Part 8 Jonathan the Weaver

David Fiensy noted that leaders of mass peasant movements rarely came from those that were on the bottom rung of social class. “Jonathan the weaver, was an artisan. The survey of leadership of rebellions in the Roman empire, then, is consistent with the findings of modern investigations of peasant societies. Leaders rarely came from peasants themselves.”[1] In Marks gospel Jesus is referred to as a τέκτων – tekton (‘artisan’) (Mark 6:3) although this is often translated as a carpenter, tekton can mean any sort of artisan. “Josephus tells us of one Jonathan, who, following the Roman victory over Israel and the capture of Jerusalem (70 CE), fled to Cyrene (North Africa). According to Josephus, this man, by trade a weaver, was one of the Sicarii. He persuaded many of the poorer Jews to follow him out into the desert, “promising to show signs and apparitions” (War 7.437–38; Life 424–25).”[2] It is noted that Jonathan had Jewish followers (War 7.438).

Jesus being an artisan helped in his rise, being an exorcist/healer would explain a further exaltation of Jesus among his own people. Jesus would have belonged to a class of charismatic Jews such as Honi or Ben Dosa performing thaumaturgic actions.[3] Jesus’ rise came through his healings where people believed he could overpower Satan affecting people. This would give him the belief that God was with him. Jonathan also being an artisan helped in his rise and a further rise came from being involved with the Sicarii. Jonathan “a final figure appeared in the northern African coastal province of Cyrenaica. A weaver by trade and a refugee whom Josephus associates with the failed Sicarii of Alexandria, Jonathan gained a following among ‘the poor’ (War 7.438), estimated at two thousand elsewhere in Josephus (Life 424). In what is by now a familiar script, he led his followers into the wilderness and promised ‘to demonstrate to them signs and wonders’ (War 7.437). ”[4] Jonathan could be seen as “prophet like Moses” who went with his followers into the desert, preparing them for the restoration of Isreal. Many of the Sign Prophets appealed to the economically oppressed peasants of the time, Jonathan “came thither and prevailed with no small number of the poorer sort to give ear to him;” (War 7.438). There are some indications that there was a more significant element of class conflict in the disturbances created by Jonathan the Sicarius and his followers in Cyrene than in the other cases. …  Josephus specifically states that Jonathan’s followers were drawn from the poor (War 7.438). They were opposed, in the first instance, not by the Roman authorities, but by the “men of rank” among the Jews (7.439)[5] He was against “the wealthiest of the Jews” (7.442), also described as “the well-to-do” (7.445). Greame Lang had noticed that “Jesus himself is recorded as expressing some rather strong opinions about the wealthy. After meeting the rich young man who sadly declines to sell all he has and give the money to the poor, Jesus tells his disciples that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god” (Mark 10:23-25). Many attacks in the Jewish war were carried out by the poor against the upper classes. Ananias’ palace and Herodian palaces were burnt down; all of the debt records were destroyed (War 2.17.6). The Dead Sea Scrolls offer a window into the minds of these Jews and in the scroll 4Q171 describes “the time of testing” doing a pesher on psalm 37. It uses the typology of testing on Exodus and Wilderness. All this together with the reversal of fortunes expected at a realized eschatology meant….. “some of [Jesus’] rhetoric certainly would have been received without much argument by some of the revolutionaries described by Josephus.”[6] Jonathan’s actions were directed not against the Romans, but rather against members of the Jewish aristocracy. If he was a practical revolutionary at all, he might be better described as a social revolutionary than as a political revolutionary.[7] This reminds us of the gospels who appropriated the blame for Jesus’ crucifixion on the Jewish aristocrats (High Priest) instead of on those who carried out the crucifixion- the Romans. Our first Jewish author on Jesus (Paul) blamed his own people for the crucifixion of Jesus by Roman soldiers (1 Thess. 2:15).

Let us now reproduce the passages:

And now did the madness of the Sicarii, like a disease, reach as far as the cities of Cyrene; for one Jonathan, a vile person, and by trade a weaver, came thither and prevailed with no small number of the poorer sort to give ear to him; he also led them into the desert, upon promising them that he would show them signs and apparitions. And as for the other Jews of Cyrene, he concealed his knavery from them, and put tricks upon them; but those of the greatest dignity among them informed Catullus, the governor of the Libyan Pentapolis, of his march into the desert, and of the preparations he had made for it. So he sent out after him both horsemen and footmen, and easily overcame them, because they were unarmed men; of these many were slain in the fight, but some were taken alive, and brought to Catullus.

War 7.437-440

---

for a certain Jew, whose name was Jonathan, who had raised a tumult in Cyrene, and had persuaded two thousand men of that country to join with him, was the occasion of their ruin; but when he was bound by the governor of that country, and sent to the emperor, he told him that I had sent him both weapons and money. However, he could not conceal his being a liar from Vespasian, who condemned him to die; according to which sentence he was put to death. Nay, after that, when those that envied my good fortune did frequently bring accusations against me, by God’s providence I escaped them all. I also received from Vespasian no small quantity of land, as a free gift, in Judea;

Life 424-25

Josephus goes on in the War to mention his personal involvement with this Sign Prophet. “Jonathan’s name was known to Josephus because of a personal accusation made against Josephus by the Lybian governor Catullus. Josephus is accused along with other prominent Jewish leaders of being implicated in the Jonathan plot (War 7.488).”[8] Because of this personal involvement, Josephus happens to write about Jonathan in autobiography, the passage is reproduced above in his book Vitae – Life. After Jonathan’s arrest, Jonathan conspired with the Roman governor Catullus to accuse aristocrats Jews and Josephus himself in being implicated in the plot (War 7.488). Part of this accusation is that Josephus provided weapons to Jonathan’s movement, but this looks like a false accusation (on both accounts, Josephus being involved and weapons provided). In the next months, governor Catullus used Jonathan to incriminate several important Jewish men, but the new emperor, Vespasian,  grew suspicious and in the end, Catullus was reprimanded and Jonathan was burned alive.[9] The earlier account of this narrative looks like the more accurate assessment that this movement was not armed (too poor to arm). We see in the case of Jonathan (same as the Baptist) his followers were unarmed. As noted by Nathan C. Johnson: In the groups discussed here, such salvation, as we shall see, never arrived, and Rome violently put down these gatherings. In light of this iron-fisted response, the question arises whether or not these movements had violent intentions. Though a handful of sign-prophet gatherings were armed, these movements were not all violent per se, and Josephus even notes that some of the slain throngs were “unarmed”.[10]

 I will also reproduce the plot Josephus reports about his involvement with Jonathan:

 

As for Jonathan, the head of this plot, he fled away at that time; but upon a great and very diligent search, which was made all the country over for him, he was at last taken. And when he was brought to Catullus, he devised a way whereby he both escaped punishment himself, and afforded an occasion to Catullus of doing much mischief; for he falsely accused the richest men among the Jews, and said that they had put him upon what he did. Now Catullus easily admitted of these his calumnies, and aggravated matters greatly, and made tragical exclamations, that he might also be supposed to have had a hand in the finishing of the Jewish war. But what was still harder, he did not only give a too easy belief to his stories, but he taught the Sicarii to accuse men falsely. He bid this Jonathan, therefore, to name one Alexander, a Jew (with whom he had formerly had a quarrel, and openly professed that he hated him); he also got him to name his wife Bernice, as concerned with him. These two Catullus ordered to be slain in the first place; nay, after them he caused all the rich and wealthy Jews to be slain, being no fewer in all than three thousand. This he thought he might do safely, because he confiscated their effects, and added them to Caesar’s revenues. Nay, indeed, lest any Jews that lived elsewhere should convict him of his villainy, he extended his false accusations further, and persuaded Jonathan, and certain others that were caught with him, to bring an accusation of attempts for innovation against the Jews that were of the best character both at Alexandria and at Rome. One of these, against whom this treacherous accusation was laid, was Josephus, the writer of these books. However, this plot, thus contrived by Catullus, did not succeed according to his hopes; for though he came himself to Rome, and brought Jonathan and his companions along with him in bonds, and thought he should have had no further inquisition made as to those lies that were forged under his government, or by his means; yet did Vespasian suspect the matter, and made an inquiry how far it was true. And when he understood that the accusation laid against the Jews was an unjust one, he cleared them of the crimes charged upon them, and this on account of Titus’s concern about the matter, and brought a deserved punishment upon Jonathan; for he was first tormented, and then burnt alive.

War 7.441-450

To  Johnson this movement looked millenarian:

As happened previously in Alexandria, however, Jewish men of rank reported his activity to the Roman-appointed governor (Catullus), who quashed the unarmed multitude with cavalry and infantry. Jonathan temporarily escaped but was later apprehended, used as an informant, tortured, and eventually burned alive in Rome at the command of Emperor Vespasian (War 6.450). Again, the promise of thaumaturgical proof of God’s support lends the movement to millenarian categorization. Despite Jonathan’s alleged association with the Sicarii, the unarmed status of his adherents marks this as yet another ‘assaulted’ millenarian group (though cf. Life 424–25, where Jonathan accuses Josephus of supplying ‘arms and money’ to the movement). Rome was once again the aggressor, preemptively stamping out perceived threats. That a millenarian ideology associated with nativism and restorationism could gain traction outside Judea is of interest, intimating how durable, attractive, and adaptable the millenarian impulse could be among an oppressed religious group.[11]

Here is another interesting similarity to Jesus, where both movements were ratted out from the upper class Jewish spy network. An extract from my latest paper:[12]

The best catch by Schmidt is that Josephus would have been only one step away from people that actually met Jesus at his trial, this is known from the phrase “first men among us” i. e. The Jewish aristocrats including the High Priest party, people belonging to Josephus’ class. These High Priest collaborators had their own spy network to rat Jesus out.[13] Something similar had happened Jonathan the Weaver, “those of the greatest dignity among them informed Catullus, the governor of the Libyan Pentapolis, of his march into the desert, and of the preparations he had made for it.” (War 7.439). This is similar to what happened in the TF, “Pilate, on the accusation of the first men among us, condemned him to be crucified” (Ant. 18.64)

---

 

BACK TO INTRODUCTION

 

---

[1] David Fiensy, Leaders of Mass Movements and the Leader of the Jesus Movement, JSNT 74, pp.3-27 (12).

[2] Craig Evans, ch 2 in Amy-Jill Levine et al (eds) Jesus in Context, p.59

[3] Gaza Vermes, Jesus the Jew, chapter 3, especially p.58 and 69; Honi the Circle-Drawer by the rabbis (y. Taanit 16a–b;  b. Taanit 19a; 23a) and Onias the Righteous by Josephus. (Antiquities 14.2.1-21). Hanina Ben Dosa (example Ta’anit. 24b–25a; Berakhot 34b.

