The gospels say the Romans recognised Jesus as a false king (Mk 15.16-20; Mt. 27.28-31; Jn 19.2-5), similar to at least one of the Sign Prophets known as the ‘Egyptian’. The ‘Egyptian’ may have called himself “king Messiah”, because Josephus uses the Greek verb τυραννεῖν (to be sole ruler)(Josephus, War 2.262). Our earliest witness to the Jesus movement, Paul has references to Jesus’ kingdom, βασιλείαν, which indicates that he was somehow considered a king:[1]
Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom (βασιλείαν) to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (1 Cor. 15.24-25, cf. 6.9-10, 15.50, 4.20; Rom. 14:17)
Like the Egyptian Sign Prophet the gospels see Jesus as a prophet proclaiming the imminent arrival of the kingdom of Yahweh. This was a banner call that was used by many messianic figures, that the ‘Kingdom of Yahweh’ was at hand. Josephus reports that this is also the banner call of Judas the Galilean, he told his followers ‘they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans, and would, after God, submit to mortal men as their lords’ (War 2.118) and his movement would only accept ‘that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord.’ (Josephus, Ant. 18.23). ‘Jesus’ own expectation that the Kingdom of the Lord was near had apparently led his followers to expect a divine intervention in history and the establishment of God’s rule in the world, not just in the hearts and minds of a few.’[2] The gospel of Mark shows that this new kingdom was imminent.
Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power. (Mark 9:1),
This was the saying of a typical apocalyptic prophet, many downtrodden peasants whose hopes were exhausted would rally around such a figure. This Kingdom of god as understood by the first century Jews and used as a banner call by many of the charismatic figures draws on the kingship that is ascribed to Yahweh in the Tanakh.
Of all my sons—and Yahweh has given me many—he has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of Yahweh over Israel. He said to me: “Solomon your son is the one who will build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father. I will establish his kingdom forever if he is unswerving in carrying out my commands and laws, as is being done at this time.” (1 Chron. 28:5-7)
In previous studies of Jesus’ comparative figures both the messianic figures (as found in Josephus’ works) or the exorcists/faith healers (as described in rabbinic literature and Josephus) have all been used. Morton Smith observed that 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 that Acts “shows that the Christians themselves expected Jesus to be seen as the same social type as Judas and Theudas.” (Emphasis is Morton Smiths).[3]
Let us now examine both sets of figures, firstly we will start with the messianic figures. ‘Jesus is called christos, anointed, the Greek equivalent of messiah, 270 times in Paul’s epistles.’[4] As understood from the letters of Paul a ‘messianic consciousness’ must have also played its part.[5] After Jesus was crucified there is no way he would have been known as the messiah unless he was recognised as such during his lifetime. If God did not intervene before Jesus was caught and executed- well he was not the messiah. The gospels saw Jesus as a ‘King Messiah’ (Luke 23.2) and ‘King of the Jews’ was the charge nailed to his execution cross. The movement of Jesus were a sect of Jewish messianists. 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.’[6] Many messianic figures were seen as a king figure. Bar Kockba in his letters referred to himself as a prince.[7] Judas son of Ezekiel had ‘ambitious desire of the royal dignity’ (Ant.17.272). Simon of Peraea, a slave of Herod the Great ‘dared to put a crown on his head’ (Ant. 17.273) and Athronges the shepherd ‘dared to aspire to be king’ (Ant. 17.278). And as already discussed the Egyptian prophet saw himself as a ‘tyrant’ (War 2.262). The Slavonic passage on Jesus tried to deny that Jesus was ‘desirous of kingship’ which may have preserved that that phrase was original to the Testimonium Flavianum. [See here to show how the Slavonic used a primitive pre Eusebian source]. As seen above many messianic figures were declared a βασιλεὺς (King) by their supporters at a drop of a hat. ‘And now Judea was full of robberies; and as the several companies of the seditious lighted upon any one to head them, he was created a king immediately, in order to do mischief to the public.’ (Ant. 17.285). This meshes very well with a verse in John:
Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself. (Jn. 6.15).
Social conditions ensured ‘why so many hundreds, even thousands of Jewish peasants, were prepared to abandon their homes to pursue some prophet into the wilderness, or to rise in rebellion against their Jewish and Roman overlords when the signal was given by some charismatic “King” or to flee to the hills to join some brigand band. Peasants generally do not take such drastic action unless conditions have become such that they can no longer pursue traditional ways of life.’[8] Novenson shows Josephus interprets Judaism for non-Jews in the Greco- Roman world and reasons why Josephus calls the Jewish insurgents ‘diadem-wearers’ and not ‘messiahs’. Josephus was aware of messianism as seen when he recounts the ‘ambiguous oracle’ (War 6.12-13) that drove them to war.[9] ‘Christianity was not alone in the production of messiahs; indeed, its Christ competed for converts with the christs of other apocalyptic sects, including the formidable cult of John the Baptist.’[10]
These messianic figures were similar to Jesus but it is also important to examine another set of Galilean charismatic figures. Geza Vermes saw Jesus as one in a long line of charismatic prophets. We will examine a few Galilean charismatic figures who interceded Yahweh for miraculous events such as bringing on rain in the case of Honi and some thaumaturgic actions of Ben Dosa.[11]. As Vermes says, ‘To understand the figure of Honi it is necessary to remember that from the time of the prophet Elijah. Jews believed that holy men were able to exert their will on natural phenomena’[12].An exorcist/healer would explain the initial exaltation of Jesus among his own people, given Jesus the confidence that god was working with him. Much of the rise of these figures had to do with healing and exorcisms as people had thought the devil was the cause of sickness – ‘in the final period of the Second Temple era (second century BC to the first century AD) prophets were still expected, as the first Book of the Maccabees (1 Mac. 4.46; 14.41), the Qumran Community Rule (1QS 9:11) and the New Testament (Mt. 11.9; 13.57; 21.11; Mk. 6.4; Lk. 4.24; 7.16, 26; 24.19) demonstrate roles, that is to say, as healer of the physically ill, exorciser of the possessed, and dispenser of forgiveness to sinners, must be seen in the context to which they belong, namely charismatic Judaism.’[13]
Jesus making his way to Jerusalem and ending up crucified better aligns him with a subset of these two groups examined, namely the messianic ‘king’ figures and the Galilean charismatic figures.
