who both wrote during our time period (before 130 c.e.) and mentioned Jesus. The Jewish historian Josephus produced several important works, the two best known of which are his insider’s perspective on the Jewish War against Rome in 66–73 c.e. and his twenty-volume history of the Jewish people from Adam and Eve up to the time of the Jewish War, a book that he titled The Antiquities of the Jews.
Scores of important, and less important, Jews, especially Jews in and around Josephus’s own time, are discussed in these historical works. Jesus is not mentioned at all in Josephus’s treatment of the Jewish War, which comes as no surprise since his crucifixion took place some three decades before the war started, but he does make two tantalizingly brief appearances in the Antiquities.
One reference to Jesus occurs in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus, who abused his power in the year 62 c.e. by unlawfully putting to death James, whom Josephus identifies as “the brother of Jesus who is called the messiah” (Ant. 20.9.1). From this reference we can learn that Jesus was known to have a brother named James, which we already knew from the New Testament (see Mark 6:3 and Gal 1:19), and that he was thought by some people to be the messiah, although obviously not by Josephus himself, who remained a non-Christian Jew.
Josephus’s religious perspective has made the other reference to Jesus a source of considerable puzzlement over the years, for he not only mentions Jesus as a historical figure but also appears to profess faith in him as the messiah—somewhat peculiar for a person who never converted to Christianity.
Probably the most controversial passage in all of Josephus’s writings is his description of Jesus in book 18 of The Antiquities of the Jews.
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out. (Ant. 18.3.3)
This testimony of Jesus has long puzzled scholars. Why would Josephus, a devout Jew who never became a Christian, profess faith in Jesus by suggesting that he was something more than a man, calling him the messiah (rather than merely saying that others thought he was) and claiming that he was raised from the dead in fulfillment of prophecy?
Many scholars have recognized that the problem can be solved by looking at how, and by whom, Josephus’s writings were transmitted over the centuries. In fact, they were not preserved by Jews, many of whom considered him to be a traitor because of his conduct during and after the war with Rome. Rather, it was Christians who copied Josephus’s writings through the ages. Is it possible that this reference to Jesus was beefed up a bit by a Christian scribe who wanted to make Josephus appear more appreciative of the “true faith”?
If we take out the Christianized portions of the passage, what we are left with, according to one of the most convincing modern studies, is the following:
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out. (John Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1991; vol. 1, p. 61)
If this is something Josephus wrote, as most scholars continue to think, then it indicates that Jesus was a wise man and a teacher who performed startling deeds and as a consequence found a following among both Jews and Greeks; it states that he was accused by Jewish leaders before Pilate, who condemned him to be crucified; and it points out that his followers remained devoted to him even afterward (Ant. 18.3.3).
It is useful to know that Josephus had this much information about Jesus. Unfortunately, there is not much here to help us understand specifically what Jesus said and did. We might conclude that he was considered important enough for Josephus to mention, although not as important as, say, John the Baptist or many other Palestinian Jews who were thought to be prophets at the time, about whom Josephus says a good deal more. We will probably never know if Josephus actually had more information about Jesus at his disposal or if he told us all that he knew.
No other non-Christian Jewish source written before 130 c.e. mentions Jesus.
Clearly, we cannot learn much about Jesus from non-Christian sources, whether pagan or Jewish. Thus if we want to know what Jesus actually said and did during his life, we are therefore compelled to turn to sources produced by his followers.
If you were a member of the blog, you would get meaty posts like this five days a week, every day of the week for all eternity. Well, OK, for a long time. And going back seven years (you can access all the old ones very easily). So why not join? It’s little money and less effort, and the blog raises money for important charities helping those in need!
It seems like Josephus, who was at core a diplomat, is laying it on a bit thick there, even when you take out the Christian additions. These Christians to him are part of the larger Jewish monotheist community, even if many of them are pagan converts. He presumably recognizes Jesus as influenced by John, who he admired. Not a religious enthusiast himself, he still respects such teachers (think of all the liberal cosmopolitan writers who said nice things about Billy Graham, when he first appeared on the scene). He’s trying to stay on the good side of everyone who isn’t an out-and-out zealot. Josephus believes in getting along.
And this paid unexpected dividends for him–posterity remembers him now because Christians took an interest in his work–the only place an educated non-Christian spoke well of Jesus, and of John, and documented the murder of James. One has to respect that they copied the entire work, which has proven invaluable for historians. In many ways, Christianity was less hindered by tribal suspicions than Judaism at this point in time, since so many different ethnic groups became converts.
As you say, James was killed without the sanction of the Roman government, unlike his brother. Do we know much of anything about that, besides what Josephus tells us?
Jospehus’s account is the closest thing we have to a historical record. There are later legends, for example, in the much later Pseudo-clementines, but nothing of historical use.
What do you think of this typological relationship between Titus and the Jesus of the gospels?
Example:
When Jesus tells the disciples that he would make them fishers of men, it would be an allegory to Titus “fishing for men” with his spear in the Sea of Galilee.
The phrase “fishers of men” was almost certainly being said of Jesus before the Jewish war, don’t you think? And Jesus certainly means something quite different by it!
OK Barth, you wrote about it a long time ago. There is a friend “evangelizing” me for this theory. And it seems very interesting to me. One last question about another typological relationship? The three friends of Flavio Josefo crucified, and Jesus and the two malteitores on the cross. Coincidence? Did they use from the same source when writing?
No, the two passages do not have any striking similarities — they are almost *completely* different. Read the one in Josephus and you’ll see.