[4] Nathan C. Johnson, (2021) “Early Jewish Sign Prophets” in James Crossley and Alastair Lockhart (eds.), CDAMM retrieved from here: https://www.cdamm.org/assets/articlePDFs/31519-early-jewish-sign-prophets.pdf

[5] Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine, The Evidence from Josephus, Oxford 1993, p.135

[6] Greame Lang, “Oppression and Revolt in Ancient Palestine: The Evidence in Jewish Literature from the Prophets to Josephus”, Sociological Analysis 49/4 (Oxford, 1989), pp. 325-342, first quote at 327, second quote at 329.

[7] Gray, Prophetic Figures, p.139

[8] David Allen, “How Josephus Really Viewed Jesus”, RevBíb 85/3-4, p.339.

[9] Johnson, Early Jewish Sign Prophets.

[10] Johnson, Early Jewish Sign Prophets

[11] Johnson, Early Jewish Sign Prophets.

[12] David Allen, Josephus on Jesus, New Evidence for the One called a ‘certain man’, JHC forthcoming.

[13] T. C. Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, pp.6-7.

[14] David Allen, Jesus Realpolitik, JHC 20.2, forthcoming.

Part 7 Temple Prophet of 70CE

Josephus writes about this Sign Prophet after discussing the Temple burning down despite Josephus claiming that Titus attempted to stop it (Josephus, War 6.266). “At the end of the Roman siege while the temple was ablaze (August, A.D. 70), six thousand refugees fled to the remaining portico in the outer court. A prophet had informed them that they would receive the ‘tokens of their deliverance’ and ‘help from God’ (War 6.285-286).[1] Josephus recounts how 6000 ordinary people were led to their deaths in the middle of a raging battle. “women and children of the populace and a mixed multitude” (War 6.283) by a false prophet. He had promised them “signs of their deliverance” from the very real trouble of slaughter by the Roman soldiers (War 6.285). “It is difficult to imagine what sort of “deliverance” or “release” was expected by the prophet who led six thousand apparently defenseless people into the Temple precincts in the middle of a fierce battle. It would seem that he expected an act of divine intervention of a very dramatic sort.”[2]

The “six thousand inhabitants of Jerusalem lost their lives in the Temple area, to which they had fled, because a “false prophet” had told them to do so, as it was a commandment of God; for there they should receive the signs of salvation (War 6.285f).[3]  Hengel sees the Temple Sign Prophet as one of many appointed by the Zealots to boost peoples morale among the horrors suffering from Roman siege warfare, “they were killed by the Romans or they died in the flames.”.[4] The Sign Prophet promising deliverance in the midst of Roman slaughter just shows in desperate times how scriptural fantasy offered false hope. “The Jewish prophet may have pointed to a word such as that in Isaiah 28:16f., which played an important role in early Judaism (see IQS VIII:7f.; 1QH VI:21ff.). Zion is God’s foundation; he who believes will not be shaken.”[5]  Once again Exodus-Conquest imagery is employed by the Sign-Prophet. He promised the ‘signs of salvation’ a phrase clearly interchangeable with the ‘Signs of freedom’ employed by the Sign Prophets in the days of Felix.[6]

 

Here is the passage from Josephus’ War:

The soldiers also came to the rest of the cloisters that were in the outer [court of the] Temple, whither the women and children, and a great mixed multitude of the people, fled, in number about six thousand.  But before Caesar had determined anything about these people, or given the commanders any orders relating to them, the soldiers were in such a rage, that they set that cloister on fire; by which means it came to pass that some of these were destroyed by throwing themselves down headlong, and some were burnt in the cloisters themselves. Nor did anyone of them escape with his life. A false prophet was the occasion of these people’s destruction, who had made a public proclamation in the city that very day, that God commanded them to get up upon the temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance. Now, there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose on the people, who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God; and this was in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes. A man is easily persuaded in adversity: when the deceiver actually promises deliverance from the miseries that envelop them, then the sufferer becomes the willing slave of hope. So it was that the unhappy people were beguiled at that stage by cheats and false messengers of God. Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them.

Josephus, War 6.283- 288

Some interesting points distinguishing this Sign Prophet:

1. he was typical of a class of Sign Prophets used by the Zealots – “there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose on the people … in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes” (War 6.286).
2. Josephus uses his report of him to explain why he attracted crowds so easily – “when the deceiver actually promises deliverance from the miseries that envelop them, then the sufferer becomes the willing slave of hope” (War 6.287).
3. In the aftermath of this passage Josephus explains that these Sign Prophets read the portents wrong saying they pointed to Salvation whereas Josephus according to himself ‘correctly’ interprets these potents as leading to disaster.

 

The ‘inexperienced’ ‘uninitiated’ among whom apparently were ‘numerous (Sign) Prophets’, interpreted these portents as pointing to ‘salvation.’ Josephus, supported by the ‘sacred scribes’ declared that the portents were in fact omens of doom.[7] As Josephus says himself “they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them.” (War 6.288)

Portents such as: “Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year” (War 6.289), of a “great a light shone round the altar” (6.290). This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. (6.291) i. e. Temple Destruction. And another portent of disaster “a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple.” (6.292) or of a heavy gate opening of its own accord “also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved” (6.295) Josephus then relates the famous portent (also used in the gospels) of “chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. (War 6.298-299; cf Dan. 7:13; 2 Macc..5:2; Mark 13:36; Rev 1:7; in fact this riding on clouds stuff goes back to Ba’al in the Ugarit texts- KTU 1.3, sometimes Yahweh is slipped in: see Deut. 33:26; Jer. 4:13; Isaiah 19:1and Ps 68:32-33, 104:3) and the priests hearing a noise “Let us remove hence!” (6.300)

Josephus used a common trope of a people losing divine favour before a disaster.

This Temple Prophet is one of an increasing number of self styled prophets just before the Great Revolt:

“the popular prophets who announced imminent divine deliverance were concentrated just before and during the great revolt. Josephus claims that there were many prophets at this time bidding the people to “await help from God.” Originating in apocalyptic visions, the messages delivered by these prophets held out hope for the people suffering under increasing oppression prior to the rebellion, or for those struggling against overwhelming odds once the Romans brought their massive forces to suppress the revolt (see War 6.286-87).” [8]

BACK TO INTRODUCTION

---

[1] P. W. Barnett, “The Jewish Sign Prophets -A.D. 40–70 Their Intentions and Origin”, NTS 27/5 (1981), pp. 679-697, (679).

[2] Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine, The Evidence from Josephus, Oxford 1993, p.121

[3] Otto Betz, “Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus”, ch.9 in Feldman and Hata (eds) Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), p.230.

[4] Martin Hengel, The Zealots, Investigation into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I to 70 AD, (translation by David Smith), (Edinburgh 1989), p.229.

[5] Betz, Miracles, p.230

[6] Barnett, Jewish Sign Prophets, p.686

[7] Barnett, Jewish Sign Prophets, p.686

[8] Richard Horsley and John Hanson, Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs, Popular Movements in the time of Jesus, Claremont 1985, p.181

Part 6 Sign Prophet Under Festus.

Josephus only writes two lines on this unnamed Sign Prophet under Festus (59-62 CE). This just shows those suspecting the Testimonium Flavianum (testimony on Jesus, Ant. 18.63-64) as too short is a false assumption. Scholars such as Hopper stating that after removing the Christian interpolations such as those stated by Meier would make it untenable to stand alone.[1] Yet this is a total lack of understanding on how Josephus reported these unimportant figures. Josephus only reported these figures because they added to Josephan narrative that the Great Revolt was not caused by the Jews but by a few fanatics such as self styled prophets and groups such as the Zealots and Sicarii, and are in no way representative of the Jewish people. Josephus introduces this Sign Prophet under Festus after discussing the Sicarii, (named after the sicae sword) who mingled in festival crowds to cause terror (Ant. 20.185-187). These Sicarii would have heightened tensions and even if this particular Sign Prophet was merely a religious teacher that was of no threat, in these heightened times, gathering a crowd was always dangerous. This danger goes back to the times of John the Baptist.[2] As John the Baptist was the first in a series of Sign Prophets, the most straightforward explanation of the similarities between the Sogn Prophets, Jesus, and John the Baptist is that the subsequent figures were all influenced by John the Baptist.[3] Yet Josephus makes a distinction about the Sign Prophets under Felix and the Sicarii, hinting at their religious fervor, Josephus states that they were “not so impure in their actions” (War 2.258).[4]

Here is the passage on the Sign Prophet under Festus:

So Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also.

Josephus, Ant. 20.188

Josephus calls this Sign Prophet an “impostor” and a “deceiver”, he is said to have promised “salvation” and to have led his followers out into the “wilderness.” On the basis of these similarities, this figure may also be classified as a sign prophet.[5] These sign prophets were distinctive in that they all “led their followers into (anticipated) participation in some great liberating action by God ”.[6] The sign prophet under Festus “promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under” (Ant. 20.188). Many of the Sign Prophets Josephus refers as γόητες –  goētes (‘sorcerers’) and this Sign Prophet is no exception referring him as τινος ἀνθρώπου γόητος – tinos anthrōpon goētos (‘a certain man sorcerer’) (Ant. 20.188). In leading his followers ‘into the wilderness’ would have been inspired by scriptures. In the words of Richard Horsley:

However, the basic pattern can be discerned which seems to underlie and inform all of these prophetic movements. Each of them appears to be a repetition of a great divine act of liberation from the past (Biblical) history of the people. But they are not mere repetitions. The pattern appears to be one of a historical-eschatological typology. We are entirely familiar with this basic pattern as one of interpretation and expectation in Biblical, especially prophetic literature. Thus the return from Babylonian exile was interpreted by the Second Isaiah in imagery borrowed from the Exodus as a new redemption, a new way through the wilderness and a new conquest. The basic pattern is vividly clear in the highly compact and mythologized poem of Isaiah 51.9-11. The new (eschatological) exodus-conquest is anticipated according to the model of the original (historical) exodus. As a pattern of interpretation and expectation, this historical-eschatological typology is also familiar to us from New Testament passages such as the ’sign of Jonah’ and ’the Queen of the Sauth’, Luke 11.29-32, and 1 Corinthians 10.1-13. In the prophetic movements of the first century, however, groups of people were acting out this pattern. Focusing on a new/eschatological act of God conceived after the pattern of great historical acts of deliverance, these prophets and their followers themselves took action in anticipation of the divine action.[7]

The Sign Prophets “follow the example of Moses by calling for an exodus into the wilderness and promising signs and wonders and also deliverance.”[8] As Barnett goes on to say:

‘the wilderness’ is the special locale to which this goēs led his followers. Although there is no reference to ‘signs’ there can be no doubt that these were promised. Specifically the prophet ‘promised’  ‘salvation’ and ‘rest from troubles.’ Both these concepts are employed by Josephus in his account of God’s great act of redemption in the Exodus. We read that ‘Aaron with his company . .. chanted hymns to God as the author and dispenser of their salvation and their liberty’ – Thus and are virtually synonymous both are promised, apparently interchangeably, by the Sign Prophets. ‘Trouble’ was the opposite of ‘salvation’  Thus God would ‘deliver’ his people and bring disaster on the Egyptians. It is concluded that is to be equated with and. Josephus does not reveal what the Sign Prophet meant to convey by the promise of ‘salvation’ (= ‘rest from troubles’). It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the people were promised a re-run of the Exodus-Conquest event.[9]

The eschatological nature of these movements as noted by Horsley and the Moses Exodus traits as noted by Barnett, all add to what Johnson classes as millenarian:

Moreover, since they appear to be oriented towards final, imminent, and total solutions to the problem of foreign occupation and domination, these movements can fruitfully be characterized as millenarian. Each of these prophets promised what their indigenous audience most ardently hoped for in the form of deliverance from Rome and native flourishing, what one prophet advertised as ‘salvation and rest from troubles’ (Jewish Antiquities 20.188). This ‘deliverance from the miseries that envelop[ed]’ was often to be proven with a sign, an unmistakable indication that God was with a movement (Jewish Antiquities 20.188).[10]

So to sum up this is what we are talking about- eschatological prophets re-enacting epic episodes from the Bible such as the Exodus etc, but this time in an eschatological way starting a new age with Gods help (i. e. Kingdom of Yahweh), promising a reversal of fortunes for the oppressed peasants. That’s what apocalypticism was all about. And the peasants actually believed it, that it would really happen.

