JOSEPHUS’ SOURCES

PART 11 of my Historical Jesus series

People frequently ask if any record has been preserved of the report which, it is presumed, Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea, sent to Rome concerning the trial and execution of Jesus of Nazareth. The answer is none. But let it be added at once that no official record has been preserved of any report which Pontius Pilate or any other Roman governor of Judea, sent to Rome about anything. And only rarely has an official report from any governor of any Roman province survived.

J. J. Bruce, [1]

Some of the less well known figures that failed to get a mention in Josephus first book War, made it into his later book Antiquities. Even the minor insurrectionists that did make it into War, barely register a mention and are quickly moved over. Josephus preferred to talk about himself and made a good chunk of the book about his exploits as commander of the Galilean forces, especially the battle between himself and Vespasian at Jotapata in 67 CE:

If we glance elsewhere in the Roman tradition, a comparison suggests itself between Josephus’s seven‐volume Judean War and the original seven volumes of Caesar’s Gallic War. Both commanders appear as brave and resourceful, describing their exploits and “generals’ tricks” in the third person. Josephus is familiar with the kind of stratagems compiled by his Roman contemporary, Frontinus, for whom Caesar provided the largest fund of exempla after Hannibal. Josephus’s portraits of both Titus and himself as generals—especially in their forethought, personal courage, and clemency—may well be influenced by the Caesarean tradition.

Steve Mason [2]

There were other messianic figures that were not major players in the lead up to the Roman Jewish War 66-70 CE and Josephus just quickly skipped over these with usually just a simple paragraph. By the time Josephus was writing Antiquities some of those other figures that were not thought of off hand while writing War were now included in Antiquities. Josephus had by then, full access to the imperial and senatorial records. Josephus was very good friends with Titus and made full use of the imperial secretary Epaphroditus. He dedicated his book Antiquities to Epaphroditus.

despite the fact that Josephus does not mention, in his introduction, his use of Vespasian’s and Titus’ commentaries, he must have used them. We may comment that in antiquity it was very often true that an author would name the sources that he should have used, while omitting those he actually did employ. In view of the fact that Josephus was living in Vespasian’s palace while he was writing the work and presumably had access to the Roman archives, it would appear likely that he used the notes of their campaigns in Judea.

Louis Feldman [3]

The Roman commander, and later emperor, Vespasian wrote a military memoir, known in Latin as commentarii, and in several cases the use of this source by Josephus is evident. The Jewish historian also used the memoirs of King herod (Ant. 15.174), as well as correspondence with King herod Agrippa II. In addition, one can assume that he gathered information, both in the case of Judean War and Judean Antiquities through letters and by interviewing survivors. We have an example of correspondence from historians to military commanders in the case of Fronto, who corresponded with both Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius about the parthian campaign of 161–166 C.E. In such memoirs, letters, and interviews, Josephus would have found much military detail, although its reliability would, of course, vary. An example is in Judean War 4.659–663, Titus’s march from Egypt to Judaea, which is clearly based on a Roman military source.

Jonathan P. Roth [*]

“Since Josephus’s accounts of Pilate and Cumanus (18.55–89 and 20.105–136) are much longer than those of other Roman governors of Judea, and those two are the only governors of whom he reports that they were sent to Rome to give accounts of themselves (18.89; 20.132–136), it is likely that he had access to their briefs or other materials occasioned by their hearings. That likelihood is, it seems, bolstered by analysis of the tendencies of these materials (see Schwartz 2007, 2012).”

Daniel R. Schwartz [4]

Of course Pilates’ (who was prefect for 10 years) predecessor Gratus was in power one year longer than Pilate, (Ant. 18.2.2; 18.4.2), still though Schwartz point still stands as those were longer in power than most prefects or procurators.