“f we take out the Christianized portions of the passage, what we are left with, according to one of the most convincing modern studies, is the following…”
1) What is it about the study that is so convincing that allows one to discern which parts of an obviously doctored passage are “authentic”? 2) Why is Ant. 20.9.1 considered authentic, since “Jesus who is called the messiah” is the same wording used in Matthew 1:16? Should Ant. 20.9.1 not be viewed with suspicion too?
1. It seems highly unikely that a Jew would say that Jesus was the messiah who was raised from the dead. We have no record of Jews saying this, who were not also Christian. But since Josephus left us an autobiography, we know he never became a Christian. 2. Josephus is referring *back* to the earlier discussion of ch. 18, to indicate *which* Jesus (of the many he has already spoken of) he is talking about: this one, the one that some people claimed was the messiah.
Bart wrote:
1. It seems highly unikely that a Jew would say that Jesus was the messiah who was raised from the dead. We have no record of Jews saying this, who were not also Christian. But since Josephus left us an autobiography, we know he never became a Christian.
JohnKesler:
I realize why the obviously Christian parts are ruled out. But why do scholars assume that there’s a non-Christian original? Since the text was obviously tampered with, why assume that any of it is authentically from Josephus?
Because everything else in Josephus probably goes back to Josephus, including his descriptions of other religious figures, preachers,apocalyptic prophets etc — there’s no reason to think he wouldn’t have a brief mention of Jesus as well as all the others.
I have another question to pose–why only question what Josephus says about Jesus? Why does his mentioning similar figures to Jesus who have not led to the founding of a an influential living religion never provoke any skepticism?
Or did I just answer my own question?
You don’t get good history by going in with your mind firmly made up. “I don’t want this to be true, so let me look for some way to go on believing it isn’t.”
And strangely, we find this approach most strongly delineated among those who want to believe Jesus was God, and those who want to believe he never was at all.
And in the middle, we find good history.
If the reconstructed passage of Ant.18.3.3 that you present is correct then why do you say that Josephus is referring *back* to Ant.18.3.3 in Ant.20.9.1 when the reconstructed Ant.18.3.3 doesn’t talk about Jesus being thought of as the messiah at all? The reconstruction got rid the only mention of messiah in that passage. Am I missing something here?
Good question! I don’t have my books here with me (I’m out of the country), but I think the argument does not involve the phrase “who is called the messiah” but simply the fact that James is identified simply as “the brother of Jesus.” If Jesus had not already been mentioned (i.e. *this* particular Jesus), the backward association wold not make any sense.
Sorry for my continued confusion (I understand if you’re too busy to answer since you’re out of the country) but I thought your argument was that the phrase “who is called the messiah” is used by Josephus to identify *which* Jesus James was the brother of, since Josephus wrote about several people named Jesus. But if Josephus never previously wrote about people thinking Jesus was the messiah, as is the case in John Meier’s reconstructed Testimonium Flavianum, then how would Josephus’ readers know which Jesus was the one known as the messiah? Please correct me if I’m wrong as I could just be confused.
Ah, maybe so. I’ll have to look at the argument again. Sorry. Josephus does clearly refer back to the earlier reference here (for the reason I mention). The problem is, as I know I have talked about, that we probably don’t have the original form of the Testimonium from book 18. POssibly, e.g., instead of it saying “He was the messiah” (which clearly Josephus would not have said), the original said “He was CALLED the messiah.” In that case the scribe who edited the passage to make it more Christian would have simply dropped out the one word. (Or substituted “was called — Greek LEGOMENON” for the word “was.” I’ll have to think more about it.
Re 1 John 5:7 if I may please.
I know that this is a disputed passage and it is said that it does not appear in the best manuscript tradition. However, I note that it still features in a number of translations. In some of these I have seen it rendered as ‘and these three are in agreement’ (e.g. NIV and Berean Study Bible) rather than as ‘and these three are one’. Is the former an acceptable translation of the Greek? If so, it seems to me that this avoids claims to a justification of the Trinity. (It could also be seen to reflect the claim that the passage ‘I and my father are one’ (John 10:30) also implies ‘at one’ / ‘in agreement’ as is argued by Jehovah’s Witnesses.)
The words “the three are one” are found in 1 Jn 5:8, as part of the original text (referring to the spirit, the water and the blood). “In agreement” doesn’t work too well here, since they are not people. The same words, when applied to the Father, the Word, and the Spirit — in teh later addition to the text — also mean “are one,” but the translator is explaining what, in his opinion, that means — that they are “in agreement” (as opposed to being “one in essence”)
Being raised a Catholic I always believed that Jesus was very famous in his own time. That was before I learned about historical context and the way the gospels were written. It seems to me that Jesus was almost a nobody, only known by those who believed in him or followed him. The miracles themselves, splendorous as they were, not attested by multiple sources. It is a shame really, being brought up in a way to believe Jesus was very important and many believed in him but in fact real evidence about him is scarce and the gospel written much later after his death. Not only that, but the gospel writers would edit some stories to fit their theological ideas of the time.
@Dr Ehrman I have been following this blog for some time. I have wrote a paper about Pilate and his trials in the gospels. Can I upload it here as a guest post please ?
Congratulations on your paper! I’m afraid I only allow for guest posts from published scholars in the field. Sorry! But I hope you get good feedback elsewehre on your paper!
David,
I turned to metaphysics early in my life and found answers to fill in the blanks of the New Testament Bible.