BACK TO INTRODUCTION

---

[1] Paul Hopper, “A Narrative Anomaly, Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63.” in Monika Fludernik and Daniel Jacob (eds), Linguitics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), pp. 147-169 (149); John P. Meier. Rethinking the Historical Jesus: A Marginal Jew. Volume 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person (5 vols.; Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), pp.60-61.

[2] Amy-Jill Levine, Introduction in Amy-Jill Levineet al (eds), The Historical Jesus in Context, Princeton University Press 2006, p.19.

[3] James McGrath, Christmaker: A life of the Baptist, (Eerdmanns 2024).

[4] David Allen, “How Josephus Really Viewed Jesus”, RevBíb 85/3-4, p.342.

[5] Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine, The Evidence from Josephus, Oxford 1993, p.123.

[6] Richard Horsley, Popular Prophetic Movements at the Time of Jesus, their Principle Features and Social Origins”, JSNT 26 (1986), pp.3-27 (8).

[7] Horsley, Popular Prophetic Movements, p.9.

[8] P. W. Barnett, “The Jewish Sign Prophets -A.D. 40–70 Their Intentions and Origin”, NTS 27/5 (1981), pp. 679-697 (680).

[9] Barnett, “The Jewish Sign Prophets, p.685.

[10] Nathan C. Johnson, (2021) “Early Jewish Sign Prophets” in James Crossley and Alastair Lockhart (eds.), CDAMM retrieved from here: https://www.cdamm.org/assets/articlePDFs/31519-early-jewish-sign-prophets.pdf

 

Part 5 The ‘Egyptian’

 

Many of the Sign Prophets Josephus refers as γόητες –  goētes (‘sorcerers’).  Theudas is referred to as a γόης τις – goēs tis (“certain magician”)] (Ant. 20.97), the Sign Prophets under Felix  are described as γόητες καὶ ἀπατεῶνες – goētes kai apateōnes  (‘deceivers and imposters’) (Ant. 20.167) and the Egyptian was referred to as γόης καὶ προφήτου – goēs Kai prophēton (sorcerer and prophet) (War 2.261). In an earlier form of the Testimonium Flavianum (the original TF) (Ant. 18.63-64) Jesus may have been described as a γόης –  goēs prompting Porphyry to describe Jesus as a wizard. In Proof (Dem. Ev.) Eusebius tries to defend against Porphyry’s attacks about Jesus being a wizard. David Allen has shown anti-Christian polemicists making use of an original TF.[1] This would have prompted Eusebius to change such a phrase containing γόης –  goēs (‘sorcerer’) to παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής – paradoksōn ergōn poiētēs. (‘doer of astonishing works’). From Ken Olsens scholarship there is evidence of Eusebius interpolating the phrase ‘doer of astonishing works.’[2] Josephus calls the Egyptian a τυραννεῖν – tyrannein (‘tyrant’ to be sole ruler)(War 2.262) indicating that the ‘Egyptian’ may have called himself “king Messiah.” The Egyptian much like the other Sign Prophets made an incredulous claim that “at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down” (Ant. 20.170). This is similar to Theudas’ incredible claim where by “his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it” (Ant.20.97). You could put Jesus’ prophecy of Temple Destruction and Restoration “not made by hands” (Mark 14:58) as among these incredible claims. Betz saw the ‘Egyptian’s claim as a ‘sign of freedom.’ “The analogy with the fall of the walls of Jericho and the city’s conquest through Joshua, the follower of Moses (Josh. 6), was intended to demonstrate to the Jews that God was with this man and that the hour of deliverance from the yoke of the Romans had come.”[3] In the words of Dale Allison:

this unnamed leader hoped to emulate the achievements of the great Joshua, who, in conquering the Holy Land, saw the walls of a city come tumbling down (Josh 6). But the Egyptian clearly saw himself as more than a new Joshua. For the latter was himself a second Moses, and the unnamed prophet, as we meet him in Josephus, is full of Mosaic traits. His title is “the Egyptian” … He reckons himself a “prophet” (cf. Deut 18:15, 18; 34:10). He leads a crowd into “the desert” … And he conducts the people by a circuitous route (Exod 13:18; and esp. LXX Amos 2:10: … “I led you around in the desert”). Josephus says that he sought to be a “tyrant” (τυραννεῖν), and kingship is another Mosaic trait.[4]

“The great sign promised (and actually believed by his followers) was God would help with insurmountable odds, like penetrating the walls of Jerusalem. The world power of the Romans had a protracted siege in order to penetrate these, the Egyptian simply promised “at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down” (Ant. 20.170). “The walls of Jerusalem would have been all but impenetrable, as shown in the protracted, months-long Roman siege of the city a little over a decade later.”[5] “From this you can see the scriptural fantasy of re-enactment, that people actually thought this could be replicated. …  the crowd did not just think what the Sign Prophet promised was possible – they actually thought it would happen.”[6]

As seen in the last part from the Sign Prophets under Felix, Josephus tended to militerize his tellings in the War for apologetic reasons to blame the Great Revolt on a few zealous fanatics. Here in the two passages on the Egyptian the same exaggeration has happened cranking up the followers of the Egyptian. In the War it says the Egyptian was preparing a military assault on Jerusalem with Josephan exaggeration of thirty thousand followers (War 2.261), in Antiquities this has been reduced down to a more realistic six hundred (Ant. 20.171) taken from “the masses of the common people” (Ant. 20.169). As a side note in Acts the Barracks commander confuses Paul with the Egyptian, thinks he led four thousand and that they were Sicarri! If the ‘Egyptian’ movement had anything to do with the Sicarii, Josephus would have connected both of them. So Acts gets this wrong but as Martin Hengel said, “His followers are called Sicarii in Acts 21.38. This can be explained by the fact that all armed insurgents could be described, as far as the Romans serving under Felix were concerned, as sicarii or murderers.”[7] Let us now reproduce both passages:

But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him. But Felix prevented his attempt, and met him with his Roman soldiers, while all the people assisted him in his attack upon them, insomuch that when it came to a battle, the Egyptian ran away, with a few others, while the greatest part of those that were with him were either destroyed or taken alive; but the rest of the multitude were dispersed every one to their own homes, and there concealed themselves.

War 2.261-263

---

Moreover, there came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more. And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages, and plundered them.

Ant. 20.169-172

In comparing both passages Rebecca Gray notes:

We shall see that Josephus generally tends to “militarize” the sign prophets in the War—that is, to assimilate them to, or associate them with, the armed rebels. This is probably part of his more general tendency, in that work, to shift most of the blame for the revolt onto a few individuals or parties on both sides. Among the Jews, those held to be responsible are the armed revolutionaries, who are portrayed as mad and bloodthirsty fanatics, in no way representative of official Judaism or of the Jewish people as a whole. On the Roman side, it is emphasized that it was largely the actions of a few corrupt and unrepresentative procurators (notably Albinus and Floras) that led to war. Apart from these extremists on both sides, Josephus suggests, the revolt could have been avoided.[8]

Lena Einhorne tried to identify Jesus with the ‘Egyptian’ as the ‘Egyptian’ had gathered on the Mount of Olives and Jesus was arrested there.[9] The reason Jesus sounded like the ‘Egyptian’ in some instances is that Jesus also was a Sign Prophet. He doesn’t just sound like the ‘Egyptian’, he sounds like all of the Sign Prophets. Therefore I will have to pour cold water on Einhornes hypothesis, as it should be noted that Mount of Olives was regarded as the place where God would stand on the Day of Judgment, fighting the battle against Israel’s enemies: “On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives …”  (Zechariah 14:4). This passage  talks about a messiah that would come to the Mount of Olives and enter Jerusalem, so this is a common messianic trope. The Sign Prophets generally tried to re-enact the scriptures so it is no surprise that both the ‘Egyptian’ or Jesus would initiate their respective actions there. What action did these Sign Prophets hope to achieve?- I suspect the action these various Sign Prophets made was to “force the end”. The Mount of Olives symbolized the location from which Jerusalem would be liberated in the apocalyptic prophecy of Zechariah 14. Thus, what ‘an earlier prophet [Zechariah] had imagined’ … Zechariah’s prophecy envisions a similarly final scenario: after Jerusalem was taken in battle by a foreign nation, the Lord and an angelic army would fight to take back the city, launching an offensive from the Mount of Olives. Then, ‘never again shall it be doomed to destruction; Jerusalem shall abide in security’ (Zechariah 14:11). The foreign nations could only return to worship the king and bring him tribute (v. 16); otherwise, if they so much as hinted at war, their flesh would rot off.”[10] Collins believes the Egyptian expected the walls of Jerusalem to fall down, then his expectations can hardly be reduced to the hope that he himself would rule instead of the Romans. The miracle was surely supposed to be the prelude to a definitive transformation’.[11]

 BACK TO INTRODUCTION

 

---

[1] Dave Allen, “The Use of the Testimonium Flavianum by Anti-Christian Polemicists”, R M Price, ed., Journal of Higher Criticism 16/1 (Spring 2021), 42-105.

[2] Ken Olson, ‘A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum’, in Aaron Johnson and Jeremy Schott (eds.), Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations, Hellenic Studies Series 60; (Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2013), pp. 97-114, (103).