The level of detail that Josephus knew of Caligulas assassination, the plot and its aftermath meant that Josephus main source for this was a Roman source. As Goud says a senatorial and a pro Claudian source, together with a third Jewish Herodian source was used. [5] This is an advantage that Josephus had over even other imminent Roman historians such as Tacitus who claimed he did not have access to imperial records. (Histories 4.40). Van Voorst argued that Tacitus did not get his information from Christians as can be seen for his contempt for Christians. He also did not use Jesus’s name. Tacitus using the textus restitutus (reconstructed in part 3) would easily explain this. Van Voorst has suggested that Tacitus could have gotten his information about Christians and Nero’s fire from the Acta Senatus (archives of the Senate). [6]

Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev explores what Josephus’ major sources were. [7] The archives of Roman, Jewish and the diaspora were all used but Zeev thinks that Josephus only stated the Roman archives as a literary device to impress his Roman readers. Phrases like this would indeed impress his Roman readers but were made very generally:

“Moreover, we could read to you many decrees of the senate and tablets deposited in the Capitol to the same effect…” (Ant. XVI, 48), which closely echoes what Josephus writes in Ant. XIV, 188 (“the decrees of the Romans … are still to be found engraved on bronze tablets in the Capitol”) [8]

Ben Zeev showed that Josephus really he used the Jewish sources both in Judea and the diaspora. In her examination of these sources she has seen that “official documents preserved, by inscriptions and papyri. Senatus consulta, decrees and letters written by Roman magistrates, imperial edicts, mandata and Greek decrees quoted by Josephus follow the general structure and use the same language, vocabulary and style.” [9]

“Nicolaus of Damascus, the secretary of Herod the Great, wrote a Universal History in 144 books and also a panegyrical account of Augustus’ youth, of which some fragments survive.” [*] These lost books were a major source for Josephus up to the time of Herod the Great. Also the archives in Jerusalem that were preserved and expanded by Agrippa. Zeev quotes Willrich on this:

“King Agrippa seemingly used many acta on behalf of the Jews in his meetings with Caligula in order to emphasize how great the discrepancy was between the intentions of Caligula and the whole tradition of the Roman policy toward the Jews…. What Philo has Agrippa say is most probably only the essence of a very long and well grounded apologetic writing which contained documents in favor of the Jews coming from all parts of the world, Alexandria, Ephesus, Asia and Jerusalem. Agrippa had the fortune to be able to increase the material, because the archives of Jerusalem were at his disposal. There were a lot of documents from the very beginning of the diplomatic relations between the Jews and the Greco-Roman world, among them not only documents connected with the motherland but very probably a great collection of acta (as Niese pointed out) which had been collected by Nicolaus of Damascus on occasion of the great trial in 15 BCE in Ionia.” [10]

In the words of Josephus:

(362) Moreover, I immediately presented my history to many other persons, some of whom were concerned in the war, as was king Agrippa and some of his kindred. (363) Now the emperor Titus was so desirous that the knowledge of these affairs should be taken from these books alone, that he subscribed his own hand to them, and ordered that they should be published; (364) and for king Agrippa, he wrote me sixty-two letters, and attested to the truth of what I had therein delivered:

Josephus, Life 362-363.

One of the Acta, from the Jerusalem archive, and Josephus does state that Jewish literature was taken in the aftermath of the war, was the Acta Pilati. One such figure, the ‘Samaritan’ who only got a mention in Josephus second book Antiquities, shows that Josephus would have used such records as Acta Pilati (not the Acta Pilati that was forged but an original document that no longer exists) as a source. Another similar figure where Josephus would not have thought of while composing War was a certain man, may have been referred to as ‘the Galilean’ in the Roman or Herodian records, (cf Ant 18.3.3), and here too Josephus would have had to go to the Acta Pilati for his information.

By the time the church fathers were writing they acknowledged the Acti Pilati, but made up completely what was in them. They would not have had access to these and just made incredible claims that Pilate was reporting the divinity of Jesus and that he had resurrected (Martyr 1 Apology 35; Tertullian Apology 5,21). 

Justin Martyr pretended the Acta backed up his claims (Martyr probably never saw the real Acta) Claims such that the prophets Isaiah and King David had foretold of the messiah, and to Martyr this meant of course this was Jesus as “these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.” (Martyr 1 Apology 35).

Tertullian gave even a more fantastic account where “Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ’s divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ.” (Tertullian Apology 5).

Of course Tertullian did not know what was in the Acta Pilati, but was also ignorant of what province Pilate was governor of:

“But the Jews were so exasperated by His teaching, by which their rulers and chiefs were convicted of the truth, chiefly because so many turned aside to Him, that at last they brought Him before Pontius Pilate, at that time Roman governor of Syria; and, by the violence of their outcries against Him, extorted a sentence giving Him up to them to be crucified.” (Tertullian Apology 21).

And here he is reporting on the Acta:

“All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Cæsar, who was at the time Tiberius.” (Tertullian Apology 21).