With Dr. Ehrman’s help (from his books and the blog) I’m filling in a lot of blanks, but continue to see the Bible as a legitimate source, probably accurate on most of what Jesus said, but spun by the Church (mainly Paul) in a way that cannot be logically accepted.
Miracles are subjective to the period and beliefs, individually and societal. In fact, I had an experience early on (one which turned me to metaphysics) where I without any doubt learned that any or all of the biblical prophesies _could_ be true. It is because we create our reality mentally, and we evolve out of the dreaming state, not the physical world for there is no physical world, it is illusion.
But the centerpiece of the Church is the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and it makes no sense. We are eternal beings, death is illusion, and so there would be no reason for the Master to “prove” overcoming of death by rising from the dead. It is utter nonsense, but I am convinced fully that Jesus WAS the Master who came to teach essentially metaphysics, same thing as Hinduism, Buddhism, and most other ancient religions and Masters.
And so the Church does serve the purpose of recording generally the Master’s teachings (the most recent Master in our recorded history). With a metaphysical background, sayings and parables of Jesus come to life, they make sense..
I have a question regarding what is, and what isn’t, a “reliably dated” first century document.
Clearly the six undisputed letters of Paul fall into this category. But before we date the canonical gospels, can you offer what documents (apart from considering the four gospels) are reliable first century texts? And a followup: Why they are?
It’s a very difficult task. The best way to know for sure is if it is quoted widely in texts that you can place, for other reasons, in the early *second* century (since then they would need to be written previously). And so it appears, e..g, that around 110 CE Ignatius knows Matthew. And Matthew almost certainly was based on Mark. So both are probalby first century.
That would mean that apart from dating the canonical gospels, and apart from Paul’s letters, there is no reliable first century document? Is that right?
It’s debated, but most of the books of the NT — with the exception of 2 Peter — are usually dated to the first century.
I’ve been wondering something about “original” texts. Obviously, we don’t have any from the NT. How would scholars know that they had found originals? Even if manuscripts were able to be dated during the suspected time of authorship, is it possible to verify them as originals?
It would be very, very difficult to say that a ms is the original, as opposed, say, to the first copy. It’s much much easier to show that a ms is *NOT* the original. Which is true of all our mss!
Thank you for writing on Josephus. I have so many questions because, in my eyes, it seems so plain to see that these really look like interpolations. I’m willing to be convinced.
1) How would Josephus’ audience interpret the word messiah in the James passage? Would they know its connotation or would they read it more like ‘Jesus the guy covered in oil’?
Turning to the TF:
2) Does Josephus mention earlier what the ‘truth’ is?
3) Do you know how he uses the word ‘tribe’ in other contexts?
4)a) Why do modern scholars retain the word Christian? There is no mention of Jesus being the messiah earlier in the amended TF.
4)b) Weren’t they called followers of ‘the way’ around that time?
5) Do you think that the TF fits into the text before and after the TF? Doesn’t the surrounding text make more sense without the TF?
Too many questions for me to address! Pick one at a time and I’ll take it on. But, as to the first, yes, the term “messiah” was in common usage in josephus’s day, to refer to the future deliverer of Israel sent by God (usually seen as a great human warrior/leader)
Okay, will do. I’ll try to let the questions trickle out.
I’m unclear if your answer includes the Romans of the wider empire. I do know that all in Judea and Galilee and the Jewish Diaspora would know what the “one anointed with oil” meant. I’m under the impression that Josephus wrote Antiquities as an apologetic document with the Romans as the intended audience. Reading the Greek would most Romans know the full connotation of anointed one?
Yes, Jews living outside of Palestine would know. Would Romans? Depends. Some would certainly know this was a Jewish belief; others would find it an odd title.
I think I can short circuit many of my several questions with these two following questions.
1) You mention a “most convincing modern” study of the TF. Does this study look through all of the Antiquities of the Jews for the words and opinions of Josephus for comparison to the TF? The comment that I’ll post below shows why I suspect this is not the case.
2) Could you give me the citation for that study?
I think that original TF would not have had Jesus teaching the ‘truth’. Two more plausible sentences would be:
a) For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the [scripture/law] with pleasure.
b) For he was a doer of startling deeds, and a teacher of people.
Let’s see why. Josephus uses the word ‘truth’ hundreds of times. I used ctrl+F through all of Josephus’s Antiquities searching for ‘truth’. It seems that he uses the word truth in only two ways. One could be considered to be about the facts of humans in the recent past, which were usually in the context of someone being dishonest: things that were done, said, or believed by humans. The second use is about the truth related to God: a conversation with God, what God instructed someone to do, or a prophecy. Josephus does seem to use it any other way. When he uses truth it relates to a fact about humans or God.
This means that the TF has Josephus saying that Jesus was giving out prophecy *and* that prophecy is true. Why would Josephus, a devout Jew and a Pharisee, attribute this to a man he knows nothing about? Why would he not detail this prophecy that he believes is true? Since it is highly unlikely that he would, we must conclude that ‘truth’ must be removed from the TF.
Some sources on the internet say that early Church leaders make no mention of these two passages for hundreds(?) of years even though the leaders had access to Josephus. Therefore, these passages are interpolations. I have not read these early sources so I cannot assess the claim. What do you make of their claim?
It doesn’t make much sense. How many church fathers even mention Josephus at all? (A couple?) And when they do, what is their reason? They are certainly not trying to use Josephus to show that Jesus was a myth! No one thought that until modern times. Everyone knew he was a Jewish preacher who got crucified. The first father to mention the “Testimony” is Eusebius.
