I’ve been taking a layman’s look at the ancient extra-biblical evidence for an historical Jesus, and I’m working my way down the list I intend on reviewing. My methods are shitty and I come up with unorthodox conclusions. So take that as insight into my character. This is my look at Josephus
- Thallus - 50’s - 120 c.e
- Mara bar Serapion - early 70’s c.e
- Josephus - early 90’s c.e
- Pliny the Younger - 112 c.e
- Tacitus - 116 c.e
- Seutonius - 120 c.e
If I’ve learned a lesson about myself from writing these posts it’s that I’m not the best scholar in the world. Of course, I’ve never claimed to be, so the point is moot. But I do try to put my honest thoughts out there. I was thinking about this a little bit in regards to how I view this ancient, extra-biblical evidence for Jesus as I was putting my brain around the Josephus problem.
And when I say problem, what I mean is that if you read what we have, it’s pretty clear that this is an unambiguous proclamation of Christ as a real person outside of what was written in the bible. Case closed. Yes, it’s still 60 years after the time of the crucifixion supposedly taking place, but it’s still from a first rate historian of the time.
And I’m about to shit all over it as inadmissible in the extreme. I realize that I’m running the risk of losing some of my audience here. But there are a few reasons that I think this is the only way for me to go.
- Because of the two Jesus passages found it the works of Josephus, one is clearly a later forgery that was inserted into the text (an interpolation) and…
- The other has, in my mind, equal likelihood of being another interpolation, either accidental (I hope to get to how that can happen later) or intentional
- I’m pretty sure my audience is 0 at this point anyway. How many more can I lose?
I’m concerned because when going over the ‘evidence’ one at a time with someone in real life, it was around the third time in a row that I’d dismissed something (like Josephus) that I started getting eyerolls as I explained why. I’m aware of the perception that I’m in denial for poo-pooing stuff. The gut feeling being that the aggregate of all this scarce evidence paints an obvious picture of an historical Jesus.
Except, of course, for the fact that a whole home built on a foundation of shit, with shit for wood and shit for plaster and shit for tile will not be a nice home. In fact, it will probably end up as a shitty house. In case my metaphor is too sophisticated, I'll explain. The evidence is shit. The home being built is the argument that extra-biblical evidence points to an historical Jesus. That’s my point in all this, it’s that there is no evidence to speak of, it’s more like some people in the ancient past really wished there was some evidence to support the biblical claims of Jesus and so they started making up some.
The claim: That Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian, writing near the end of the first century, attested to the historicity of Jesus - and maybe even attested to his divinity, despite not being a Christian.
As I mentioned above, there are actually two passages that are relevant. Since I’m not pressed for space. I have tons of room to talk about this. I’ll start by copying part of a book review I did on Goodreads, since it was there that I first starting talking about this particular problem:
“AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them 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 as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.”
I’m about to go into full conspiracy mode here, so hold on to your butts. This story doesn’t make any sense. It would have made sense if it didn’t have that little passage in there about “Jesus, who was called Christ.”
Modern scholarship seems to, almost as a rule, accept this as historical. The problem I have with modern scholarship here is that I cannot follow their logic. Almost three full centuries after it was written, this passage, and the other one I’ve not discussed yet, seemed to have been ‘discovered’ by Eusebius.
I’m not sure I’m capable of putting down my thoughts succinctly here, but I’ll try. The story I copied above, I contend, is about James, the brother of Jesus, SON OF DAMNEUS. The whole “who is called the Christ” thing is either a mistaken interpolation, or one done on purpose by Eusebius himself.
I’d be more on board with the possibility that this is genuine if I didn’t read what Origen had to say about Josephus myself. Origen died a decade before Eusebius was born. Origen had a library of books, and even compiled a list of all the references to Jesus that he could in the ancient world that he knew of. Of course Origen would talk about Josephus a lot then, right? I mean, he mentioned Jesus at least twice (again, the other passage, I’ll get to later).