According to Eusebius using Tertullian’s authority says “Pontius Pilate informed Tiberius of the reports” of “resurrection and ascension of our Saviour (EH 2.2.1) and “that Tiberius referred the matter to the Senate, but that they rejected it” (EH 2.2.2).

As Paul Winters said, “In second century literature there are sporadic allusions to minutes, acta, supposed to have been taken at Jesus’ trial on Pilate’s order. Such references are of an apologetic nature …… The writers making such allusions made them without having access to any official archives” [11] The anti Christian polemics also reworked the real Acta Pilati, making Eusebius comment that these Acta Pilati reported by the anti-Christian pagans were forged for their propaganda:

Having therefore forged Acts of Pilate and our Saviour full of every kind of blasphemy against Christ, they sent them with the emperor’s approval to the whole of the empire subject to him, with written commands that they should be openly posted to the view of all in every place, both in country and city, and that the schoolmasters should give them to their scholars, instead of their customary lessons, to be studied and learned by heart. (Eusebius, EH 9.5.1)

“The memorials against us and copies of the imperial edicts issued in reply to them were engraved and set up on brazen pillars in the midst of the cities, — a course which had never been followed elsewhere. The children in the schools had daily in their mouths the names of Jesus and Pilate, and the Acts which had been forged in wanton insolence.” (Eusebius, EH 9.7.1). 

These anti-Christian pagans would have worked from the original Acti-Pilati to create their particular polemics during the reign of Emperor Maximins. What we have now is a Christian Acts of Pilate, now known as the Gospel of Nicodemus. This is a pious forgery to counteract the reworked Emperor Maximins Acta Pilati (but now destroyed). Emperor Maximin Acta Pilati had reworked the original Acta Pilati. Emperor Maximin Acta Pilati were seen as the polemic Acts of Pilate, so the stories of the gospels were transposed onto a new Christian Acts of Pilate so that it was thoroughly reworked. Even though thoroughly reworked there is still evidence of the previous Acts of Pilate released by Emperor Maximin that is contained in the gospel of Nicodemus. Passages such as where Pilate informs the Jews that Jesus heals by the god Asclepius: 

“Pilate saith unto them: By what evil deeds? They say unto him: He is a sorcerer, and by Beelzebub the prince of the devils he casteth out devils, and they are all subject unto him. Pilate saith unto them: This is not to cast out devils by an unclean spirit, but by the god Asclepius.” (Acts of Pilate, ch. 1, First Greek form).

 It shows even the Christianizing of the Acts of Pilate still left in some of the pagan bits, thus it looks like the Maximins Acts of Pilate rewritten. The original Acta Pilati is completely lost. We saw the same thing happen in regard to the TF, the Emmaus narrative in Luke was used in reworking an original negative TF.

So to sum up, for Josephus to include the minor figures in his later book, Antiquities, would have had to consult the Archive records, (being the Flavian footstool he would have had full access to the Roman and the means to get the Jewish). For such minor figures as the ‘Samaritan’ or ‘the Galilean’ (i.e. Jesus), he would have had to consult the Acta Pilati (originally found in Jerusalem Archive along with the other Acta and confescated by the Romans after the war, these Acta Pilati no longer exist). The early Church fathers acknowledged the Acta Pilati but made up what was inside them. Meanwhile the anti Christian polemics made use of their version of Acta Pilati to which Eusebius complained and protested. It was from the time of Eusebius that Christians had full power of the books and must have destroyed these damaging Acts of Pilate. A new Counterforgery Acts of Pilate (Gospel of Nicodemus) was composed as a counter narrative. It is suspected they simply reworked the pagan Acts of Pilate. In turn the pagan Acts of Pilate would have reworked the original Acts of Pilate. It was the original Acti Pilati that Josephus would have made use of in composing his history for Antiquities. This would argue for an independent source for Christianity. This puts Jesus’ historicity on the same level as all those other messianic figures found in Josephus works.

While the Acts of Pilate/ Gospel of Nicodemus are clear Christian apocryphal documents, but as shown above were written in light of an original Acta, (one most likely stored in Jerusalem along with all the other Acta on trials, such as the trial on the execution of Jesus). That this Acta or report was sent to Rome is also plausible in light of the fact that between 33 and 35 there was a vacancy of Governor in Syria. It was not until the year 35 AD when Publius Vitellius is appointed by Tiberius as Governor of Syria and direct Head of Pontius Pilate. These reports were all stored in archives attainable in the time of Josephus as he wrote his history.