Bart,
I’m wondering if you would consider a response or a follow-up post to clarify why scholars have confidence that *any* part of the Testimonium Flavinium is authentic, given its purely Christian chain of custody. I’ve seen a lot of perspectives on what parts of the TF should be ruled *out*, but not as much on why any of it can be ruled *in*. Alternatively, I’ve read that its construction on the whole is “Eusebian” (a claim I cannot hope to evaluate) and that early church fathers (such as Origen) never refer to it even when making commentary on Josephus.
– SR
Every passage in Josephus was copied by Christian scribes. And so only those passages that appear to have any Christian theology in them are the ones that would be suspected as being Christian scribal alterations. The passage as reconstructed has nothing at all Christian about it. It’s Josephus describing Jesus as he describes lots and lots of Jewish figures in his day.
For me, that Christian scribes would alter an existing passage seems far more likely than that they would invent a forged passage out of whole cloth, then insert into a seemingly random place.
As for Origen, he did write concerning Josephus, “this writer… did not accept Jesus as the Christ”. Could that be circumstancial evidence that Origen had read the original, unaltered “Testimonium” which apparently contained a neutral or negative view about Jesus?
Perhaps the altered line “He was the Messiah” originally said, “These followers wrongly believed that he was the Messiah”. Would be so easy for a scribe to omit a few offensive words…
Yes, scribes changed things far more often than they inserted brand new things.
Where do you think Josephus may have gotten his information about Jesus?
It appears to be common knowledge, but not something people were talking a *lot* about — much like the majority of all the figures Josephus names and discusses in his books.
Suppose somebody in a distant foreign country you are visiting, out of touch with the world, where nobody has the internet and English-speakers are rare (hey, North Korea!), asked you to write a brief explanation of who Richard Carrier is that he or she could translate for limited distribution among those who want to know more about what’s going on in the world around them? Obviously you had better compose it in such a way as not to aggravate the powers that be.
Unlike most people on the planet, you are interested in the study of early Christianity, so you, unlike most people on the planet, have probably heard of him, have some familiarity with his ideas. He says Jesus is a mythical being mistaken for an historical figure. He, unlike most who claim this, has some training in relevant fields, though far less than most professional scholars. Bart Ehrman isn’t one of his biggest fans. He’s American (he is, right?) He has a small cult of fervent admirers who buy his videos and attend his lectures, and present him as proof that Jesus doesn’t exist, or at least that not 100% of scholars believe he did (99.99999%). He doesn’t publish a lot.
Seriously, without Googling (something Josephus could not do) that’s all I could come up with, and I’m INTERESTED. And I have internet. Maybe you know more (maybe some people here have met him! Is he nice?) But probably not a lot more.
So you write it up, along with a bunch of other things these people want to know about the outside world, doing the best you can, without any sources to draw upon other than conversations you’ve had about him with various people who know a bit more than you. It get deposited in some archive, and largely forgotten.
Then it is discovered, many years later, by some people in this country who are admirers of Richard Carrier, and still don’t have any other sources than a few blurry bootleg videos to draw upon (which at least prove his existence, unless they’re faked), so they copy it, many times.
However, you were not as respectful as they would prefer regarding their hero. So they leave most of what you wrote alone, but punch up the text relating to Carrier a bit. And all of a sudden, you’re calling Richard Carrier the supreme scholar of ancient Christianity. And Bart Ehrman sucks. 😉
In re: Testimonium Flavianum
1. Estimated writing date of Matthew Gospel: 80-100 A.D.
2. Estimated writing date of “Testimonium Flavianum”: 93-94 CE.
IMO, based on the above dates, it’s possible:
A. Josephus altered the phrase “Jesus who is called the Christ” (Matt. 1:16) to read “Jesus … called the Messiah,” OR
B. Josephus heard or saw the phrase repeated by someone who heard it from another mid-to-late 1st century convert from Judaism who believed Jesus was a Jewish messiah character.
This means, to me, the descriptions of Jesus recorded in book 18 of Josephus’ Antiquities was either unoriginal to Josephus, OR it was hearsay. Either way, the Testimonium Flavianum is likely spurious after being, as you said above, “beefed up a bit by a Christian scribe who wanted to make Josephus appear more appreciative of the ‘true faith’” as he (that scribe) understood it.
There’s a guy over in the forums who claims that Jesus is “the Samaritan Pilate slew, as Josephus records.” Why he presents this to an Internet forum rather than to scholars of the New Testament is anyone’s guess, but to your knowledge, is there to any reason to believe this is true?
Nope. You can say anything at all on the internet!
Do you object to Josephus’s account that Pilate executed the Samaritan who wanted to show people objects at Mount Gerizzim?
Is there a difference between the Samaritan execution and the execution in the Testimonium Flavianum?
I haven’t looked at it in thirty-five years I’m afraid!
If you subtract out the flourishes, then it reads very matter-of-factly. But which is more like other writings by Josephus about religious leaders — matter-of-factly, like the Associated Press, or with flourishes, like an ancient historian?
Both. Depends on whether it’s something he’s really invested in or not.
One important aspect of the TF is its placement – it’s the last in a list of Pilate’s actions. Josephus isn’t interested in Jesus per se; he’s adding the crucifixion to all of Pilate’s other offenses. Jean-Pierre Lémonon makes the observation that Josephus pays more attention to Pilate than to most other Roman governors, suggesting that Pilate must have been a lot worse than the normal lot (who were bad enough).