[3] Otto Betz, “Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus”, ch.9 in Feldman and Hata (eds) Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), p.229

[4] Dale Allison, Constructing Jesus, Memory, Imagination, and History, Grand Rapids 2010, p.260-261 and fn.155

[5] Nathan C. Johnson, (2021) Early Jewish Sign Prophets In James Crossley and Alastair Lockhart (eds.), CDAMM retrieved from here: https://www.cdamm.org/assets/articlePDFs/31519-early-jewish-sign-prophets.pdf

[6] David Allen, “How Josephus Really Viewed Jesus”, RevBíb 85/3-4 (2023), p.343, 353.

[7] Martin Hengel, The Zealots, Investigation into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I to 70 AD (translation by David Smith), Edinburgh 1989, p.232.

[8] Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine, The Evidence from Josephus, (Oxford, 1993), p.117.

[9] Lena Einhorne, A Shift in Time, How Historical Documents Reveal the Surprising Truth about Jesus, (Yucca, 2016)

[10] Johnson, (2021) Early Jewish Sign Prophets

[11] Collins, John J. 2010. The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, pp.217-18.

 

 

Part 4 Sign Prophets Under Felix

Just before the mention of the ‘Egyptian’ Sign Prophet in both of Josephus’ books War and Antiquities, Josephus mentions a group of Sign Prophets, whose description illuminates and provides a matrix for what type of movement Jesus led. “The notice is placed immediately before the report on the Egyptian prophet and immediately after a description of the chaos created in Jerusalem by the first round of assassinations by the Sicarii.”[1] Josephus makes an important distinction between the Sign Prophets and the Sicarii, he said they were “not so impure in their actions” (War 2.258). This suggests a religious fervour of these groups. These Sign Prophets were distinctive in that they all “led their followers into (anticipated) participation in some great liberating action by God.”[2] Josephus calls these Sign Prophets ‘impostors and deceivers’, yet they had probably claimed to be prophets. (sec War 6,288). They led their followers into the wilderness to show them ‘Signs of Freedom’ (War 2.259) or ‘unmistakable wonders and signs’ (Ant. 20.168) as if expecting an intervention by God ‘Divine inspiration’ (War 2.259) or ‘providence of God’ (Ant. 20.168) The Roman governor Felix suspected a revolt so he put them down quickly, killing many. “The expression ‘signs of freedom’ (War 2.259) was new. The word “freedom” did not yet occur in the Hebrew Old Testament; it was created by the revolutionary movement in early Judaism. Josephus himself may have coined the expression “signs of freedom” in order to explain the character of these miracles to his Gentile readers. The enthusiasts themselves most probably used the language of the Bible in Aramaic and announced “signs of salvation” as did the false prophet in Jerusalem (War 6.285). But “signs of freedom” and “signs of salvation” express quite well the historical and political purposes”[3] Otto Betz goes on to explain:

The Jewish prophets believed that Israel had suffered enough and that the slavery under Roman rule would soon come to an end, at the time appointed by God. They must have linked the biblical tradition of Moses and its signs and wonders with that of Daniel, to whom the timetable of the eschatological events had been disclosed in a vision (Dan. 9:20-27). The prophets’ claims of being inspired by God (War 2.259) certainly included the conviction that they knew the mysteries of God, especially the future events and the time of their coming.[4]

In the War passage Josephus uses words such as ‘change’ and ‘innovation’ suggesting political change from Roman rule, that that was the freedom promised and would be brought about by God. “In the report about John the Baptist, for example, change has political overtones.”[5]

This certainly sounds like Jesus, where these Sign Prophets probably had a vision to re-enacted a great scriptural event, God would intervene and the new age would be initiated by these self proclaimed prophets. (Jesus would have also acted on a vision influenced by scriptures, it’s probably what drove Jesus to do what he did gathering a crowd in Jerusalem resulting in his execution). “The Jesus of the synoptic Gospels too may have allowed a sense of his own divine vocation to take him to Jerusalem. it was necessary for the son of Man to suffer (Mark 8:31). The Johannine Jesus claims not to have spoken on his own authority, for “the father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I speak, therefore I speak just as the father has told me” (John 12:49–50).”[6] When Solomon Zeitlin read this passage it led him to note: “Apocalyptists who are the forerunners of the Christian movement.”[7] Yes Jesus being one in a series of Sign Prophets makes all these movements sound like a proto-Christian one as Zeitlin described.

Let us now reproduce the passages as found in both War and Antiquities:

There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, which laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty. But Felix thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt; so he sent some horsemen and footmen both armed, who destroyed a great number of them. (War 2.258-60)

---

These works, that were done by the robbers, filled the city with all sorts of impiety. And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God. And many that were prevailed on by them suffered the punishments of their folly; for Felix brought them back, and then punished them. (Ant. 20.167-168)

---

Rebecca Gray noticed on comparison of the passage in War and that of Antiquities that

 “there is no mention thereof or no suggestion that the group were armed, and no report of the use of heavily armed troops against them. I suspect that Josephus has militarized these figures in the War for apologetic reasons of the sort described in the preceding section, and that the account in the Antiquities presents a more reliable picture of them on the whole. It should be noted that, even in the War, Josephus introduces these figures with the remark that they had “purer hands” than the Sicarii (2.258), a description which suggests that they were unarmed and nonviolent, thereby contradicting the general impression created by the rest of the account. One other feature of Josephus’ report deserves comment. In War 2.259 he states that these unnamed figures acted “under the pretense of divine inspiration” It is Josephus’ own opinion, of course, that the claim to divine inspiration made by these individuals was only a “pretense.” We may assume that they genuinely believed themselves to be inspired, and that those who followed them accepted the claims they made. In the same passage (War 2.259), Josephus writes that these prophets “persuaded the multitude to act as if possessed” or “mad.” The reference to the divine inspiration claimed by these figures and the use of the word to describe the behavior of their followers are sometimes taken to indicate that the group was characterized by some sort cf ecstatic behavior. [in the hope of] God’s deliverance. The word ‘folly’ is used in a similar way in connection with these same figures in Antiquities 20.168 and in the account concerning Theudas (Ant. 20.98).[8]

In studying this series of mine you will actually come to realize “Jesus being a millenarian prophet started to be disassociated away from him. Jesus like other Sign Prophets expected a cataclysmic event to unfold. He was a product of his time, an apocalyptic prophet of second Temple Judaism. To realize people actually thought the Sign Prophet could pull it off, be it Jesus, the Egyptian of Theudas – the crowd did not just think what the sign prophet promised was possible – they actually thought it would happen. This is the reason they could pull a crowd and hope to achieve an impossible task.[9] As Richard Horsley stated:

We are not searching for Jesus the individual in himself, but for Jesus-in-relationship, Jesus-in- interactive-role(s). A focally important aspect of a relational and contextual approach to Jesus is attempting to discern what interactive roles he was playing or in which he was being placed by his followers/movement(s). … [we can] detect a few roles that were very much alive in popular circles. Josephus’s accounts of the prophets Theudas and “the Egyptian” are evidence of prophets like Moses and/or Joshua who led movements of renewal of Israel at the popular level. The credibility of this role is enhanced by parallel evidence from the scribal level, in the “prophet like Moses” in Deuteronomy and the Moses-like portrayals of the Righteous Teacher in Qumran literature. … That Mark, Q speeches, Matthew and John all represent Jesus so prominently as resembling or imitating Moses and Elijah in both his actions and his speeches makes it all the more inviting to reason back toward Jesus’ adaptation of such roles.[10]

 

---

[1] Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine, The Evidence from Josephus, Oxford 1993, p.118.

[2] Richard Horsley, “Popular Prophetic Movements at the Time of Jesus, their Principle Features and Social Origins”, JSNT 26 (1986), pp.3-27, (8)

[3] Otto Betz, “Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus, ch.9 in Feldman and Hata (eds) Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), p.227

[4] Betz, Miracles, p.227-8.

[5] Gray, Prophetic Figures, p.119.

[6] Christopher Rowland, “Apocalypticism and Radicalism” in John J. Collins (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, Oxford (2014), p.408

[7] Solomon Zeitlin, “The Christ Passage in Josephus”,  Jewish Quarterly Review XVIII (1928),  p.236.

[8] Gray, Prophetic Figures, p.119-120.

[9] David Allen, “How Josephus Really Viewed Jesus”, RevBíb 85/3-4, (2023), p.353

[10] Richard Horsley, “Jesus-in-Context, A Relational Approach” in Holmén and Porter (editors), Handbook for the study of the Historical Jesus, (2011), p.227-228.

 

Part 3 Theudas

 

Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. (Acts 5:36)

– Gamaliel speaking at the trial in the Sanhedrin according to Acts.

“Theudas was “someone,” a man chosen by God. Speaking Aramaic, Theudas may have used the term bar nash, the “Son of Man,” or “someone.” This self-designation was vague to the outsider, but significant for those who lived and thought according to the promises of the Bible.”[1] The author of Acts depicts this title like he did for others negatively. He did not like a rival Sign Prophet for others to follow. M. David Litwa in his study of Simon of Samaria noted, “Simon is said to call himself “somebody great” (Acts 8:9). [similar to Great Power title Simonians gave Simon]…  It was, instead, a way for the author of Acts to depict him as a boaster [and to raise suspicion]. In Acts, claiming “to be somebody (great)” is negative. It was the vaunt of Theudas, the revolutionary of Acts 5:36, a man said to be a false prophet who “came to nothing.” … when “Herod” did not reject deifying praise, he was immediately “eaten by worms and died” (Acts 12:22-23).[2] While we can infer Acts saw “son of man” as a possible self designation for Theudas, Josephus saw Prophet, as Theudas’ self-designation. As David Aune noted Theudas claimed to be a prophet, and in view of the rarity of that label during the late Second Temple period, he must have regarded himself as an eschatological prophet” (emphasis in original).[3]

According to Otto Betz, “[Theudas] persuaded a large crowd of people to follow him to the Jordan River, promising them that the river would be divided and provide an easy passage to them (Ant. 20.97). In the terminology of Josephus, this miracle must have been understood as a “sign of freedom” (War 2.267), indicating and perhaps introducing the saving intervention of God. It would be a significant sign because Moses himself had parted the sea and provided a passage for Israel (Ex. 14). Moreover, his successor, Joshua, had led the Jews through the Jordan River in a miraculous way (Josh. 3:17ff.), and Elijah had parted this river, too (II Kings 2:8). In the light of Deuteronomy 18:15-22, the miracle of parting the water and bringing Israel safely to the other shore must have been quite convincing and effective in accrediting a man who was believed to be a prophet like Moses. … For parting the Jordan River and leading the people to the other side was in itself an act of liberation, a sign heralding the freedom of God and assuring Israel of His glorious presence. However, the activities of Theudas were crushed by Roman troops. Many of his followers lost their lives; Theudas was caught and his head cut off (Ant. 20.98).[4]

In context the “episode about the House of Abiabene appears in the narrative after the Emperor Claudius decides in favor of the Jews against the procurator Fadus, permitting them to keep in their custody the vestments of the high priests and granting authority over the Temple to Herod of Chalcis (Ant. 20.6-16). Immediately after the account of the House of Adiabene, Josephus returns to the affairs of Fadus and recounts the story of Theudas (Ant. 20.97).”[5] Let us now reproduce the passage:

During the period when Fadus was procurator of Judaea, a certain impostor named Theudas persuaded the majority of the masses to take up their possessions and to follow him to the Jordan River. He stated that he was a prophet and that at his command the river would be parted and would provide them an easy passage. And many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt: but sent a troop of horsemen out against them. Who falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befel the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus’s government.