Except, Origen, when quoting Josephus about the passage above, clearly isn’t mentioning the passage above. He’s mentioning a passage contained in something else written by someone else. He’s gotten Josephus confused with someone, I have no idea who. You can read everything Origen ever wrote on Josephus here, but the relevant passages I’ll quote below:
“A] But James is this one whom Paul says that he saw in the epistle to the Galatians, saying: But I did not see any of the other apostles except James the brother of the Lord. [B1] And in such a way among the people did this James shine for his justice [C] that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Judaic Antiquities in twenty books, [D] wishing to demonstrate the cause why the people suffered such great things that even the temple was razed down, [E1] said that these things came to pass against them in accordance with the ire of God on account of the things which were dared by them against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. [F] And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, [B2] he yet testified that the justice of James was not at all small; [E2] and he says that even the people supposed they had suffered these things on account of James.”
And again he restates this point:
“For in the eighteenth volume of the Judaic Antiquities Josephus testifies to John as having been a baptist and promised cleansing to those who were baptized. [F] But he himself, though not believing in Jesus as Christ, [D] in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, [G1] whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these things happening to the people, since they killed the prophecied Christ, [E1] even says, being unwillingly not far from the truth, that these things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, [B] since they killed him who was most just. [A] Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he saw this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood or of their common upbringing as on account of his ethics and speech. [E2] If, therefore, he says that the things surrounding the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews on account of James, [G2] how is it not more reasonable to say that it happened on account of Jesus the Christ?”
I run the risk of overstating my case here, but Origen was quoting the wrong person. Some genius, later, thought he’d fix it by making Josephus say what Origen said he said.* To be clear, Origen asserts that Josephus is saying that the Jewish revolt is a direct result of the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus Christ.
I’m sure that the Roman procurator, Florus, looting the Temple in Jerusalem had nothing to do with it.
Anyway, I’m not sure who Origen is trying to reference, but again, I don’t think it was Josephus. There is evidence that Origen misattributed sources before.
The reason this is important is that Origen was very familiar with the works of Josephus, but was misattributing things to him. Then, half a century after he was dead (about, I don’t know) Eusebius starts mentioning all this stuff in Josephus that no one else has ever noticed before. The above passage, and the passage below. This is doubly odd, because the actual, physical copies he had of Josephus came from Origen’s library in the first place (meaning, he wasn’t walking around with a different version of Josephus, it was the exact same one).
So Origen missed this stuff, and Eusebius didn’t. This screams funny business to me. And here I think I need to take a moment and think carefully (done) and consider why I, an uninformed layperson, am going against the grain of mainstream scholarship about Josephus referencing Jesus, both here and in the later passage, and insisting both are forgeries.
Probably my most honest reason is that I’m testing out the mythicists hypothesis to hear how crazy it sounds when I’m typing out my arguments against historicity. If I can rummage through the extra-biblical (and biblical) references to Jesus and find only ONE piece of strong evidence that Jesus was a real, living, human being, then the mythicist position is invalidated. I know I love a conspiracy theory, so I’m intrigued by this sort of argument.
But I cannot stress enough, that what is widely considered to be the BEST extra-biblical evidence for Jesus was completely unknown before Eusebius ‘discovered’ it in the fourth century. This really reminds me of Josiah’s priests ‘discovering’ the lost book of Moses in the temple during his reign at a very convenient time.
The reason this is so impactful for me is because this suddenly shifts the burden of proof from those who DENY the validity of the Josephus passages to those that AFFIRM the Josephus passages. That mainstream scholarship doesn’t see it this way simply confounds me.
Now, I would posit that if this wasn’t an example of pious fraud then there is a real likelihood that a marginal note ended up getting inserted into the text of Josephus. When copyists would be making a new copy of some text they would often put notes in the margins. They might be making some sort of insight about something relevant to what they were writing, like a reference to something else, or even making a note that there may be an error that they caught in their previous copy.