Another item to be considered is that Josephus wrote Antiquities in the 90s CE, when several gospels were in circulation and Christians were getting more notice, so Josephus may well have drawn on Christian sources for some of the TF material. (That’s in addition to later scribal emendations.)
I would also refer you to Inowlocki: Eusebius and the Jewish Authors, and Alice Whealey: Josephus and Jesus (2003), one of the best TF studies I’ve seen. Inowlocki points out that Origen (c. Cel. 1.47) quotes Josephus in support of his argument that Pilate was a real person, but adds that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ, which gives us a terminus ad quo for the emendation.
“…which gives us a terminus ad quo for the emendation.”
Earliest or latest?
Earliest;; that is, the emendation could not have happened before then. Actually, Whealey points out that Eusebius in the IV century uses Josephus in a similar way, using language he would not have used had the TF mentioned Jesus as “the Christ,” which moves the terminus ad quo even later.
Hi, Dankoh.
Have you seen Whealey’s 2008 NTS article on the Arabic and Syriac witnesses to the Testamonium? If so, I’d be very interested in your take on her disagreement with Shlomo Pines on the probable origins of Agapius’ version. A very interesting article. I can handle the Syriac, but not the Arabic.
Sorry, I haven’t seen it.
Some conservative evangelical Christians claim that Josephus got his information about Jesus from Roman records. I don’t know if Josephus ever referenced where he got his information about Jesus from? Assuming the pared down version of Ant. 18 by Meier is the original version, where in your opinion do you think Josephus most likely got his information about Jesus from; from Roman records or from what Christians (in Rome) were saying about Jesus, or from Jewish elites he may have known, or elsewhere?
There isn’t any evidence of Roman “records.” I wonder what they’re thinking about. I would guess that Josephus simply knew by word of mouth that there were some people who had come to believe Jesus was the messiah.
Since at least 3 of the now-canonical gospels were probably written by the time Josephus wrote the Antiquities, do you think it likely that Josephus was aware of them and used them for some of his information?
No, I think it’s eminently unlikely. There’s no evidence that these circulated outside of small Christian communities until a century later. (Christians at the time made up something like 1/60 of 1% of the population of the empire….)
The Roman Empire did not keep records?
We have no record of any records in the Provinces, in Judea at all….
Caesarea was a Roman administrative center in Palestine. It is often referred to as Caesarea Palaestinae, or Caesarea Maritima, to distinguish it from Caesarea Philippi. The city became the capital of the Roman province of Judaea in 6 ce.
Excavations undertaken since 1950 have uncovered a Roman temple, amphitheatre, hippodrome (which seated 20,000), the aqueduct, and other ruins of Roman and later times. Of particular interest is a Roman inscription, found in 1961, which mentions Pontius Pilate, Roman procurator of Judaea at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. This is the first mention of Pilate ever found that can be accurately dated within his lifetime.
This spacious harbour, which Josephus compared favourably with that of Athens at Piraeus, was one of the technological marvels of the ancient world and helped make Caesarea a major port for trade between the Roman Empire and Asia.
– Britannica.com
I’m going to leave this exchange knowing an administrative center in the provinces would keep records; and, a major port for trade would conduct business with some foreign currency exchange records and trade records.
Dr. Ehrman,
It is obviously historically improbable that anyone actually worked miracles, see common sense found in your mind, but there seems to be many references to Jesus performing wondrous deeds. Different streams of tradition found within the New Testament such as Mark, John, “L” and “M” report the wonders along with this Jewish report. Was “miracle working” a common ability that rabbis were often credited with? Would you agree with Morton Smith’s conclusions in his book Jesus the Magician?
Thanks, Jay
Not rabbis necessarily, but there were plenty of alleged “miracle workers” around. I wouldn’t say, with Smith, that Jesus *was* a magician — but it completely depends on how one defines that term. He was certainly perceived as one, by enemies. (“magician” tended to have negative connotations)
“The premise behind the question is that if Jesus was the miracle-working son of God who was healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead – wouldn’t everyone be talking about him, all the time?”
I see this argument a lot, but I have known some amazing and extraordinary people that nobody on this blog knows or will ever come to know. There aren’t any writings or news articles documenting their lives, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t done remarkable things. The same could be said for Jesus.
Also, there’s probably people living today that will somehow make it through history a thousand years from now that none of us have even heard of. Popularity doesn’t equal importance.
Good point. Pepys, for example, wasn’t a “nobody” in 17th century London, but few if any remembered him or his work (official capacity) two centuries later. Then they found his diaries, and he may now be one of the top three most famous personages of the Restoration (After Charles II and James II — and ahead of William Penn).
Jesus and the apostles are the most unlikely and improbable historical figures of all time. His ministry lasted only three years and he was executed in a manner appropriate for social roadkill. But now, 2000 years after, there are 6 billion Bibles and 2 billion people all saying he rose from the dead.
The passage about Jesus in the TF doesn’t fit in very well with the rest of the narrative. I’ve wondered whether that particular paragraph discussed the execution of James rather than Jesus since the surrounding paragraphs are about calamities. The special acknowledgment given to James by Josephus puzzled Origen as well. Even Luke’s account of James in Acts is strange because there’s no recognition that he’s Jesus’s brother. Very confusing.
is there evidence in matthew or mark that sin will continue to exist in heaven ? or in “the kingdom of god” ?
is the christian belief that one has to be “perfect/sinless” to enter heaven contradicted by matthew and mark?
They don’t really go into that. Too bad!
Bart.
1. Has Richard Carrier’s theory re. Josephus’ other reference to Jesus and James (the one in Book 20) persuaded many scholars you know?