Josephus, Ant. 20.97-99

Theudas was an active Sign Prophet in the 40’s killed under Fadas (42-44CE). The author of Acts mined Josephus for some background events to add to his story, but his aim was not recording history accurately, rather to relate to the Jesus movement on trial and how it fitted in historically. Steve Mason noted “Luke-Acts most likely knew the writings of Josephus and gives many parallels showing Luke’s likelihood of drawing off of Josephus. Luke bringing up Judas the Galilean, Theudas and the ‘Egyptian’ is the strongest connection.… We know of no other work that even remotely approximated Josephus’s presentation on such a wide range of issues. I find it easier to believe that Luke knew something of Josephus’s work than that he independently arrived at these points of agreement.”[6] For this etiological myth of Christian origins background historical backdrops found in Josephus were added:

Judas the Galililean is mentioned in Acts 5:37 as being active after Theudas but as we know from Josephus Judas was active several decades before (Josephus, War 2.56,118,433, Ant. 18.1-10,23). As noted by Morton Smith Acts 5:33-39 gets its history wrong putting Theudas before Judas and also takes liberties with history giving Paul the great Pharisaic teacher Gamaliel, yet this pales in comparison to realizing even this “compared the Jesus movement to that of Judas and Theudas, whereas their movements broke up, it was unlikely the Jesus movements would not as God was on their side. Luke uses Josephus for his source for the background of his story. He gets his chronology wrong, following his “misreading” of Josephus which proves the Acts 5 narrative is constructed. What is really significant about this passage is not that Luke got his fake history wrong (again putting Theudas before Judas and making up a story about Gamaliel) but that even Christians themselves expected Jesus to be seen as the same social type as Judas and Theudas. (Emphasis is Morton Smiths).[7]

 

Crossley and Mikes in their book used a millennialist framework for Jesus, this framework could easily apply to all the other Sign Prophets as well. A promise of a radical transformation of the plight of the poor peasants inauguring a thousand-year kingdom of God. They take Theudas as an example:

Theudas who, in the 40s CE, led a popular movement to the River Jordan where he announced he would part the river thereby allowing people to pass over (Josephus, Antiquities 20.97-99). Why this story might be categorized as “millenarian” is because it envisaged radical transformation through a dramatic action by tapping into well-known themes from Jewish ancestral traditions about Moses (the most important and archetypal organizer of the Israelites) and his exodus from Egypt which involved guiding the enslaved Israelites across a divinely parted Red Sea to their freedom. These traditions were reapplied to the future of Jews living now under the shadow of Roman rule.[8]

We don’t know if Theudas followers were armed or not (Ant. 20.97-99), Hengal has suggested on account of the biblical allusions that they were.[9] The crossing of the Jordan could have been modeled on either/or both Moses (Exod. 12:29-14:30) and Joshua (Josh. 3-4). Joshua had crossed and proceeded to military conquest, in Josephus earlier account of Moses, Moses had crossed and was armed by God. As Isaac W. Oliver said: “Later during the governorship of Cuspius Fadus (44–46 CE), Theudas caused a similar commotion [to Judas the Galilean], as he promised to split the Jordan River and lead his followers into freedom.”[10] This movement was cut down by Fadus who displayed Theudas severed head in Jerusalem. A deterrent like crucifixion against leading a revolt.

Jesus’ original sign would have been in the same vein as Theudas or the Egyptian, whatever action Jesus promised, his sign (i.e. a re-enactment of some scriptural divine intervention that Jesus would have got himself from a vision) would have been to start the new age.

The ‘Samaritan’ promised to show the crowds “sacred vessels which were buried [at Mt. Gerizim], where Moses had deposited them” (Ant. 18.85–87). The ‘Egyptian’ claims to make the “walls come tumbling down” at Jerusalem (Ant. 20.170) and Theudas to divide the Jordan river (Ant. 20.97–99). Jesus’ claim of Temple Destruction and Restoration not by human hands is in the realm of Sign Prophet territory. This claim as the evangelists plausibly report that Jesus said, may have been a pesher (commentary finding meanings in the scriptures for today’s events), on the first Temple destruction in Dn. 9:26 or Jer. 7 and restoration 1 En. 91:12–13. When the Temple got destroyed, this was a memorable prophecy, preserved in  the gospel of Mark with a qualifier that it was a false report. As E. P. Sanders says, the gospels are uncomfortable with a failed (and crazed) prophecy of Temple destruction and Restoration (Mk. 13:1-31)[11]

As Hill noted, “Since their claim of prophecy could be made only within the context of events heralding the messianic times (when the prophetic spirit was expected to be active again), we may justifiably suggest that these two individuals, at least, [Theudas and the Egyptian], believed themselves to be involved in the imminent messianic release of the nation.”[12]

As noted by David Fiensy leaders of mass peasant movements rarely came from those that were on the bottom rung of social class but were artisans or someway educated. [13] As was common with many of the Sign Prophets and Jesus, an education in scriptures was likely. Mark also saw Jesus as an artisan (Mark 6:3). Chris Keith had the following to say:

In the same way that preachers and teachers today who do not know the biblical languages nevertheless function as text-brokers, popular prophets in Jesus’s time also appealed to Scripture and its precedents as their source of authority. In short, not every member of a scribal-literate Jewish group was necessarily scribal-literate, and not every text-broker was a member of a scribal-literate group. …  As one example, a certain Theudas persuaded many to follow him to the Jordan River, where he would, in the style of Moses (Exod. 14:21–22), Joshua (Josh. 3:7–4:1), and Elijah and Elisha (2 Kings 2:8, 13–14), miraculously part the waters (Josephus, Ant. 20.97–99; Acts 5:36). No source describes Theudas as either a scribal-literate or scribal-illiterate person, but the point is that he would not need to be able to read the Jewish holy text in order to appeal to it and appropriate it. Under some circumstances, uneducated text-brokers may have had more popular appeal among uneducated audiences. [14]

The Sign Prophets including Theudas would have belonged to the scribal literate group, not necessarily able to read scriptures but able to recount them orally and appropriate them in their re-enactments all trying to “force the end”.

What I find so fascinating about Theudas is that right there in Josephus book Antiquities, we find a passage on Jesus’ comparative figure, namely the Sign Prophet Theudas- and the beauty about this is that this particular passage (Ant. 20.97-99) was not tampered with (unlike a similar passage on Jesus (Ant. 18.63-64) which suffered from multiple tampering), right here in Josephus book we find what Josephus really thought of Theudas, we get an idea of what Theudas thought of himself, and finally we see a group of people just like “proto-Christians” who followed Theudas and expected God to intervene. This case study is essential if you want to unlock Jesus history. And Theudas was not the only one!

 

---

[1] Otto Betz, “Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus”, ch.9 in Feldman and Hata (eds) Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), p.229.

[2] M. David Litwa, Simon of Samaria and the Simonians, Contours of an Early Christian Movement, (T & T Clark, 2024), p.44

[3] David Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity, pp. 127-28

[4] Betz, Miracles, p.228.

[5] Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Conversion of the Royal House of Abiabene in Josephus and Rabbinic Sources” ch.13 in Feldman and Hata (eds) Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), p.294

[6] Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, ch6.

[7] Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician, (Barnes &Noble, 1978), p.20.

[8] Crossley and Myles, Jesus: A Life in Class Conflict, pp.4-5 (5).

[9] Martin Hengel, Zealots, 230, n. 5.

[10] OLIVER, “Are Luke and Acts Anti-Marcionite?” in Oliver et al (eds.), Wisdom poured out like water: studies on Jewish and Christian antiquity in honor of Gabriele Boccaccini series: Deuterocanonical and cognate literature studies 38, Boston 2018, pp.499-525, (508).

[11] E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 61-76.

[12] David Hill, “Jesus and Josephus’ ‘Messianic Prophets.’” in Text and Interpretation Edited by E. Best, Cambridge: University Press, 1979, pp.143-54, (148).

[13] David Fiensy, Leaders of Mass Movements and the Leader of the Jesus Movement, JSNT 74, pp.3-27 .

[14] Chris Keith, Jesus against the Scribal Elite, The Origins of Conflict, (T & T Clark, 2020), p.29 and fn.49. 

BACK TO INTRODUCTION

---

Introduction: The Inspiration of the Scriptures

I am doing a series of blogs on Jesus’ comparative figures- namely the Sign Prophets that Josephus wrote about throughout his works. At the end of this blog is a series of links discussing each of the Sign Prophets.

Here is my introduction into the topic.

The prophecy of Jesus ben Ananias was inspired by Jeremiah:

The visions of these prophets were deeply steeped in the Hebrew Bible Jesus ben Ananias “prophecy of doom alludes to the prophet Jeremiah’s words about how God ‘will bring to an end the sound of mirth and gladness, the voice of the bride and bridegroom in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem’ (Jer. 7.34). … both Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus, son of Ananias, had certainly heard the oracles of the ancient prophets read aloud and retold many times. When they themselves began to prophesy, they naturally used the imagery and phraseology of their holy tradition. … Jesus bears a closer resemblance to the popular prophet leaders about whom Josephus, thinly disguising his contempt.[1]

While both prophets here had the similarity of being influenced and inspired by the scriptures there is one crucial difference that puts Jesus the Galilean into the Sign Prophet category. Jesus was crucified for treason (lesa maiestas), all the Sign Prophets were suspected of revolt simply by gathering a crowd. Jesus ben Ananias was only scourged for being a mere troublemaker, not for being “king of the Jews.” Many of the sign prophets were inspired by the role model of the great military leader Joshua. In Joshua 5 they would have seen god’s intervention through an angelomorphic militaristic figure commanding the army of god fighting on Joshua’s side:[2]

When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man stood before him with his drawn sword in hand; and Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us, or for our adversaries?” And he said, “No; but as commander of the army of Yahweh I have now come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and worshipped, and said to him, “What Are does my adonai bid his servant?” And the commander of Yahweh’s army said to Joshua, “Put off your shoes from your feet; for the place where you stand is holy.” And Joshua did so. (Joshua 5:13-4)

From what this figure said he repeats what Yahweh said to Moses, inferring Joshua as the new Moses. These sign prophets being the new Joshua were also the new Moses. The actions of the ‘Samaritan’ emanates the actions of Joshua (Josh. 8:30-35) who congregated at Mt..Ebal at Gerizim. The ‘Egyptian’ claiming to make the “walls come tumbling down”  (Ant. 20.8.6) in Jerusalem which is a clear allusion to the battle of Jericho. (Joshua 6:20). Theudas’ claim to be able to divide the river is a clear allusion to Joshua 3.14-17, which has everything to do with the redemption of Israel. In one of the Tanakh images Hebrews uses, the author sees Jesus as the true Joshua who had led his people to the promised land (Hebrews 4:8-11).