On occasion, those marginal notes, when copied by the next person, would end up getting put into the text being copied. They thought they were seeing a correction. The woman caught in adultery in the gospel of John is a perfect example of this. The oldest and most reliable copies of the gospel of John don’t have this story at all, then they start appearing the margins, then they appear in the text themselves. I believe there is one case where the copyist has a marginal note advising that while they have included the story, their older copies of John do not contain it.
 |
| Marginal Notes! |
This sort of interpolation was common (and I’m not the first person to raise this as a possibility for this passage). It is not difficult for me to see something similar happening here. A person sees a reference to James, the brother of Jesus, and assumes this is James, the brother of Christ, makes a note of it in the margin, then that version gets copied down later, and the next person thinks this marginal note belongs in the text. And boom. It’s now part of history.
I am aware positing this as what actually happened is a logical fallacy. I don’t have any evidence that this is what happened. Just a how-it-could-have-been scenario. I do think that should be taken as a possible alternative to the mainstream interpretation that this passage is likely genuine. Occam’s razor favors explanation that has to make the fewest assumptions. And to preserve the quote above (and below) requires us to assume a lot of odd things about Josephus and what he was writing. Why this is believed to be valid is problematic (unless I'm badly misunderstanding the Origen quotes above).
I’m in danger of going on a rant within my rant, so let me quickly move on to the second passage in Josephus, the real bombshell:
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds 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. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”
Again, Origen never mentioned this even once when mentioning Josephus in his writings trying to support the claims regarding Jesus. This was widely rejected and considered as completely interpolated throughout the latter half of the 19th and first half of the 20th century. Then, people started looking at it again and deciding that it was sort-of real. The list of reasons why this was rejected are many. But the out-of-nowhere proclamation of faith is entirely out of character for Josephus the author. The lack of prelude, or explanatory backstory before dropping a bombshell like this is also very out of character, and the fact that such a positive proclamation could then go unmentioned in anything else he wrote is hard to understand.
That isn’t all the problems with the passage, but it’s enough for now.
So it was rejected wholesale for a long time. Then, with the aid of computers, apparently, some folks have been able to glean that there was a genuine root of the passage. They’ve restored this passage to what Josephus really said about Jesus:
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise 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. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among 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. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”
Now, I don’t want to piss all over this work of outstanding scholarship, but removing the most flowery of praise from the passage doesn’t answer the Origen problem at all. And it adds another by noting the linguistic similarities with the gospel of Luke (I don't want to touch on that at all, at least not in this post - I've got it scheduled to look at later). In fact, here I think I need to quote Bishop Warburton of Gloucester (circa 1770) on the topic:
“This account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too.”
The problems with this, any of this, being genuine, are large. While I’d hoped to make these posts more or less, definitive** I simply can’t start a whole new path of digressions which will continue to take me down a never ending path of even more digressions.***
I think I’ll wrap this up here without being sure I’ve even made my point. Josephus is very problematic. Even if something he had to say about Jesus was actually written by him. The probability of the second passage as genuine is remote, in my opinion. The effort to reconstruct an authentic version is futile.
After I finished writing this whole damn thing - YouTube recommended I watch a video on the topic. I did. It's way better stated than what I wrote.
*Not true, I’m sure. I’m writing this at 5 a.m. because I can’t sleep, I’m angry that I can’t sleep, and I’m taking it out on poor scribes (or maybe Eusebius) in antiquity for all of it.
** I don’t mean ‘definitive’ in any sort of scholarly way, I mean definitive in the ‘good-enough-for-me’ sort. Remember, people, these may be written with an audience in mind, but that’s just me lying to myself, I know I’m the only one reading these, this is my personal wiki on the topic. I also reserve the right to go in an alter these posts if I change my mind about something later. I’m the George Lucas of blogging.
*** One of the most daunting things about diving into the deep end of history, theology & Jesus is that there are thousands of years of apologists, scholars, and critics all arguing about this stuff. Real experts get lost in the noise of so many voices. For me, a dumbass, to jump into the middle of this and pretend I can cover any part of this conversation with something like nuance is beyond absurd. I’m simply doing the best I can. I hope I can look at these posts in the future and laugh at how naive and ignorant I was when I wrote them.
Comments
Post a Comment