Testimonium Flavianum: Searching for the Words of Josephus

Introduction

Since as early as Eusebius (ca. 263 – 339 C.E.) the Testimonium Flavianum, has been a “holy grail” of extra-biblical apologetic evidence for the historical life, ministry and death of Jesus Christ.  Understandably, due to the fact that there are only three extant Greek manuscripts, none of which dates earlier than the eleventh century[1], debate over its authenticity has been the focus of centuries of scholarship, drawing a myriad of conclusions ranging all the way from complete authenticity to complete forgery.

It seems in general that two schools of approach have been applied to the Testimonium; one seeking to establish what words can be attributed to Josephus, and the other what words cannot.  It will be the purpose of this paper to argue according to the latter, modestly limiting its scope to suggesting for the extraction of three clearly Christian confessional statements.  In rejecting these as later interpolations and not original to Josephus, we may reasonably agree with scholars like John P. Meier and Joseph Klausner that what remains is more or less the “core text Josephus wrote.”[2]

The extant version of Testimonium Flavianum reads as follows. 

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.  For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly.  He won over many Jews and many Greeks.  He was the Messiah.  When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him.  On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.  And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.[3]

Antiquities 18:63, 64

Highlighted and underlined within the text are three confessional Christian statements. The first statement, while not overtly calling Christ divine, alludes to as much calling him more than a man.  The second identifies Jesus as the Messiah of the Jews.  The third statement affirms that Jesus, as Messiah, rose from the dead three days after his crucifixion according to scripture.  We will now look at each statement individually to argue why they cannot be viewed as belonging to Josephus.

Statement 1

“…if indeed one ought to call him a man.”

The context of Ant. 18:63, 64 is a chronicle of clashes between the ruling Roman government and the people of Jerusalem during the first century, and so in Ant. 18:63 Josephus begins recording what appears to be yet another instance of civil unrest during Pilate’s reign.  He starts with a matter of fact statement: “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man”.  The flow of thought is immediately interrupted by the qualifying phrase “if indeed one ought to call him a man.”  (avnh,r ei;ge a;ndra auvto.n le,gein crh, h=n).  To attribute such a phrase to Josephus is problematic for a number of reasons. 

First, such a phrase seems to affirm belief in the divinity of Jesus.  As a Jew, “that would not accord with what Josephus believed”.[4]  Zvi Baras also points out that even if the phrase is merely alluding to “superhuman” qualities, such a view would not “suit Josephus’ attitude”.[5]

Second, the phrase itself seems to be necessary precisely because it is qualifying the title “wise man” originally attributed to Jesus.  Joseph Klausner points out that “no Christian interpolator would speak of Jesus as “a wise man” and so necessitate the further interplolation.”[6]  On this ground he argues the opening statement may be maintained as original to Josephus, but consequently creates the need for the disputed qualifying statement.  Perhaps Meier is more precise in his estimation that a Christian scribe would certainly not deny that Jesus was a wise man, “but would feel that label insufficient for one who was believed to be God as well as man.”[7]  It is quite reasonable therefore to affirm Klausner’s observation and envision a Christian interpolator qualifying Josephus’ original descriptor of Jesus (“wise man”) that misrepresented Christian belief about him.  In essence therefore, we wind up having a Christian confessional statement (ei;ge a;ndra auvto.n le,gein crh, h=n) alluding to Jesus’ divinity that no Pharisaic Jew such as Josephus would have made, qualifying a common Josephan phrase[8] (sofo.j avnh,r) that no Christian would have made.

In addition to these problems, the likelihood of authenticity is diminished even further upon observation of the Testimonium’s use by the Early Church Fathers.  Baras points out that had Origen (ca. 185-254) in his central apologetic work, Contra Celsum (ca. 248 C. E.) had access to the extant version as it appears, “he need not have been at such pains to prove the divinity of Jesus by Christian means only…he could simply have borrowed Josephus’ reference to Jesus, ‘if indeed one ought to call him a man.’”[9]

One final note which is admittedly inferential, but not insignificant, is the fact that the phrase itself seems to break the flow of Josephus’ account of clashes during Pilate’s rule with a qualifying punctuation that really reflects “the doctrinal disputes of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.”[10] 

For these reasons it seems necessary to consider this first Christian confessional statement to be a later addition to the Testimonium that should be removed in seeking to reconstruct the original version penned by Josephus.  Having argued that this first statement should be omitted as a later Christian interpolation, we would reconstruct Josephus’ opening statement to read as follows:

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.

Statement 2

“He was the Messiah”

This second statement reflects a Christian confessional phrase parallel to Luke 23:25; John 7:26 and Acts 9:22, the only difference being the Testimonium’s use of the imperfect tense as opposed to the New Testament’s use of the present.  For Josephus to affirm that Jesus “was the Christ” or “is the Christ” seems highly unlikely in any event given the likelihood that he was a Pharisaic Jew[11], but there are also numerous other reasons why this is so.

