The Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus
“The problem here is that Josephus’ account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish.”~ John Dominic Crossan
Introduction
The Bible’s New Testament was written primarily to convince people of the claims for Christianity and to diminish doubts for its believers. However, to use the Bible to support the Bible is problematic and is a fallacy called circular reasoning, when the proposition is backed by the proposition itself. It becomes the Bible is true because it is the Word of God and the Word of God says the Bible are true. Using support from the Bible to further prove Christian claims is also a logical fallacy of begging the question as the truth of the Bible is assumed to be ultimate truth, which actually is doubtful due to many errors (here), contradictions (here), and adulterations (here) that apologists have not been able to dismiss adequately; these are addressed elsewhere. Christians are often surprised when they are exposed to non-fundamentalist respected religious scholars who demonstrate that apologetic explanations are often not adequate and can be disproven. To circumvent these issues Christian apologists have proposed sources outside the Bible, known as extra-biblical sources. Three often encountered are the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger. The first will be examined in detail in this blog entry. Josephus as we commonly call him, was born Joseph ben Mattathias or Yosef ben Matityahu in the year 37 CE, several years after the death of Jesus. He changed his Jewish name to Flavius Josephus after he became a Roman citizen and died in 100 CE. He wrote several historiographical works, one being the 20 volume Antiquities of the Jews (1). The Testimonium Flavianum (TF) - 18:3:3 in Antiquities
The TF (section 3 below) is perhaps the most common extra-biblical example asserted by Christian apologists for support of their religion. However the TF needs to be seen in context of the paragraphs above it (section 2) and below (sections 4,5): 2. Paragraph above the TF.
“But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habitat, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed upon; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And this an end was put to this sedation.” [underlined by author] 3. The TF.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many Jews and many Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are now to this day (2).
4. Paragraph immediately below the TF. “About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. There was a Rome a woman…” [underlined by the author]
Problems of the TF as support for Jesus as Christ
Two major issues undermine the TF supporting claims for Christianity. First, we have no originals of his writings. All extant copies derive from Christian copies and sources. Before Eusebius (AD 260 - AD 339), the TF and the James section are never referenced by early church fathers even though they had access to the writings of Josephus. The TF was written around 93-94 AD. Given the motivation of apologists it seems unbelievable that church fathers would not have used the TF in their defense of their scriptures until nearly 200 years later when it shows up with Eusebius.
Second, paragraph 2 above the TF is a discussion of a riot that was crushed too forcibly by the Romans resulting in many deaths and wounded. Paragraph 4 after paragraph 2 flows well if the TF is deleted and connected to this disturbance, “About the same time also another calamity put the Jews into disorder…”. Josephus is about to tell us of another calamity. Although he states that this is his purpose, he goes off on a tangent in paragraph 4 about Isis and does not come back to what this second calamity was until paragraph 5:
5. “There was a man who was a Jew, but had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws, and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same; but in all respects a wicked man. He, then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses. He procured also three other men, entirely of the same character with himself, to be his partners. These men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity, and one that had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the temple at Jerusalem; and when they had gotten them, they employed them for their own uses, and spent the money themselves, on which account it was that they at first required it of her. Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, who desired inquiry might be made about it, ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome; at which time the consuls listed four thousand men out of them, and sent them to the island Sardinia; but punished a greater number of them, who were unwilling to become soldiers, on account of keeping the laws of their forefathers. Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men.” [underlined by the author]
Thus, it appears that the entire TF is not consistent with the issue (Jewish calamities) in paragraphs 2, the opening of 4, and the final discussion of the other “calamity” discussed finally in 5. The writing theme across the sections only makes sense if the entire TF is deleted.
The authenticity of the TF was not seriously challenged by non Jewish scholars for over a thousand years, until about 1590. It wasn’t until the mid-seventeenth century that critics of the TF authenticity began to apply textural critical evaluation rather than a priori criticisms based on Jewish or Catholic bias (3). Even the Reformed theologian Cappel in the early 1600s noted the TF did not fit the surrounding sections of text.