As Joshua is spelt the same as Jesus in the Septuagint, Ιησούς, some modern scholars such as Richard Carrier have suggested that many have belonged to some type of Joshua cults.[3] They all saw Joshua’s success as an inspiration in their own fight with Rome. “If Jesus equals Joshua, then it follows that Jesus is “the prince of the military forces of the Lord,” as Origen said in his homily on Joshua. (Hom. in Jesu Nave 6)[4]

To understand the way Josephus describes the sign prophets, and ties his description of them to the Exodus- conquest imagery I will quote Barnett here to show how others viewed these sign prophets:

Josephus’ description of Theudas and other Sign Prophets as ‘charlatans’,

[γόης τις (“certain magician”)](Ant. 20.97), [γόητες καὶ ἀπατεῶνες (“imposters and deceivers”)] (Ant. 20.167) [ψευδοπροφήτης (“pseudo prophet”)](War 2.261), [γόητος (“charlatan”)] (Ant. 20.188) must be read against the background of the historian’s [Josephus’] own description of the Exodus and the γοητεία (“witchcraft”) and μαγεία (“magic”) of the Egyptian Court magicians.(Ant. 2.286 cf. 2.302, 332, 336). Likewise the self-designation of Theudas and the Egyptian as ‘prophet’ and the reference to the unnamed prophet of A.D. 70 as false prophet (ψευδοπροφήτης) must be understood in relationship with Josephus’ presentation of Moses and Joshua as the true prophet(s) of the Exodus.[5] 

This all suggests that the sign prophets modelled their actions on the great figures of Israel’s Exodus-Conquest, namely Moses and Joshua. The gospels too get in on the act of the Exodus-Conquest imagery with the sign of the multiplication of loaves (Mark 6:34-44; 8:1-9). After this sign emulating manna from heaven in John’s gospel the people exclaim, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.”(Jn.6.14)

Horsley sums up the driving force that can be applied to these sign prophets:

[they are] viewed as just and cannot be in conflict with justice or its divine source. In fact, the bandit himself [or in this case the sign prophets] may represent a divine justice that the peasants have rarely experienced, but for which they may continue to hold out hope in a manner not unrelated to biblical fantasies.[6]

To the modern mindset the crowds gathered by the sign prophet would see the sign emanating from a biblical fantasy but to the people of the first century they would have thought of these as biblical realities. The followers actually thought god would intervene, they actually thought the walls would come tumbling down, the waters would part or the sign Jesus saw in a vision- the Temple would get destroyed.

These sign prophets in desperate times looked into their scrolls for inspiration, for some, Joshua was the perfect role model in their battle with Rome, Paula Fredriksen sums this up with the following passage:

All of these promised miracles recalled biblical episodes from Israel’s foundational history. Theudas’s parting the waters of the Jordan echoed both Moses’s leading Israel across the Red Sea and Joshua’s leading the twelve tribes across the Jordan on into the promised land. Going into the desert to seek deliverance would recapitulate the liberation from Egypt and the giving of the Torah on Sinai. The miraculous crumbling of Jerusalem’s walls recalls the miraculous fall of Jericho, Joshua’s point of entry into the Land. Enacting key moments in the birth of the nation, these signs prophets signaled the eschatological nearness of final redemption. Their grounding in biblical miracle also accounts for the size of their popular followings. Scriptural authority undergirded not only their own message; it also supported the hopes and convictions of their followers.[7]

Christopher Rowland shows the relationship between the inspiration and motivation of these signs prophets and the fantasies of the scriptures:

Whatever the social and economic circumstances which led to the genesis of those traditions, the biblical material was itself a factor in the emergence of attitudes. Its presence as a catalyst was one which could, and did, lead to dangerous and subversive attitudes (e.g., War 7.254-255). Resentment would have been there, but it is hard to see that resentment being channelled into such revolutionary attitudes without the contribution made by the Scriptures themselves. The traditions about the glorious future which God had prepared for the people was itself, therefore, a cause of disaffection. Once the contrast between social and political realities stood in the sharpest possible contrast to the glorious future promised in the Scriptures and echoed in writings of the period, the situation probably led to disillusionment, a narrowing of religious vision or the conviction that change was needed. That hopes were entertained not merely as articles of faith but also as part of a programme of action is confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the War Scroll from Qumran (1 QM) we find there the belief that the might of God’s enemies would be overthrown in a battle in which the angelic legions would come to the aid of the sons of light. The fantastic detail of the preparations outlined in the War Scroll gives some indication of the frame of mind of some groups as they entertained hopes of participating in an armed struggle against the enemies of Israel (cf. War 5.459; 388).[8]

These sign prophets probably had a vision to re-enacted a great scriptural event, God would intervene and the new age would be initiated by these self proclaimed prophets. (Jesus would have also acted on a vision influenced by scriptures, it’s probably what drove Jesus to do what he did gathering a crowd in Jerusalem resulting in his execution). Josephus would describe these people as pseudo-prophets (as there was a 100% failure rate for all these prophets, Israel would not get restored with God ruling, the opposite would happen where the Temple – Gods house, got destroyed), but in reality they would have been eschatological prophets.

Links to my series

Part 1 John the Baptist

Part 2 The ‘Samaritan’

Part 3 Theudas

Part 4 Sign Prophets under Felix

Part 5 The ‘Egyptian’

Part 6 Sign Prophet under Festus

Part 7 Temple Prophet of 70CE

Part 8 Jonathan the Weaver.

Part 9 Jesus the Galilean

Here’s a bunch of blogs on the same topic:

One: Figures like Jesus.

Two: Jesus and the Sign Prophets.

 

 

---

[1] Wassan and Hägerland, Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet, p.99

[2] Charles A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, Antecedents and Early Evidence, (Brill, 1963), p.64-5.

[3] Richard Carrier, Richard, On the Historicity of Jesus, Why we have reason to doubt, (Sheffield, 2014), pp. 69-70.

[4] Adolf Harnack, Militia Christi, (English Translation) (Fortress Press: 1981), p.51.

[5] P. W. Barnett, The Jewish Sign Prophets -A.D. 40-70, Their Intentions and Origin, NTS 27, (1988), p. 681.

[6] Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs, p.70.

[7] Paula Fredriksen, When Christians Were Jews, The first generation, (Yale University Press, 2018), p.177f.

[8] Christopher Rowland, Christian Origins, An Account of the Setting and Character of the most Important Messianic Sect of Judaism, 2nd ed. (SPCK, 2002), p.17

 

Part 2 The ‘Samaritan’

As Horsley said, “For just at the time of Herod and Jesus, several significant movements emerged among the Judean and Galilean people that were headed by figures acclaimed by their followers as kings or by figures who promised to reenact the deliverance of Israel from foreign rule in Egypt.’ – Richard Horsley.[1]

Many scholars have noticed a lot of similarities between Jesus and his movement to other movements that existed at this time. This in turn has created many scholars who adhere to the Composite Theory (Jesus being a composite of a number of historical figures), the Temporal Historicist (Jesus existing in a different timeframe) or an Identity Historicist (those who  identify Jesus with another person from history). Examples of h to is us Lena Einhorne who identifies Jesus with tte ‘Egyptian’[2]or Daniel Unterbink who thinks Jesus was Judas the Galilean.[3] Robert Eisenman noted ““under Pontius Pilate and coinciding with our ‘Jesus’ episode in the Gospels – Josephus records another disturbance or uprising led by such a Messiah-like individual in Samaria. Looking suspiciously like the ‘Jesus’ episode in the Gospels, this Uprising was also brutally repressed by Pilate, including, it would appear, a number of crucifixions – only the locale was not the Mount of Olives but Mount Gerizim, the Samaritan Holy Place.”[4] Yet as I show in this series is the reason Jesus sounds like a lot of these Sign Prophets is that he was one of them.[5]

The Samaritans called their messiah the Ta’eb or restorer. Here is the passage Josephus has about him:

But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who made light of mendacity, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there. So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon the roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain. (Josephus Ant. 18.85-87).

You will notice the ‘Samaritan’ was  not named and was described as “A man who made light of mendacity”. In that passage his mob ‘appeared in arms’! (Ant. 18.85-87). “Some of these movements were armed, some were not, so whether the groups of people Jesus led before his execution (Ant. 18.63) were armed or not, his movement can be seen in light of sign prophet movements.”[6] Even in the face of danger the crowd still attempted to ascent the mountain – “belief that salvation was at hand outweighed the clear and present dangers of opposing forces”.[7] Belief was held of divine intervention by both the crowd and leaders. In the slaughter the Samaritan escaped but was hunted to be slain. This is reminiscent of a saying in Mt. 20:28. Under the Sign Prophet hypothesis, all the Sign Prophets risked their lives. While his followers did come armed (Ant. 18.86) Josephus tells us that it was only for self-defence as Pilate was known for his violence (Ant. 18.88).