First, “cristos” appears only twice in Josephus’ writing, (Ant. 18:63; 20:200) both times referring to Jesus.  Both texts have been disputed, but Ant. 20:200 is considered to be authentic by most scholars, and importantly its authenticity would seem to agree with its earliest attested Christian use by Origen (ca. 185-254).  In Ant. 20:200, Josephus records the martyrdom of James the Brother of Jesus, identifying James by his relationship to “Jesus, who was called Christ” (VIhsou/ tou/ legome,nou Cristou.)  Paul Winters sees no need for the use of legomenou to be anything less than a non-committal way for Josephus to identify James (a common name) by way of relationship to his better known brother Jesus.  “In Ant. 20:200 we have a statement which any writer of the first century could have used to describe the family relationship between James and Jesus, without intending to express doubts as to whether the latter was rightly or wrongly called Cristos.”[12] On the other hand, it seems impossible to assert that a later Christian interpolator would be “content to mention Jesus is such non-committal fashion.”[13]  Given that Josephus uses the name Jesus over fifty times in his writings to refer to a number of different individuals, it is quite reasonable to receive this reference to Jesus “called Messiah” as authentic to Josephus and nothing more than a means of specifying which Jesus he is referring to in order to identity his main subject of focus, namely James the brother of Jesus.

In addition, such a non-committal understanding of this reference to Jesus fits very well with Origen’s interpretation of the text and its implications for Josephus’ attitude toward Jesus.  In Origen’s ‘Comment in Matthew’, while scholars contest some degree of confusion surrounding his use of Josephus’ writing, it is clear that Origen had this text in front of him when he wrote and understood these words to be Josephus’.  He writes:

“This James was of so shining a character among the people, on account of his righteousness, that Flavius Josephus, when, in his twentieth book of the Jewish Antiquities,…on account of what they had dared to do to James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ; and wonderful it is, that while he did not receive Jesus for Christ, he did nevertheless hear witness that James was so righteous a man.”

(Comment on Matthew 10.17) 

Origen’s use of Ant. 20:200 is consistent with both assertions that this reference to Christ was original to Josephus and was consistently understood to be a non-Christian, factual reference to the identity of Jesus for the practical purpose of identifying James.  Origen went even further, based on his knowledge of Josephus’ writing to state that in fact Josephus “disbelieved in Jesus as Christ.” (Contra Celsum 1.35-36)  It is not insignificant that Origen made such a comment in reference to Josephus’ attempt in Ant. 18:116 to explain the belief among some Jews that the destruction of the Temple was God’s retribution for their treatment of John the Baptist.  That Origen was familiar with Josephus’ writing in Antiquities 18 is well founded.[14]

From this, we may draw the following conclusions.  For Josephus to have affirmed that Jesus “was the Messiah” in Ant. 18:63, and later in Ant. 20:200 referenced him as one merely “called the Christ” is problematic.  For Origin to demonstrate familiarity with both texts, and infer from his knowledge and understanding of Josephus’ writing that the man “disbelieved in Jesus as Christ” (Contra Celsum 1.35-36), makes the idea of the statement “He was the Messiah” coming from Josephus’ hand seem impossible.

Though the extant version appears in its present form as early as Eusebius (ca. 263-339), we must conclude that the phrase “He was the Messiah” (o` cristo.j ou-toj h=n) was inserted some time after Origen, but before Eusebius.  As such, this second statement should be removed, and the original text should be taken thus far to read:

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 Greeks.

Statement 3

“On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.”

Gary J. Goldberg provides an interesting analysis showing clear parallels between the Testimonium and the Emmaus account in Luke’s gospel.  From his research he concludes that the parallels, sharing far too much in common to be coincidence, show that Josephus and Luke must have used the same source material, containing the same creedal word groupings to describe the events surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection.  Rather than discard the above third statement as Christian interpolation, Goldberg suggests that it is far more plausible to expect that the entire account of Christ’s crucifixion and appearance in this final section was Josephan, included not as affirmation but simply as a record written by an historian depending upon reliable source material.  For Goldberg then, the idea that Josephus used a Christian source is at least as plausible, and even easier to reconcile as the idea that a Christian interpolator added a Josephan style forgery after the fact.  He states: “It is much simpler for a later scribe to delete the words "they reported" than to insert an entire sentence in Josephus' style. The Christian content can as well be explained as deriving from Josephus' source as from a later forger.”[15]

Goldberg’s position then is to suggest keeping this third creedal statement as authentic, with the exception of minor later redaction [i.e. the removing of words like “they reported”].  For him it is the “simplest” picture to imagine given the parallels with the Emmaus text.  His perspective may be summarized in his own words:

“If the passage is authentic, why does it approximate to a Christian creed? [when Josephus is clearly not a Christian]  All these questions fall away if it were true that Josephus did little but rewrite a concise narrative that had, so to speak, crossed his desk.  He may have known more about Jesus, or he may have known nothing but what was in his source; in either case, when it came to composing his own passage, it would have been easier and more accurate for him to adhere to a reliable source rather than to piece together secondhand knowledge.”[16]

Goldberg’s hypothesis is well argued, but stands on two major pillars that appear less than secure.  First, he places much weight on the Agapius’ (ca. 941/42 C.E.) Arabic version of the Testimonium and its tighter similarities with Luke’s Emmaus account than the Greek.  He states: “This tends to support the theory that Luke’s narrative resembles the original version of the Testimonium, a resemblance that a later editor disrupted with interpolations.”[17]  Goldberg is essentially suggesting that the Agapius version resembles an earlier tradition than the Greek, a position in which he is virtually alone.  A major problem that scholars have with the Agapius version is that it reflects a statement that is nearly impossible to reconcile to either a Jewish or Christian author.  As Charlesworth points out,

“The final statement is contorted; how could a Jew claim that anyone “was perhaps the Messiah?  Or, how could Josephus state that Jesus’ followers “reported that…he was perhaps the Messiah?  Would not the following reference to the prophets be confusing in light of the preceding “perhaps”?  The possibility that anyone, including Jesus, was the Messiah, was not a proposition that could be taken lightly by any Jew, especially one with the experiences and credentials of Josephus.  But it is even more apparent that no Christian could have originated such words as “he was perhaps the Messiah…”  It is best to assume that what Josephus wrote is not accurately preserved in any extant recension (Greek, Slavic, or Arabic);”[18] 

Granted, Goldberg could argue that the Agapius version also reflects later interpolation that could explain away Charleworth’s observations, but doing so raises a host of other questions making even more complicated Goldberg’s “easier” scenario.

 The second pillar Goldberg seems to rest upon is the idea that Josephus, as an historian, would have objectively recorded the facts (“whether he knew about Jesus or not” – see above quote) as his sources presented them like any ‘good, non-biased historian does’.  History however is never recorded with complete objectivity and historians are always biased, editing their work according to their own purposes and contextual considerations.  Josephus has shown this to be true in his case also. 

Louis Feldman points out that “Josephus lists no less than ten leaders who gathered followers and might have been considered messiahs by adherents looking for the Messiah:”[19] but goes on to show that for none of these does Josephus use the term “Messiah” or make messianic inferences.  It is Feldman’s contention that the politically charged environment Josephus wrote in, and potentially his own political leanings, kept him from making such allusions.  “As a Jew writing for a Roman public a work to defend his people, Josephus would hardly have sought to offend his Roman masters, to whom he was so deeply indebted for such things as citizenship, a pension, living quarters, and a library.”[20]  Even if, as Goldberg’s theory goes, Josephus had in front of him the same sources that Luke used to compose his Emmaus account it seems doubtful, given the obvious aversion Josephus shows in all other cases, that he would have happily highlighted the central proof for the Christian’s Messianic claims about Jesus as the reason for their continued proliferation.  Connecting the events surrounding messianic figures, their fates and the fates of their followers with messianic claims or expectations seems to be a practice that Josephus was in the habit of avoiding.

Goldberg’s theory is just too “simple”.  His observation of Lukan similarities certainly gives weight to the idea of common first century source material, which Josephus indeed may have had access too, but this does not mean that Josephus would have happily recorded what the Christians reportedly believed simply because his sources said so.  Josephus has already shown that like every historian he selectively edits his material in keeping with his own purposes.  This being the case this writer agrees to the exclusion of the third statement as Christian interpolation and would accept the following as approximating Josephus’ original version:

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 Greeks.   When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him.  And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Conclusion

When comparing the extant version with the version proposed by removing the three Christian confessional statements, one is immediately struck with how neutral and conviction-less this report of Jesus life, crucifixion and his subsequent following of believers seems.  In extracting the three statements we have argued for, one may feel that we have robbed this apologetic “gem” of its luster.  In reflecting upon this, however, this writer cannot help but wonder if this neutral “stripped down” version of the Testimonium is perhaps a more helpful apologetic tool than the extant version.

First, if the extant version were received as original (a position which virtually no credible scholar takes today) it would have to be considered a very positive attestation of Jesus Christ, so positive that one could not help but conclude that its writer was in fact a Christian.  While extra-biblical Christian attestations of Christ are certainly important apologetic tools, they are received by skeptics with the same objection: “They are Christian and therefore biased”.

One alternative to this positive position is that in fact the Christian content was original, but was written by Josephus in a negative light and reworked to be more positive through later Christian editors.  One could hardly see how this would be more helpful.