Many Christian religious scholars attempted to save the TF by admitting only some of it had been tampered with or forged. Crossan said it well when he wrote, “the problem here is that Josephus’ account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish.” Rather than label all or most of the TF a forgery, early Christians applied the term “interpolation” in the placde of forgery, which actually better applies. The word means to insert something between two fixed points, especially in order to give a false impression. The term originated from the 17th century Latin and is a derivative of interpolat, meaning refurbished or altered, and related to polire, to polish (Oxford American Dictionary). Listed below are the sections proposed to be at least interpolated by nearly most Biblical scholars, although it is still amazing that some Christians continue to propose the entire current TF as evidence for their Christian beliefs (personal experience): >If it be lawful to call him a man >He was [the] Christ
>For he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him
Let’s be honest. These are forgeries by early Christian theologians. What else can we notice about the TF that should have alerted apologists hundreds of years before the 1600s not to use it as evidence for their faith claims of Jesus as Christ?
1. The vocabulary and style is not that of Josephus. His writing style was to write detailed chapters about insignificant figures. Jesus was certainly not insignificant. The writings of Josephus concerning John the Baptist describe much detail; the brief nature of the TF starkly stands out as different (4).
2. The TF passage first appears in the writings of the early church father Eusebius (c. AD 260-339). Feldman notes no fewer than 11 church fathers prior to or contemporary with Eusebius who make no clear reference to the Testimonium. Early church fathers who were not acquainted with it include Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. Remsberg has surveyed 42 writers who wrote within a century after the time of Jesus and not one mentions Jesus. It is not until the fourth century that a copy of Antiquities appears with the TF in it. For 200 years church fathers who were aware of the writings of Josephus never mention the TF? Scores of non-Christian writers at the time of Jesus did not mention him even once? (5)
3. The writing style of the TF does not fit that of Josephus. It is typical Christian-speak: “if it be lawful to call him…”, “he was [the] Christ”, “for he appeared to them alive again the third day”. (4) The TF is at least corrupted and probably the entire section fabricated. That scholars did not understand this until over 1,000 years later speaks to the motivated reasoning, confirmation bias and lack of intellectual vigor among the early Christian writers. 4. Josephus was born after the death of Jesus and wrote the Antiquities of The Jews around 93-94 AD. He was not an eyewitness, and was only reporting oral stories of what the early Christians believed. He does not supply any evidence for Jesus as Christ, divine. 5. In 1971 the Israeli scholar Pines published an Arabic manuscript translation of the TF by Agapius who was writing in the 10th century. He argued that it was clear of the Christian interpolations (forgeries) and represented probably what the original TF said. "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And 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 recounted wonders.” Note that it uses less Chrisitianese terms such as “believed to be” and only is stating what Christians believed at the time. However, Alice Whealey in 2008 showed that this Arabic translation was ultimately really a 5th century Syriac translation taken from the TF that Eusebius used in the 4th century (6). It was not an earlier manuscript that many believed. And the same problem exists with the Syriac TF translations by Theophilus in the 8th century and Michael the Syrian’s translation in the 12th century. None were using a manuscript that did not derive from Eusebius, which everyone agrees was at least interpolated and it appears the entire TF may be a forgery as mentioned above (7,8). Recall, the TF first only appears with Eusebius.
6. Chrysostom in his defense of Christianity rejected using the TF as did Photius, even though he wrote three works about Josephus (4).
7. The third century theologian Origen specifically stated that Josephus as a Jew did not believe Jesus to be the Christ, the Messiah. Origen never quoted the TF and never used it as an apologetic tool against critics like Celsus, indicating that the forged TF probably did not exist yet in Origen’s copy and was later inserted by later Christian copyists such as Eusebius in the 4th century. Hansen noted in her 2024 evaluation that “This essay assesses the independency of these alleged witnesses to the Testimonium Flavianum and concludes that none hold water. Per this paper’s findings, all versions of the Testimonium Flavianum have their origin in either Eusebius’ History Ecclesiastica or Demonstratio Evangelica” (9).