The Samaritan sign prophet decided to show the crowd sacred vessels buried by Moses on the sacred site of Mount Gerizim, the site where the Hasmoneans had destroyed the Samaritan’s sacred Temple (Ant. 18.85-87). “ In the Samaritan Pentateuch Moses’ command to set up an altar on entering Canaan refers to Mount Gerizim (Deut. 27.4f). The Massoretic text’s reading of ‘Mount Ebal’ may in fact be an anti-Samaritan correction of the original preserved by the Samaritans. The Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim was destroyed by John Hyrcanusin 128 BC.” [8]The vessels were probably instruments used for Temple duties and would connect this Samaritan figure to Moses (Deut. 27:1-2). As a side note the gospel of Mark portrays “Jesus as refusing to allow “anyone to carry a vessel through the Temple,” alluding to Zech 14:20. Jesus not allowing anyone to carry “anything” through the Temple seems to refer to sacred vessels – skeuos (Mk 11:16).[9]

So what motivated the Samaritan to do what he did. Well to fulfill his role as the Te’heb or restorer Susan Miller shows what he wanted to restore:

They looked forward to the advent of a prophet like Moses, as described in Deut. 18:15–18. The Samaritans called this figure the Taheb, which means “the one who returns” or “the one who restores.” The Samaritan Pentateuch includes a reference to this prophet in the tenth commandment, with a citation of Deut. 18:15 following Exod 20:21. Evidence for the eschatological beliefs of the Samaritans may be seen in Josephus’s account of the man who led crowds of Samaritans up Mount Gerizim with a prophecy that he would discover the temple vessels hidden there by Moses (Ant. 18.85–89). This expedition was violently crushed by Pilate, whose soldiers killed many Samaritans. Samaritan beliefs associate the prophet with the task of restoring worship.[10]

“the conduct of this Samaritan reveals clearly that he must have attributed the prophetic passage (Deut. 18:15fT.) to himself and wanted to be the instrument of a liberating miracle of God. He commanded the people to follow him to Mount Gerizim, where he wanted to show them the sacred vessels deposited there by Moses and buried. Before they could go up to Mount Gerizim, the Roman prefect Pilate appeared with a detachment of cavalry and heavily armed infantry, which attacked the crowds, crushing the whole movement. In this case, the discovery of the buried vessels may have been the “sign of liberation,” assuring the people of God’s presence and help in a marvelous way.[11]

The “Sign Prophets appear to have modeled themselves on ancient prophetic figures.”[12] Moses was the perfect liberation model, that could achieve anything with gods intervention. This was actually believed by the followers. As Fredrikson noted:

simulated, key moments in the birth of the nation, these signs prophets signalled the eschatological nearness of final redemption. … Scriptural authority undergirded not only their own message; it also supported the hopes and convictions of their followers.[13]

To sum up of the events, I will take from R. J. Coogins essay on the Samaritans in Josephus:

In Antiquities XVIII, 85-89 there is an account of a disturbance within the Samaritan έθνος ethnos. (The Loeb translation here is “Samaritan nation,” but this seems too limiting and precise; “people” would probably convey the sense more satisfactorily.) Disaffection was aroused on what seem to be incontrovertibly religious grounds, that is, a claim that the hidden vessels of the temple (which had, of course, been destroyed more than a century earlier) were to be revealed at Mount Gerizim. This disturbance alarmed Pilate, who seems to have regarded it as being, potentially, at least, a political revolt, and put it down with loss of life. The Samaritans appealed to Vitellius, the governor of Syria, and this in itself seems to be a strong indica­tion that their aims were not anti-Roman. As a result Pilate was forced to return to Rome.[14]

Coogins goes on to reminisce about a later similar incident 15 years later under Cumanus that resulted the “Roman governor of Syria, who at this time was Quadratus, was called in. He restored order, punishing the ringleaders on both sides. [Jewish and Samaritan groups] (Ant. 20.118-136, War 2.233- 246). Cumanus, like Pilate before him, was ordered to return to Rome, and the province was restored to an uneasy peace.”[15]

 

---

[1] Richard Horsley, ‘Messiah, Magi, and Model Imperial King’, in Christmas Unwrapped Consumerism , Christ, and Culture, (ed. Richard Horsley and James Tracy; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001), pp. 139-61, quote at p.141.

[2] Lena Einhorne, A Shift in Time: How the Historical Documents reveal the surprising Truth about Jesus, (Yucca, 2016).

[3] Daniel Unterbink, The Three Messiahs: The Historical Judas the Galilean, The revelatory Christ Jesus,Tte Mythical Jesus of Nazareth, ( iUniverse, 2010).

[4] Robert Eisenman, James the brother of Jesus, The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls, (Watkins, 1997)ch15

[5] David Allen, “How Josephus Really Viewed Jesus”, RevBíb 85 3-4, (2023), pp.333-357.

[6] Allen, “How Josephus Really Viewed Jesus, p.353

[7]  N. C. Johnson., “Early Jewish Sign Prophets”, in J. Crossley and  A. Lockhart (eds.) Critical Dictionary of Apocalyptic and Millenarian Movements 8,  (2021). Retrieved from: https://www.cdamm.org/ articles

[8] James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, p.142, fn.9

[9] Simon Joseph, Jesus and the Temple: The Crucifixion in its Jewish Context, Society of the New Testament Monograhes series 165, (Cambridge, 2016), p.115.

[10] Susan Miller, “The Woman at the Well: John’s Portrayal of the Samaritan Mission” in Anderson, Just and Thatcher (eds) John, Jesus and History, Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel, II, SBL, p.76.

[11] Otto Betz, “Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus”, ch.9 in Feldman and Hata (eds) Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), p.230.

[12] Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine, The Evidence from Josephus, (Oxford, 1993), p.137

[13] Paula Fredrikson,  When Christians Were Jews: The Firdt Generation, (Yale,2018),  p.177f.

[14] R. J. Coggins, “The Samaritans in Josephus”, ch.11 in Feldman and Hata (eds) Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), p.267-268.

[15] Coggins, The Samaritans, p.269.

BACK TO INTRODUCTION.

 

 

 

Part 1 John the Baptist.

From the introduction of a dissertation by M Rotman will provide a quick background on the scholarship of John the Baptist.[1] Rotman discuss’ Joachim Jeremias thesis which shows similarities with other prophetic figures such as Theudas, the Egyptian, Jonathan the Weaver where John chose the wilderness for his ministry. He claims that this is the place where the Messiah was supposed to be revealed.[2] Instead of seeing the messiah being revealed there, there is evidence of John the Baptist being a Messiah/Christ figure himself. In Christian literature it is even admitted that John was seen as a Christ figure.

For when John remained by the Jordan, and preached the baptism of repentance, wearing only a leathern girdle and a vesture made of camels’ hair, eating nothing but locusts and wild honey, men supposed him to be Christ; but he cried to them, ‘I am not the Christ but the voice of one crying; for He that is stronger than I shall come, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear.’

Justin Martyr Dialogue, 88.3

Later in the Pseudo-Clementines could preserve a tradition that John was seen as the messiah by his own movement.

He (John) is the Christ and not Jesus…just as Jesus spoke concerning him, namely that he is greater that any prophet who had ever been.” They also say John is greater than Moses and Jesus and therefore he is the Christ.

Ps-Clem. 1.60.1-4

In the Protoevangelium of James there is an expansion of Matthew’s take on the killing of the innocents, Matt 2:1-18, the Protevangelium James 23: it states “Herod searched for John, and sent officers to Zacharias, saying: Where have you hid your son?”, after not finding him, Herod becomes “enraged, and said: His son is destined to be king over Isreal” This apocryphal literature also thinks John was to be a king, ie the Jewish messiah.

Another Sign prophet that was also seen as a messiah may have been the Egyptian prophet who saw himself as a ‘tyrant’ – to be sole ruler. (Josephus, War 2.262)

Lohmeyer also connects John’s stay in the wilderness to that of Josephus’s prophetic figures, but also like me does not see that the messiah was to be revealed there. Instead I see John as a messiah figure. Lohmeyer sees the wilderness as a place where like after the exodus a close bond between God and Israel existed. It is here, then, that the eschatological coming of God himself in order to restore his people was expected.[3] McCown John chose this location because of its symbolic connection to the entrance of the promised land.[4] Mauser John’s baptism as described by Mark is best understood “as a re-enactment of the event which stood at the beginning of Israel’s exodus into the wilderness” and thus anticipates a second exodus.[5] Like the symbolic actions of Josephus’s wilderness prophets, John’s preaching and baptism in the wilderness-Jordan setting are best understood as a symbolic re-enactment of exodus/conquest events, thus by way of a new exodus/conquest constituting the eschatological community of the true remnant of Israel.[6]

Qumran and the Synoptics provide a parallel with the “biblical prophecy in Isa. 40:3, which speaks of preparing a way for the Lord in the wilderness and straightening his path in the desert (1QS 8:12–14; 9:18–20). The Synoptic Gospels (Mark 1:3–4//Matt. 3:1–3//Luke 3:2–4) associate the Baptist’s presence in the same Judean Desert with the same Isaian passage”[7] The gospels portrays the Baptist as an apocalyptic preacher, “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4), was to prepare people for the imminent coming of the kingdom of god. In Luke he declares as a warning for those not ready for this kingdom, “The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Luke 3:9). Although Josephus says Johns Baptism was not for the repentance of sins, there is evidence of earlier forms of this passage which does say the repentance of sins was part of the Baptism (Origen Cels 1.47, Rufinus Latin translation).

Theissen sees John Baptism may have been inspired by the scriptures:

“First, John’s use of the Jordan River may have evoked Elisha’s command to Naaman to immerse (ebaptisato) himself seven times in the Jordan in order to be purified of his lepra (2 Kings 5:14 Septuagint [hereafter LXX]). Second, it is possible that people would have associated John’s actions with some form of eschatological entrance into the land of promise, since Joshua led Israel through the Jordan in order to possess the land (Josh. 3:15; LXX uses the verb in reference to the priests entering into the water of the Jordan)” [8]

According to David Allen “Many of these Sign Prophets have been inspired by the scriptures, the Baptist action of baptising could have been seen as an eschatological sign inspired from scriptures (be pure and Yahweh will come) and this would put him among the Sign Prophets”[9] Like other Sign Prophets John ended up being executed as he gathered a crowd and was seen as a danger to security “Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion” (Josephus, Ant. 18.118).

David Allen’s study of Sign Prophets shows the Sign Prophets probably received a vision inspired from the scriptures. These eschatological prophets preached the end times, and moved by the vision enacted some action to realize this end-time new age known as the kingdom of God. John would have been the first in a line of Sign Prophets who over time, eventually like in the case of Theudas, the ‘Samaritan’ the ‘Egyptian’ and Jesus himself all tried to “force the end” hoping for gods intervention to initiate this new age.

BACK TO INTRODUCTION.

---

[1] Rotman, M. (2019). The Call of the Wilderness: The Narrative Significance of John the Baptist’s Whereabouts. [PhD-Thesis – Research and graduation internal, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam]

[2] Joachim Jeremias, “Der Ursprung der Johannestaufe,” ZNW 28 (1929): 312–20 (319-20).

[3] Ernst Lohmeyer, Johannes der Täufer, vol. 1 of Das Urchristentum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1932), 47-48.

[4] C. C. McCown, “The Scene of John’s Ministry and Its Relation to the Purpose and Outcome of His Mission,” JBL 59 (1940): 113–31

[5] Ulrich W. Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness: The Wilderness Theme in the Second Gospel and Its Basis in the Biblical Tradition, SBT 39 (London: SCM, 1963), 87–88 (quotation from 88).

[6] Robert L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study, JSNTSup 62 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), pp.360–66. 

[7] Joel Marcus, John the Baptist in History and Theology, (2018), p.30

[8] Matthew Theissen,  Jesus and the Forces of Death, The Gospels’ portrayal of Ritual Impurity in first-century Judaism, Grand Rapids 2020, p.23.

[9] David Allen, How Josephus Realiy viewed Jesus”,Rev Bíb 85/3-4 (2023),  p.342.