2. Is there a scholar today who is considered *the* expert on Josephus?
1. No. I’ve never heard of any scholar who has been convinced — or who even reads him on topics connected with the historical Jesus, since he is not writing scholarship for scholars, but propounding his theories and views to convince non-scholars. 2. Yes, many. Louis Feldman, Steve Mason, Harry Attridge – -these are all very impressive scholars with massive expertise.
Are there any ancient Jewish writings about Jesus (or possible references to Jesus) that were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic? other than ‘Son of God’ Among the Dead Sea Scrolls…
None that survive.
Sorry…A bit off topic…did Paul think Jesus became God at the Resurrection, before the Resurrection, or other?
It’s pretty clear from Philippians 2:6-11 that he thought Christ was a divine being before coming into the world, but he was exalted to an even higher level of divinity, to God’s own level, at the exaltation.
Good evening, Bart. You have posted a couple of times on Jewish and pagan sources mentioning Jesus. What is the earliest Jewish source explaining why Jesus is not the messiah?
That’s a great question. Jewish views are found in Justin’s Apology with Trypho, and probably reliably; but that’s a Christian source. I suppose the answer is the Mishnah.
I came across a meme quoting you thusly “In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!”
I guess the poster wanted to say in between the lines that you might doubt Jesus existed, which is something you do not believe. Did you say or write that quote? Is it true and just taken out of context? (Wasn’t Paul a Roman citizen who did mention the name of Jesus in his correspondence?)
Yes, I said it and it’s absolutely true. I was referring, though, to non-Christian, non-Jewish authors. And I was decidedly NOT suggesting Jesus didn’t exist. That conclusion, in my view, is ridiculous! (Though you’re right, it’s why people typically quote it)
What does Josephus say about John the Baptist?
He says more about him than he does about Jesus, and gives us some good historical information; some scholars think what he says lines up nicely with what we find int he Gospels, others think that there may be some discrepancies (especially on the issue of whether he preached an apocalyptic message, which he clearly does in the Gospels; but Josephus did not much like apocalyptic thought, and doesn’t say anything about John’s apocalyptic views.)
Bart and Robert, I’d like to know your opinions for these two articles about Josephus written by linguists Paul Hopper (Distinguished Professor Emeritus of the Humanities at Carnegie Mellon University) and Ken Olson (Senior Linguist Consultant at The University of Chicago):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284157339_A_Narrative_Anomaly_in_Josephus
https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5871.5-a-eusebian-reading-of-the-testimonium-flavianum-ken-olson
Here’s another article by G.J. Goldberg, but I can’t find anything about who he is or his background—
https://journals.sagepub.com/action/doSearch?target=default&ContribAuthorStored=Goldberg%2C+Gary+J
And last but not least, this book or article (I can’t tell which) by Louis Feldman—
https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004221185/B9789004221185_003.xml
Did he reverse his position on the TF?
I don’t know about Feldman’s view, or if he changed it. But he is the true expert and his view would need to be taken very, very seriously. (Ken Olson was my student when he was working on a PhD at Duke)
“I don’t know about Feldman’s view, or if he changed it. But he is the true expert and his view would need to be taken very, very seriously.”
Feldman has changed his view and now argues for the Eusebian authorship of the [i]Testamonium Flavianum[/i].
Wow.
On Page 15 of Feldman’s 2012 book chapter, he certainly leaves open the possibility that Josephus had some noncommittal (or negative) reference to Jesus: “The version of the Testimonium in the Antiquities, if it was known to Origen [d. 253], apparently must have included something about Jesus, since otherwise Origen would have had no reason to claim that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ. This would imply that Origen had a text similar to that of Jerome and Michael the Syrian affirming that Jesus was thought to be the Messiah.”
This is one of the points where I disagree with Meier’s reconstruction. I tried to post this reconstruction earlier but it did not come through:
Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ· ἦν γὰρ [] διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο· ὁ +λεγόμενος χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν [~ἐνομίζετο?]. 64 καὶ αὐτὸν [ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παῤ ἡμῖν] σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες· [εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε [τὸ φῦλον].
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, for he was a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. [, who considered/believed him to be /This one was (+called/considered) the Christ. And when Pilate[, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us,] condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. [And up until this very day the tribe] of Christians, named after him, has not died out.
+λεγόμενος See Antiq 20,200 (9.1) or something similar GC Richards 1942, A-M Dubarle 1973, Meier “many others”, Whealey 2008. I don’t think we can reconstruct an original passage with confidence, but we should have something to explain Pilate’s opposition to Jesus and Ananus’ subsequent opposition to James. Although the (possibly abbreviated) Arabic paraphrase leaves out the accusation of the Jewish leaders, perhaps this could be related the content of their accusation. If Agapius was giving an abbreviated paraphrase of the Testimonium, he certainly emphasizes the negative judgment on both the Jews and on Pilate for believing the Jews in the larger context.
What do you think?
Yes, I’m not committed to Meier’s reconstruction, but I’m pretty sure that some bare-bones paragraph about Jesus was there. After getting rid of the obvious Christian statements, it’s a matter of sophisticated guess work about what, if anything else, was added. I’ve never been sure what ot make of the value of the Arabic.
It seems very unlikely to me that Josephus didn’t mention Jesus. Whether the passage was added to, slightly rewritten, or entirely rewritten from scratch–there’s no reason for it to be there unless Josephus did mention Jesus.