When answering a skeptic who considers all Christian source material as “tainted”, however, to have a decidedly neutral attestation to the life of Jesus Christ from the historic record is an invaluable resource.  As Charlesworth points out, “Jesus’ existence cannot be proved to skeptics using the New Testament accounts, because these are obviously biased in favor of Jesus.”[21]  Josephus however, is not so biased and so provides a neutral yet credible witness from history that Jesus Christ lived; was publicly received and respected; performed many wonderful works and taught multitudes; was crucified under Pontius Pilate at the behest of the Jewish leaders; and the ones who bear the name of Christ bear the name of the one they loved and continue to love and willingly devote their lives to.  If that is all the Testimonium does that is plenty, and it continues to be an invaluable apologetic tool for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Bibliography

Books

Baras, Zvi and Michael Avi-Yonah. eds.  The World History of the Jewish People, Society and Religion in the Second Temple Period.  Jerusalem: Massada Publishing Ltd., 1977.

Charlesworth, James H.  Jesus Within Judaism: New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries.  New York: Doubleday, 1988.

Feldman, Louis H.  “The Testimonium Flavianum: The State of the Question.”  In Christological Perspectives: Essays in Honor of Harvey K. McArthur, ed. Robert F. Berkey & Sarah A. Edwards, 179-197.  New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1982. 

Klausner, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching. New York: MacMillan Press, 1925. 

Meier, John P.  A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus.  New York: Doubleday, 1991. 

Winter, Paul.  “Josephus on Jesus and James.”  In The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol 1. by Emil Schurer.  Revised edition, ed. Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar 428-441. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd., 1973.

Articles

Goldberg,Gary J. “The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus”, The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13, (1995): 59-77.

Meier, John P.  “Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52, (1990): 71-103.

Internet Sources

Goldberg, Gary J. Critique of the Argument of Meier in A Marginal Jew in Light of the New Evidence,  Available from http://www.josephus.org/meierCrt.htm#Mgrounds; Internet; accessed 13 May 2009.

Footnotes

[1] Paul Winter.  “Josephus on Jesus and James.”  In The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol 1. by Emil Schurer.  Revised edition, ed. Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar 428-441. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd., 1973), 432.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Louis H. Feldman, “The Testimonium Flavianum: The State of the Question.”  In Christological Perspectives: Essays in Honor of Harvey K. McArthur, ed. Robert F. Berkey & Sarah A. Edwards (New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1982), 179.

[4] Winter, 435.

[5] Zvi Baras and Michael Avi-Yonah., eds.  The World History of the Jewish People, Society and Religion in the Second Temple Period. (Jerusalem: Massada Publishing Ltd., 1977), 306.

[6] Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching. (New York: MacMillan Press, 1925), 58.

[7] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 60.

[8] Winter argues for the authenticity of sofo.j avnh,r as it agrees with Josephus’s writing. (cf. Ant. 9.25; 10.237; 13.114;)

[9] Baras and Avi-Yonah, 307.

[10] James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism: New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 94.

[11] Baras and Avi-Yonah, 304.

[12] Winters, 431.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Feldman, 182.

Origen cites Josephus from Book 18 of Antiquities at least five times. (Ant. 18.4ff. and 18.55ff in his Commentary on Matthew 17.25; Ant. 18.110 and 18.130 in his Commentary on Matthew 10.21; and Ant 18.116ff in his Contra Celsum 1.35-36, 47).

[15] Gary J. Goldberg, Critique of the Argument of Meier in A Marginal Jew in Light of the New Evidence, available from http://www.josephus.org/meierCrt.htm#Mgrounds; Internet; accessed 13 May 2009.

[16] Gary J. Goldberg, “The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus”, The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13, (1995): 75.

[17] Ibid. p. 14.

[18] Charlesworth, 97.

[19] Feldman, 193. Josephus records at least ten other would-be messiahs: Judas son of Ezekias (Ant. 17.271-72), Simon ex-slave of Herod (Ant. 17.273-76), Anthronges the shepherd (Ant. 17.278.84), Menahem the Galilean (War 2.433ff.), Simon bar Giora (War. 4.503ff.), Theudas (Ant. 20.47ff.), the Egyptian who led thirty thousand to the Mount of Olives (Ant. 20.167-71; War 2.261-63), Jonathan of Cyrene (War 7.437-38), Jesus son of Ananas (War 6.300-309), and the Samaritan who promised to show the sacred vessels of Moses (Ant. 18.85-89). It is striking that in Josephus non of these calls himself or is called a messiah, either because as a superpatriot he could not tolerate the idea of a political rebel against Rome or because he did not believe in a personal messiah. (p. 193)

[20] Ibid., 191.

[21] Charlesworth, 98.