Here are some fascinating passages, that include that phrase.

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities  of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless — being, although against his will, not far from the truth— that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ), — the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.  Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.

Origen, Contra Celsum 1.47

But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Origen, Contra Celsum 2.13

 

And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, “But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.”Galatians 1:19 And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.

Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17

We do have an instance where Justin Martyr uses the term “called Christ” (Martyr, 1 Apology 30) but he unlikely he got that from Josephus. Origin may have got “called Christ” from Martyr instead of Josephus.

In this post I discuss the phrase “James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ.”

But lest any one should meet us with the question, What should prevent that He whom we call Christ, being a man born of men, performed what we call His mighty works by magical art, and by this appeared to be the Son of God?

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 30.

In the hands of Origen and Eusebius, this incident, defined as “the martyrdom of James,” became, through Christian historiosophical interpretation, the main cause for the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple. Moreover, they went so far as to say that Josephus himself regarded this catastrophe as just punishment for the execution of James—a statement not supported by the text reproduced above [that is Josephus, Ant. 20.9.1] or by any other extant version.[1]

As Feldman said, “More­ over, it makes no sense for Origen to express wonder (Commentary on Matthew 10:17) that Josephus did not admit Jesus to be the messiah if Josephus did not even mention him.”[2]

Let us now reproduce the James passage from Antiquities

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.

Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1

What happened here? Origen saw a passage about a James, (my position is that this was mistaken identity of a high priests son- James ben Joseph)

mentioned close enough to the Destruction of the Temple and jumped to the conclusion that was a divine cause for the Temple Destruction.

This was the sort of thing happening often among church fathers.

Richard Carriers’ claim that the James passage in Antiquities contains an interlinear scribal error.[3] I do think it was an inter linear scribal error just like Carrier suggested but I do not agree with the Jesus ben Damneus hypothesis. Josephus would never have introduced Ben Damneus twice (he is introduced at the end of Ant. 20.9.1) as Carrier suggests. On Carriers’ hypothesis he would be introduced twice. The first time where Carrier speculated that it should read “James the brother of Jesus Ben Damneus.” The second time at the end of the passage. It also violates Josephus’ naming conventions. When Josephus references people to be a relation to siblings, it is because their parents are unknown or they had different parents. For example:

“brother of his, by the father’s side, whose name was Eliakim” (Antiquities 10.5.2).

So the Damneus idea is stretched.

If instead of the following line:

“the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” 

the original James passage had the following:

“James, son of Joseph” 

Why didn’t Josephus say this which is the proper Jewish form of address? Actually at the start of Ant. 20.9.1 there is a high priest Joseph mentioned who was deprived of his position by Agrippa:

“But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood.” (Ant. 20.9.1).

Perhaps it was originally written “James, son of Joseph” instead of “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James”.

This Joseph had been given the high priesthood by King Agrippa:

When the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, surnamed Cabi, the son of Simon the former high priest. (Ant. 20.8.11).

Instead of >>”brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James”<< Josephus could have originally written >>”James son of Joseph”<<

If a scribe came across what could have been originally written by the hand of Josephus-  “James son of Joseph”, he would automatically think “the brother of Jesus”. Origen may have also automatically thought this was the same James that was “the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ” and wrote that phrase in the margin of the column or a scribe familiar with Origen’s writings could write this very phrase in the inter-linear column. Later scribes would mistake this as part of the text and may have added “who was called Christ”. This “James son of Joseph” may have got Origen thinking that this is James the Just when he did his exegesis in attributing it to the fall of Jerusalem. If the interpolation was of Origen school, he may have been influenced by what Origen has written 

“For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Christ’ (Cels. 1.48). In Antiquities it does not connect the Baptist movement with the Jesus movement. Also in Antiquities, the execution of John (beheading) is different from the execution of Jesus (crucifixion). Therefore, these two passages taken together (Cels. 1.47, 48) show that Origen used Antiquities in his fights with Celsus.”[4]

 

Johanne Nussbaum notices some parallels of Pseudo-Hegesippus reference and Origen’s reference:

In De excidio Hierosolymitano 2.12, Pseudo-Hegesippus paraphrases the TF, omitting the statement that Jesus was the Christ. He then vehemently criticises Josephus that he testified of Jesus but did not believe in him as the Christ. It can be concluded that Pseudo-Hegesippus must have read a kind of TF, otherwise he would not have screamed that Josephus did not believe despite his report on Jesus. The situation is reminiscent of Origen writings—he wrote that Josephus did not believe in the messiahship of Jesus.[5]

 

This shows Pseudo Hegisippus and Origen were both looking at an earlier version of the TF for their sources.

 

Here’s Pagets comment on this earlier version of the TF circulating:  (commenting on Pseudo-Hegisippus):

“It is not easy to see why he should have omitted any reference to Jesus as the Messiah if it was in his version of the received text. After all, he appears to exaggerate the significance of the TF, most blatantly in his claim that even the leaders of the synagogue acknowledged Jesus to be God.”[6]

This post shows here it is just as easy to surmise that Origen was looking at an earlier form of the TF.

OLSONS OBJECTIONS, let’s take a deep dive into Cels. 1.47

Cels 1.47

“I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist”

So Celsus source, the Jew attests John’s historicity.

“who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus.”

Origen says this as if Josephus attested to *both John and Jesus.* So Origen makes the claim here John the Baptist is also attested by Josephus who lived soon after John and Jesus. This is the second attestation from Origen’s sources and would be what we modern historians call multiple attestation. Now I suspect Celsus is also using Josephus as a source for his literary creation of the Jew. This would put both sources alluded to here by Origen as going back to an original source- Josephus. This brings us back down to single attestation for the historicity of John the Baptist but double attestation for the Baptist passage. This lets us know that Celsus is also using Josephus.

“For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite.”

Origen is firstly referring to the Baptist passage, which he sees in his own copy of Antiquities. Origen notes that the Baptism involved purification- which fits the Mikvah baptism as ritual purity.

“Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet”

Olson imports the argument that Origen wanted to find a non Christian to support his argument, therefore he emphasised that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the messiah for this effect. It was common knowledge that Josephus was non Christian so there is no need for Origen to do this.

Josephus acts as a foil to Celsus Jew whether Origen states Jesus was the messiah or not. So that’s a non argument by Olson. More than likely Origen is referring to the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) where the phrase “He was the Christ” was not in this version. He takes what he can from the passage, Jesus was believed to be a prophet and powerful Jews managed to have him executed. This is what we do find in the TF.

A similar incident happened to Pseudo-Hegisippus

In De excidio Hierosolymitano 2.12, Pseudo-Hegesippus paraphrases the TF, omitting the statement that Jesus was the Christ. He then vehemently criticises Josephus that he testified of Jesus but did not believe in him as the Christ. It can be concluded that Pseudo-Hegesippus must have read a kind of TF, otherwise he would not have screamed that Josephus did not believe despite his report on Jesus. The situation is reminiscent of Origen writings—he wrote that Josephus did not believe in the messiahship of Jesus. – Johannes Nussbaum, ‘Das Testimonium Flavianum: Ein authentischer Text des Josephus’, NovT 52 (2010), pp. 72-82.

So we gave two atteststions, (Origen Cels. 1.47 and Ps-Hegisippus Excidio) where in their sources it was missing the line “He was the Christ.” The TF without the phrase “He was the Christ” was circulating. As Paget noted, “It is not easy to see why he [Ps-Hegisippus] should have omitted any reference to Jesus as the Messiah if it was in his version of the received text. After all, he appears to exaggerate the significance of the TF, most blatantly in his claim that even the leaders of the synagogue acknowledged Jesus to be God.”- Paget, Some Observations, p.567.

Origen’s mention about Jesus, was more than likely Jesus was mentioned in his copy of Antiquities missing the line “he was the Christ” Another reason we know Origen was aware of the TF was his remark that the Jews do not connect John with Jesus nor the punishment of John with that of Jesus:

“For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Christ.” (Contra Cels. 1.48). 

In Antiquities it does not connect the Baptist movement with the Jesus movement. Also the execution of John and Jesus are not related or connected in any way. Just as Antiquities reports it, the execution of John was different from the execution of Jesus. 

These two passages taken together (Cels.1.47,48) show that Origen was using Antiquities in his fights with Celsus and it is clear that the TF passage in some form existed in Origens’ copy. 

So here is Celsus quote in Cels 6.41 that Olson was on about.

“in answer to Celsus, we shall say of magic, that any one who chooses to inquire whether philosophers were ever led captive by it or not, can read what has been written by Moiragenes regarding the memoirs of the magician and philosopher Apollonius of Tyana, in which this individual, who is not a Christian, but a philosopher, asserts that some philosophers of no mean note were won over by the magic power possessed by Apollonius, and resorted to him as a sorcerer” (Cels. 6.41)

There is no such argument in Cels. 1.47 to argue against like in Cels. 6.41, on why Origen should bring up the phrase “not believing in Jesus as the Christ.” It is common knowledge that Josephus is not a Christian, so it is a non argument by Olson.

“having become acquainted with one Dionysius, an Egyptian musician, the latter told him, with respect to magic arts, that it was only over the uneducated and men of corrupt morals that they had any power, while on philosophers they were unable to produce any effect, because they were careful to observe a healthy manner of life.” (Cels. 6.41)

And Origens refutation

When Origen states “although not believing in Jesus as the Christ” he is not answering any such argument in Cels 1.47 as he is directly answering in Cels 6.41. This passage Cels. 6.41 attests to Moiragenes’ memoirs about Apollonius just as Cels. 1.47 attests to Josephus’ Antiquities. We can deduct from Cels. 1.47 that Origen saw the Baptist passage, digressed onto the TF passage and spoke of the James passage.

Therefore equating saying Josephus did not believe Jesus as the messiah with Moiragenes is not a Christian is not relevant as Origen is not answering any such arguments made in cels 1.47.

---

[1] Zvi Baras, “The Testimonium Flavianum and the Martyrdom of James, ch. 16 in Feldman and Hata (eds) Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), p.341.

[2] Louis Feldman, Introduction in Feldman and Hata (eds) Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), p.56

[3] Richard Carrier, “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200” in the Journal of Early Christian Studies  20/ 4, 2012), pp. 489-514.

[4] David Allen, A Model Reconstruction of what Josephus would have Realistically Written about Jesus, JGRChJ 18, 2023, p.120; Alice Whealey, “Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum” in Christoph Böttrich and Jens Herzer (eds.), Josephus und das Neue Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), pp. 73-116 (84).

[5] Johanne Nussbaum, Das Testimonium Flavianum Ein Klassisches Beispiel Einer Echtheitsdiskussion”, Novum Testamentum 52 (2010), pp.72-82.

[6] J. Carleton Paget, ‘Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity’, JTS 52 (2001), p.567.