Nobody was thinking “We have to prove Jesus existed” in that time period. The existence of Jesus was taken for granted by everyone, including the most serious enemies of Christianity. The virgin birth story may have been motivated in part by pagans and Jews insisting Jesus was illegitimate. You don’t question the parentage of a mythical being.
Denial of Jesus as a historical person dates back to the 18th century. Before then, there was no argument about his existence, and therefore no need to fabricate a record of it.
So the point of editing Josephus would be to emphasize Christian religious beliefs about Jesus–not historical.
The James passage is pretty secure and leads me to believe that Josephus mentioned Jesus elsewhere in his writings. Even if Josephus hadn’t mentioned Jesus, it wouldn’t be logical to conclude Jesus didn’t exist. We would still be left with a Christian movement in which Josephus had failed to acknowledge, regardless of their views about who they thought Jesus was.
Feldman makes a point to say the TF *may* be Eusebian.
Which reconstruction of the Testimonium Flavianum is more accurate?
According to J. Dunn and J. Green, the version that seems to have a “broad consensus” says (in part) “And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross…”
wheras the Meier version says (in part) “And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross….”
The first version (ref Dunn, Green) makes it appear that Pilate was simply following the recommendation of the Jewish leadership, in crucifying Jesus. But, this would indicate that it was the Jewish leadership that had already found Jesus guilty of some capital offense and simply needed Pilate to agree to Jesus’ execution.
The second version (Meier) makes this same passage to say that the “leading men” simply made an *accusation*, and it was Pilate that found him guilty as accused, and therefore, had Jesus crucified.
There is such a difference between saying “Jesus was executed at the suggestion of the Jewish leadership”, and “Jesus was accused by the Jewish leadership”, and I’d like to understand how such widely-differing versions came about…
I”ve never done an in-depth study of it. the Greek word used is ενδειξις ENDEIXIS, which literally means something like “pointing out” — and so the phrase implies something like “When the leading men among us pointed him out to Pilate”…. But it’s not clear (to me, at first glance) if they do so as an accusation or as an indication or a suggestion.
Is it worth the time of a layperson to read Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews or the Jewish Wars? How does Antiquities differ from the Old Testament? Will reading Antiquities or the Jewish Wars help a person understand the culture, history, or religion of the Ancient Near East?
It is the best guide to the history and politics of first century Palestine. But it’s very long — both of them. The Antiquities is largely based on the OT, but it brings the story up to Josephus’s own times, so for about 500 years of the period he covers there is no OT overlap.
I’ve read Alice Whealey’s argument that Josephus’ original wording most likely included something along the lines of “he was believed to be the Christ” – like what’s found in other versions of the Testimonium, like Jerome’s and Michael the Syrian’s. One argument is that this would explain why Josephus called Jesus “the one called Christ” in Antiquities 20 – he’d have been referring back to something already mentioned in earlier in Antiquities 18.
Without that line in Testimonium, Antiquities 20 would technically have been his first time mentioning that this Jesus was called Christ.
I’m wondering what your thoughts are on this line of thinking?
Yes, I think there’s some merit to it.
I do believe the Josephus passage on James is authentic, as you and most all scholars do. I’m surprised you don’t emphasize this fact more, however, in your book Did Jesus Exist and in your exchanges with mythicists. Josephus would’ve been around 25 years old at the time of this event in his home town of Jerusalem. He is not getting this historical info on the death of James from any Christian sources, as none report it. So it seems extremely likely that this info reported by Josephus was firsthand knowledge, even though it was written down much later, he still would’ve been present at the time of this event. So, why don’t you mention this in your book and other writings?
I do mention it in the book, and in my other writings.
Yes, but in your book, DJE, you didn’t point that out – you focus more on the Testimonium and the controversy surrounding it. I think the passage on James is much more valuable than the Testimonium, especially if one recognizes the fact that Josephus lived in Jerusalem the same time that James was leader of the Church there. Josephus would’ve been 20-30 years old around the time James was killed in 62AD.
A reliable historian who was living in the same time and place as this man, James, and he tells us that this James was the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ (note also he doesn’t say James the brother of the Lord); I just think these facts alone are enough to deliver a single death blow to any mythicist argument. Yet I’m confused as to why you don’t/didn’t point that out. Thanks for responding, Dr. Ehrman.
Oh, sorry — I thought you were talking about the Testimonium (where James is not mentioned). I believe I do refer to this reference in my book, but I don’t emphasize it simply because mythicists glibly say it is an interpolation and I decided it would take too much detailed argument to show why that is almost certainly wrong.
Thanks for the reply. I am grateful you take the time to write and respond to these very educational posts. I am an evangelical but you are one of my favorite historians/bible scholars on historical Jesus/early Christianity, even though sometimes I don’t don’t agree with you (especially on the resurrection! ????). I wonder sometimes if you would ever convert back to the Faith, and think how cool that would be. It’s not too late! I’ll pray for you, Dr Ehrman, and will continue following your work! Thank you, sir.
Yes, it would be hard to agree with me on the resurrection and remain evangelical! Of course I used to hold your view. I came to a point where I just didn’t think it was tenable. My view is that we all have to be willing to change our views or we’re not thinking hard enough. It doesn’t mean we *do* have to change, but we have to be willing to. Or change *back*! Absolutely!
Oh yes, I agree. And the apostle Paul would’ve agreed, as he even said if Christ didn’t rise from the dead then we are all just wasting our time (1 Cor 15:12-19).