        I think it’s very plausible there was an original TF that described Jesus as a seditious leader as attested in the anti Christian polemic. This is what Eusebius was covering up. This is the reason for the interpolation.

       Paul attests the crucifixion, granted he doesn’t attest under Pilate. As Whealey has shown the Josephus’ passage as having existed, (not created ex nihilo) even if we can’t use the reconstruction as evidence, we can use the fact that it existed as a negative original. Even without reconstruction it is in the middle of the Pilate passages and therefore it can be used for crucifixion under Pilate. I believe Josephus got his information from other than Christians, just like he probably got his information from other than Samaritans about the ‘samaritan’. Josephus was very good friends with Titus and had the full use of the imperial secretary- Epaphroditus. Christians, Samaritans, Sicarii, or any other such messianic group were well below Josephus’ feet, his consultations would have been the records.

        These anti Christian polemics of Jesus being a seditious leader can even be seen in the gospel of Luke. As we see in Luke 23, Jesus was considered dangerous enough to raise a sedition:

“…the Sanhedrin says to Pilate “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be, a king Messiah.” So Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?” “You have said so,” Jesus replied. (Luke 23:2-3)

Elsewhere Pilate said, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion.”

(Luke 23:14).

As was common for many messianic leaders, to raise a crowd was a dangerous occupation and usually would end up getting you executed, this is all reflected in the gospel of John:

“Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.” Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

(John 11:47-50).

       I see the Jesus movement as reactionary as he lived in bad times. I am not placing any judgment value on the term seditious leader, Jesus lived during very bad times. If you study the position of the Testamonian Flavianum, and read the paragraph before the TF, (i.e.Ant 18.3.2), a load of unarmed Jews were slaughtered by Pilates men. In modern times U2 sang a song “Sunday Bloody Sunday” about the killing of a load of unarmed Irish protesters, which started a 30 year guerrilla war. I see the Jesus movement as the same type of reactionary resistance movement, where Jesus got crucified for sedition (king of the Jews).

The reconstructed TF suggests Jesus led a movement of two groups, the Judaens and the Galileans into revolt (reflected in Marks impossible event of the Temple cleansing but works as a literary construction) causing his execution by crucifixion.

      So to sum up some of the points of this blog, we see the anti-Christian polemics having an independent source to the gospels and the main source I suspect was the original TF. Josephus I suspect got his information from records archives as he was well in with Titus. The original TF was the corroborating evidence for Jesus before it was overwritten. This puts Jesus on the same level of historicity as all those other messianic figures found in Josephus works.

——————————————————-

[1] J. J. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament, p.19.

[2] Steve Mason, “Josephus as a Roman Historian” ch.5 in Chapman and Rodgers (eds), A Companion to Josephus, 2016, p.100

[3] Louis H. Feldman, Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, Introduction, p.24

[*] Jonathan P. Roth, “Josephus as a Military Historian” ch.11 in Chapman and Rodgers (eds), A Companion to Josephus, 2016, p.201.

[4] Daniel R. Schwartz, “Many Sources but a Single Author Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities” ch.2 in Chapman and Rodgers (eds), A Companion to Josephus, 2016, p.40.

[5] Goud, Thomas E., The Sources of Josephus “Antiquities” 19, 480 ff. [Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol.45, no.4 (1996), pp. 472-482].

[6] Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000), p.50-1.

[7] Ben Zeev, Miriam Pucci, Jewish Rights in the Roman World, The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius, (Mohr Siebeck, 1998), p.388-408.

[8] Ben Zeev, ibid, p.390

[9] Ben Zeev, ibid, p.357-368, quote at 357.

[*] H H Scullard, From The Gracchi to Nero, fourth Ed., p.204

[10] Willrich,H., Judaica: Forschungen zur hellenistisch-judischen, History, ed. J.H. Hayes, J.M. Geschichte und Literatur,(Gottingen 1900), (supra, note 5), pp. 42-47. Cit op Zeev, ibid, p.391.

[11] Winter, Paul, On the Trial of Jesus, (De Gruyter, 2nd Ed., 1974), p.1.

BACK TO HOMEPAGE

https://davesblogs.home.blog/2021/05/12/historical-jesus/