I suppose that I never understood the controversy about the Jewish / Roman historian Flavius Josephus’ (37-100 AD) references to Jesus. I am certainly aware of the arguments back and forth but I find that Jesus’ existence deniers do not seem to take into consideration, or are simply unaware, of the fact that their arguments are outdated by circa four decades.
I am referring specifically of the text found in Flavius Josephus’ work Antiquities of the Jews 18:63,
About this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was the achiever of extraordinary deeds and was a teacher of those who accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When he was indicted by the principal men among us and Pilate condemned him to be crucified, those who had come to love him originally did not cease to do so; for he appeared to them on the third day restored to life, as the prophets of the Deity had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him, and the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.1
Firstly, some claim Christian manipulation of the text due to the fact that a Jew would not write of Jesus that, “He was the Messiah.” Yet, I never understood why this text is taken as Josephus (or Christians placing words in his mouth) expressing a personal belief in Jesus as being the Messiah.
A historian records history.
What if I wrote,
On Sept. 11, 2001 AD Muslims attacked America. They were what is known as Jihadists, they believed that they were fulfilling their god, Allah’s, will. They were heroic martyrs. When they died they went to heaven and enjoyed the companionship of 72 virgins…
Would someone really, seriously, state,
Ken is a Messianic Jew who would never affirm that Muslim terrorists “were fulfilling Allah’s will” that “They were heroic martyrs” and certainly not that “When they died they went to heaven and enjoyed the companionship of 72 virgins”; someone must have corrupted his text later on.
If anyone posed such an argument the response would simply be, “He was not affirming his belief in those positions but was merely recording that which the Jihadists believe.”
This is how I read Josephus. He is recording that which was being claimed about Jesus, as a historian. And what was being claimed?
That Jesus existed, was wise, performed extraordinary deeds, was a teacher, won over many Jews and Greeks, was the Messiah, was opposed by the principal men among us, was condemned by Pilate, was crucified, was still loved, appeared on the third day which was prophesied and that Christians still remain.
Now, set the above argument aside if you please because there is evidence to come.
Paul L. Maier—the Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University—argues that since Josephus, Tacitus (Annals 15:44), Suetonius (Claudius 25), and Pliny the Younger (Letter to Trajan) reference Jesus this serves to “prove conclusively that any denial of Jesus’ historicity is maundering sensationalism by the uninformed and/or the dishonest. Because the above references to Jesus are embarrassing to such, they have been attacked for centuries, especially the two Josephus instances.”2
I have personally chronicled two centuries worth of citations to Jesus dating from circa 70 AD to 280 AD. Also, it must be kept in mind that Jerusalem was razed in 70 AD and that the Roman empire did fall and so we do not know what records may have been destroyed.
Paul L. Maier reports that in 1972 AD:
Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem announced his discovery of a different manuscript tradition of Josephus’s writings in the tenth-century Melkite historian Agapius, which reads as follows at Antiquities 18:63:
At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.
Here, clearly, is language that a Jew could have written without conversion to Christianity. (Schlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications [Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971.])
Scholars fall into three basic camps regarding Antiquities 18:63:1) The original passage is entirely authentic—a minority position; 2) it is entirely a Christian forgery – a much smaller minority position; and
3) it contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus’s original, authentic material about Jesus—the large majority position today, particularly in view of the Agapian text (immediately above) which shows no signs of interpolation.
What does this version state about Jesus? That He existed, was wise, was of good conduct, was virtuous, had Jewish and Gentiles disciples, was condemned by Pilate to be crucified and die, discipleship of Him was not abandoned, it was reported that He appeared in three days; alive, was perhaps the Messiah, was prophesied, Christians remain.
Before having studied this issue enough to become familiar with the Agapian text I had always taken statements such as “he appeared to them on the third day restored to life” to mean that the historian was telling us that “They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive.” This was vindicated by the 1972 find.
Likewise, I took “He was the Messiah” as meaning that this is what was thought of Him by His disciples, since the context is His disciples, or as the Agapian text has “he was perhaps the Messiah” which goes even further. Note also that in Antiquities 20:200 Josephus writes of “Jesus who was called the Christ.”
As an aside: there is no reason to restrict Josephus from considering that Jesus may have been the Messiah. Nor, in reality, is there reason to deny that a Jew would actually have believed Him to be the Messiah. After all, all early “Christians,” early believers in Jesus’ messiahship, were Jews; including the twelve Apostles and Jesus Himself. But I get it; there is no evidence of Josephus’ “conversion”—as if a Jew needs to convert in order to become a Christian/accept Jesus’ messiahship; see A Jewish Book Called the New Testament
A few other notes from Paul Maier:
Josephus must have mentioned Jesus in authentic core material at 18:63 since this passage is present in all Greek manuscripts of Josephus, and the Agapian version accords well with his grammar and vocabulary elsewhere. Moreover, Jesus is portrayed as a “wise man” [sophos aner], a phrase not used by Christians but employed by Josephus for such personalities as David and Solomon in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, his claim that Jesus won over “many of the Greeks” is not substantiated in the New Testament, and thus hardly a Christian interpolation but rather something that Josephus would have noted in his own day.
Finally, the fact that the second reference to Jesus at Antiquities 20:200, which follows, merely calls him the Christos [Messiah] without further explanation suggests that a previous, fuller identification had already taken place. Had Jesus appeared for the first time at the later point in Josephus’s record, he would most probably have introduced a phrase like “…brother of a certain Jesus, who was called the Christ.”
Paul Maier goes on to discuss the Antiquities 20:200 passage and concludes:
Had there been Christian interpolation here, more material on James and Jesus would doubtless have been presented than this brief, passing notice. James would likely have been wreathed in laudatory language and styled, “the brother of the Lord,” as the New Testament defines him, rather than “the brother of Jesus.”…For Josephus to further define Jesus as the one “who was called the Christos” was both credible and even necessary in view of the twenty other Jesuses he cites in his works…The preponderance of evidence, then, strongly suggests that Josephus did indeed mention Jesus in both passages.
The point about “the twenty other Jesuses he cites in his works” is interesting in the light of The Lost Tomb of Jesus
Thus, overall there is strong evidence and arguments that support Flavius Josephus’ two references to Jesus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.