Josephus on Jesus: What's the Deal?

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 on my blog. 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 story, will be limited to the Testimonium due to its importance and scope of usage. For
this reason, included here is a specific refutation
towards the use of Josephus.  Evidence will be provided for
its complete 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[1] 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[2] and John P. Meier[3] 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[4] 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.[5]

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;[6] that being “doer (ποιετες) of wonderful deeds,”[7] “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,[8]
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.”[9] 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 possibility presents 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. (8) 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. 228) 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):[10]

“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[11] 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[12] 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[13]
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,[14] 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[15] 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.

[1] Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament; 2nd Edition, (2003)

[2] Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist (1931)

[3] John P. Meier, The Testimonium: Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible, Biblical Review 7/3 (June 1991): 23

[4] G.A. Wells, The Jesus Legend (1997), p. 47-52

[5] 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

[6] Josephus in the New Testament, p. 231

[7] In the Greek, as even Mason agrees (p. 231) that by the time Josephus started writing, the term poietes 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 poieteos to refer to somebody doing or making something. He only ever uses poietes 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 poietes 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.

[8] 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).

[9] Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1, 200

[10] Transliterated from Louis Feldman, Josephus XIII: Jewish Antiquities Book XX, Loeb Classical Library 456 (2004)

[11] The Text of the New Testament, p. 12

[12] 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)

[13] Text of the New Testament, p. 14

[14] 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)

[15] George A. Wells, The Jesus Legend (1997)