The straw that broke the camels back for you was the problem of pain and suffering. There was no pain and suffering before man sinned against God, though, so how could you blame God for that issue? You didn’t walk away from the faith only due to historical problems with the NT writings, particularly the gospels. What I mean to say is, I don’t think someone can *only* look at Christianity from the historical records to determine whether they believe it is true or not; it can’t be proven or disproven that way. Do you ever think, what if you’re wrong, and Christianity really is true?
NT Wright talks about “sign posts” in this life that point us to God, (the biblical God), and that really resonates with me. I think this life only makes sense in the Christian worldview. Look at all the evil around us. That to me is a testimony to the fallenness of man, man rejecting God, and trying to be our own god. People have no hope in this life apart from Christ. I pray you would return to him like a prodigal son!
Have you read my book on suffering? That’s where I explain it.
Yes, of course, I think about the truth of Christianity all the time, every day! I am always open to changing my mind. And hope everyone else is too!
Dr Ehrman –
Curious your thoughts about Ken Olson’s thesis that TF may have been a Eusebian creation? I cannot read the Greek that the language analysis turns on, so would have to take some of the arguments on faith.
Thanks much!
He’s got many strong points, but I haven’t been persuaded yet. He was working on a fuller demonstration, but I don’t know where he is with it just now.
Hi Barth, thanks for always replying. In this text by Richard Carrier,( https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12071) he argues that any scholar who considers Joseph’s TF to be legitimate in whole or in part without using a current scholarship is doomed to error . He demonstrates through names like Hopper (2014) and Olson (2013) that TF is not the same as the rest of Joseph’s writings, either in style or in structure, but it fits more in the writings of Eusebio, who probably forged the testimony. Don’t you agree with him? Why?
No, as usual, he’s simply wrong.
Thank you Dr. Barth. If you are not asking too much, or mr. could you point me to an article or answer me here how to refute these Hopper and Holson indicators? They seemed very convincing to me. A calculation of the words used by Joseph and Eusébio, and the words used are strictly related to Eusébio and hardly appear in Josephus. I’m finding it hard to beat this.
I haven’t done a detailed analysis myself, adn so rely on the expertise of others on this point. You were asking I think if Carrier is right that this is what is the large consensus among scholars and that anyone who doesn’t accept it doesn’t know what he’s talking about (if I remember correctly), and I was saying no, that is not at all true.
Do you have any particular opinion on any possible connection between the TF passage and Luke’s Emmaus narrative in Luke 24? Gary Goldberg has argued that Josephus may be paraphrasing an earlier Christian source, one that Luke and Josephus had in common, considering the two passages have so many similarities. But I don’t know if others share this view. Do you have any thoughts on this?
I don’t see many similarities myself.
Hi Prof. Ehrman. I’m curious why in your various writings and talks on the historical Jesus you have not (to my knowledge – though please correct me!) brought up the Letter of Mara bar Serapion, which is dated by some scholars to the first century CE (though this is disputed, of course – other dates are 2nd C., even 4th C.), and which speaks of the wise king of Jews whom they rejected? It does not explicitly mention Jesus, but that seems to be very plausible at least from the context. It seems that it should at least be dealt with in any work that provides a complete list of possible early references to Jesus, yet seems to gte omitted. Could you elaborate?
Because I don’t think it’s an early piece of evidence but much later, forged in response to Xn views. I don’t have a specific date for it though.
Forged in RESPONSE to Xan views? I thought those who argued for forgery (e.g., McVey) argued that it was forged BY Xans, in response to pagan challenges?
Sorry — if readers see your comment they won’t know what you’re referring to. (I myself don’t! I don’t get the entire thread when you make a response to one of my responses) So you’ll need to resubmit your comment and indicate what book you have in mind.
Thank you for this post! One of the mythicists wrote that Jesus was a fabrication by the Titian Caesars used to pacify the militant Messianic Jews. Seemed plausible to me up to today, someone who hasn’t made a life goal of reading every scholarly writing on Christianity, but now I see he wrote kindly about Jesus twice. This puts the issue to sleep.
I do have another question. If Josephus and Paul lived in Rome at the same time, and if Paul was ‘known throughout the land’, why didn’t Josephus write about Paul? One popular mythicist (sadly deceased) said that they surely would have rubbed elbows in Rome, yet Josephus doesn’t mention him.
Question/s: 1) Why didn’t Josephus mention Paul? 2) [dependent on the answer to 1)] Is it that Josephus was hired to write about the war, of which Paul was not a part?
Josephus was not in Rome until after Paul’s day (traditionally Paul is thought to have died in the early 60s; Josephus didn’t show up there until later, as a result of the Jewish war in 66-70); even so, if Paul actually was in Rome, only a few people would have known about it, and it certainly would not have been a topic of conversaton in the emperor’s court. Paul would have been seen as a complete nobody.
I wanted to read more about the writings of Josephus, so I bought the complete works translated by William Whiston. (Published 1998). I can only describe it as a tough read. However, when I get to the TF, it appears to glide easier in language than the previous or following passages. Josephus speaks of one calamity suffered by the Jews, then goes into the TF, which is followed by another story of calamity by the Jews. The flow is off. I’m not convinced and I’m leaning towards a complete interpolation. Additionally, if it’s true that many early church fathers had their hands on the writings of Josephus and never mentioned the TF adds to doubt of its validity. Maybe someday earlier copies will be discovered to clear things up. Just my two cents.
Ah, right — if Whiston had translated Josephus in 1998 it’d probably be easier to read! As it is, he was working in the early 18th century! Yup, it’s sometimes not easy going.