8. In the 16th century Vossius produced a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a single word about Jesus. His contention is that both the TF and James entry are interpolations. White also argues that Josephus does not mention Jesus in his other work, The Jewish Wars (Bellum Judaism) and thus doubts the authenticity of the Jesus references in Antiquities.
James, brother of Jesus (Antiquities 20:9.1)
What about the other section in the Antiquities that mentions Jesus?
“…Festus was not 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…. 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.” (2).
Here again we encounter a phrase that Christian apologists often used: “called [the] Christ”. It smacks of what is admitted by nearly every religious scholar - that in the TF these are corruptions and interpolations, forgeries. We need to be consistent and call it out here showing that this section also has, with high probability, been tampered for religious gain. Recall that The Antiquities were known by the early church followers for the first 200 years and yet none of them used the TF or this James section in their apologetics until after Eusebius. If the Christ phrase is removed from this section (20:9.1) and instead a possible phrase replaced to read “the brother of Jesus, son of Damneus who’s name was James…” the last sentence of the section becomes interesting, informing the writing above. Jesus was a common name in Palestine at the time. It has been suggested that in this section, the Jesus Josephus mentions is actually the Jesus, son of the high priest Damneus and not the NT Jesus. Jesus the son of Damneus did have a brother called James who was stoned to death for a crime (10). This is a minority view among religious scholars and historians today and yet religious scholars for 1,000 years missed all the incredible problems with the TF being authentic and supporting that Jesus was Christ. “The name ‘Jesus’ was as common among the Jews as William or George is with us. In the writings of Josephus, we find accounts of a number of Jesuses. One was Jesus, the son of Sapphias, the founder of a seditious band of mariners; another was Jesus, the captain of robbers whose followers fled Jerusalem, when they heard of his arrest; still another Jesus was a monomaniac who for seven years went about Jerusalem, crying “Woe, woe, woe unto Jerusalem!” who was bruised and beaten many times, but offered no resistance and was finally killed with a stone at the siege of Jerusalem” (5).
Given the propensity for apologists to quote mine, push false deathbed confessions like Darwin, etc, and corrupt original manuscripts (here) including the TF forgeries documented here, would just a little phrase inserted in place of what was originally there completely not change this section away from what Josephus really meant? It is doubtful that the James of Josephus is the same as the James the Just, the brother of Jesus. James the Just died in 69 AD, seven years after the James of Josephus according to Hegesippus who wrote in 165-175 AD about the death of James that has irreconcilable conflicts with the account in Josephus’ writings (4). The date by Hegesippus is preserved by Eusebius. Hegesippus writes that James the Just was thrown from the temple pinnacle and stoned to death immediately before Vespasian besieged Judea, which occurred AD 66 - 67. That put his death according to scholars at 69 AD (11). It is noteworthy that Ehrman pointed out the common practice of the early Christians forging and corrupting documents for their religious purposes. > Third century church father Origen: “The difference among the manuscripts have become great either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking they make additions or deletions as they please.”
> Pagan critic Celsus: “Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over and they change its character to enable them to deny differences in the face of criticism.”
> Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, complains that some Christians are changing his writings as they have more sacred texts: “When my fellow Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil’s apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reserved. Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts.” As mentioned in another blog (here), it is well documented that the ending of Mark is a forgery, the story of the woman at the well in the NT is found inserted in two different places in older manuscripts and many top religious scholars consider six of the 13 Pauline Epistles forgeries, “pseudoepigraphical”, and not written by Paul. It is more likely that the phrase “who was called Christ” matches exactly what early Christian apologists would insert in place of deleted text, as noted in the TF where it is also found. Theologians and scribes have adulterated texts continuously and quote mined often even today. Not only do they dishonestly change text to advance their views, but justify it. The Gospels for example are anonymous and the attributed names upon close examination don’t fit well. Perhaps Martin Luther summed this approach best when he wrote, “What harm would it do, if a man told a good lie for the sake of the good for the Christian Church… a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such as lies would not be against God, he would accept them.” (12). Indeed if one thinks the penalty for not believing correctly is eternal torture, what is wrong with lying for Jesus? However, is the litany of dishonesty in apologetics ever acceptable?
Conclusion
Christian apologists are appropriately interested in finding non Biblical sources to support their faith narratives, thereby avoiding circular reasoning and begging the question fallacies. Three common sources often cited are the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger among several more. In this blog article the two sections that mention Jesus from the writings of The Antiquities written by Josephus about 60 years after the death of Jesus were critically examined. There are no original copies of The Antiquities and the only copies come from early Christians.
There are two sections in Antiquities that apologists refer to in support of Christianity, the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) and an entry about James. The TF is known only from Eusebius and no earlier Christian fathers before Eusebius wrote about it despite the writings of Josephus being known. As a minimum the TF is significantly corrupted and adulterated. More probably, the entire TF is a forgery for the reasons proposed in this article. For more than 1,000 years apologists referred to the TF as significant evidence for Christianity despite it being so corrupted and compromised; this is revealing for the motivated reasoning, lack of scholarship, and dishonesty of early Christian theologians. It is still being presented in its present form as good evidence for Christianity by some apologists. It is only in the 17th century that religious scholarly consensus finally builds to admit to all the adulterations and interpolations. Even today, in debates skeptics are often referred to the TF and James entries as support of the Bible despite it actually revealing early apologist dishonesty. It should be the last thing brought up by apologists due to embarrassment alone. If the TF is deleted the paragraphs above and below flow better. At best if the TF has interpolations removed, it only reports what Christians believed and were saying at that time and presents absolutely no support for Jesus as Christ. At the worst, apologists who still refer to the TF are referring to an entire section entry that is a forgery, and hardly support for Christianity. The section of James referring to Jesus is presented here with a probable subsitution of a phrase that changes the entire meaning of the section. The phrase is a common early apologist referral to Jesus and hardly what a non believer would write. It actually matches in style that which even fundamentalist religious scholars admit in the TF is a forgery. Here they instead assert that Josephus did write this same phrase? That seems asking us to admit it is a Christian forgery in the TF but not in the James section? It more is highly probably that it represents a deletion of the original words and a substitution of the common Christianese “called the Christ”, which then makes the referral to James not the brother of Jesus but Jesus the son of Damneus. This is a minority view, but then the consensus Biblical view was wrong about the TF for over 1,000 years.
Discussed are some of the recurrent documented forgeries done by early Christians in the name of the faith; lying for Jesus is actually common unfortunately. This would mean that the James section is actually a contraduction as defined by Dan Barker. A situation where the facts are inverted 180 degrees, like saying the rooster crowing brings up the sun rather than the opposite, or your nose was made to fit your glasses. Neither the TF nor the section of James in The Antiquities by Josephus are authentic enough to be used for support of Christianity. The entire TF is argued to be an insertion. Rather they reflect badly on some early Christians. The TF and the James entry are too corrupted, compromised and adulterated to be of use for Christian divinity claims. The James entry most probably was corrupted to say what it did not originally and did not support Christianity. ultimately, they undermine Christian apologists instead of helping them. References and Literature Cited
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
https://crossworks.holycross.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1440&context=necj
Personal communication, Gavin Young, 5/2011
https://earlychurchhistory.org/daily-life/the-death-of-jesus-brother-james/
Cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed. Briefwechsel Landgraf Philips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. 1. Source: Sissel Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, NY: Pantheon Books, 1978, p. 47.
Comments