In the ‘Gospels, Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey, to shouts of Hosanna to the Son of David. For the biblically illiterate, Matthew 21:4–5 supplies the quotation from Zechariah 9:9, even providing Jesus with two animals rather than one, missing the Hebraic parallelism. It is certainly tempting to understand this incident in light of the sign prophets in Josephus.’[14]
Horsley says, “in the ordinary Palestinian Jewish context, [these described imposters were] prophets filled with the Spirit. Thus fired by the Spirit, these prophets and their followers thought they were about to participate in the divine transformation of a world…”[15] That is how the ordinary people viewed them, but seen from all the passages Josephus has on the sign prophets, this is how he described them:
Now, we know what he [Josephus] thought of those who harboured or encouraged messianic pretensions, namely, that they were nothing but a band of fanatics who broke riots and the seeds of war. In fact, Josephus went so far as to affirm (in War 6.313) that the Messianic oracles contained in the prophetic books of Israel referred to Emperor Vespasian.[16]
By recognising that Jesus was fulfilling a leadership role recognised by first century Jewish crowds helps explain why Jesus became the head of a movement and eventually remembered and exalted. Horsley shows that his followers played just as an important role in this rise to fame:
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. Josephus’s accounts of Jesus ben Hananiah (and perhaps of John the Baptist) provide evidence of oracular prophets among Judean (and Galilean) peasants. Moreover, the accounts in Josephus and rabbinic literature of popularly acclaimed “kings” or “messiahs” such as Judas son of Hezekiah, Simeon, and Athronges in 4 BCE, Simon bar Giora during the great revolt, and Simon bar Kokhba, leader of the Bar Kokhba revolt, provide convincing evidence for the role of popular messiahs leading movements of independence and renewal. More of a stretch is to move from textual references to Elijah to a confident positing of a role such as a new Elijah. The most convincing evidence for such a role, since Elijah’s memory must have been derived originally from northern popular tradition, would be the gospels themselves, which understand both John the Baptist and Jesus in terms of Elijah. It is difficult to judge how to use references to the future role of Elijah, such as that by Malachi, a Judean prophet closely attached to the Temple, and Ben Sira, the Judean scribe who lavishes praise on the Oniad high priests. The combination of these elite and popular indications of the memory of Elijah and his role in gospel tradi- tions may be sufficient to project a role of a prophet like Elijah, one very much like that of Moses and Joshua.
That Mark, Q speeches, Matthew and John all represent Jesus so promi- nently 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. His prophetic pronouncements against the Temple and high priestly rulers are reminiscent of that other, later peasant prophet Jesus son of Hananiah; and several of his prophetic pronouncements clearly take traditional Israelite prophetic forms.
Richard Horsley [17]
[1] Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, La invención de Jesús de Nazaret, (Siglo XXI de España Editores, S. A., 2018),Kindle, ch 1.
[2] E. P. Sanders, Paul: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford, 2001), p.43.
[3] Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician, (Barnes &Noble, 1978), p.20.
[4] John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star, Messianism in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2nd Ed., (Cambridge: Erdmans, 2010), p.2.
[5] Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew, A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), p.15.
[6] Richard A. 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, (141).
[7] ‘Bar Koziba, Prince of Israel’, this is how Bar Kokbha referred to himself taken from the letter from Wadi Murabba, see Józef Tadeusz Milik, Papyrus No. 24.
[8] Richard A.Horsley and John S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs, Popular Movements in the time of Jesus, (Winston Press, 1985), p.50
[9] Matthew V. Novenson, The Grammar of Messianism: An Ancient Jewish Political Idiom and Its Users (Oxford, 2017), p.147-8
[10] R. Joseph Hoffman, Celsus, On The True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians, Translation and Introduction, (Oxford, 1987), p.7.
[11] 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)
[14] John J. Collins. 2021. “Millenarianism in Ancient Judaism.” In James Crossley and Alastair Lockhart (eds.) Critical Dictionary of Apocalyptic and Millenarian Movements. 15 January 2021. Retrieved from http://www.cdamm.org/articles/ancient-judaism.
[15] Horsley and Hansen, Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs, pp. 161-2.
[16] Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, La naturaleza del texto original del Testimonium Flavianum. Una crítica de la propuesta de John P. Meier, E STUDIOS BÍBLICOS LXXII (2014) p.273.
[17] 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.
In the Facebook forum (a Spanish historical Jesus group) I was asked to explain why I hold the positions I do on the Testimonium Flavianum.
Question:
There are several points I would question in your proposal (but I’d rather dig deeper into them). But one point stands out to me. I understand, Dave, that you consider that Josephus could not have referred to Jesus as “the Christ”, since, from your position, this would imply acknowledging him as messiah; and you consider that Josephus already had his own “messiah”, which was Vespasian. [War 6.312-313] I think he could have identified him simply by writing “the one called Christ” (as he does in another passage), as a name given to him, without this representing any messianic recognition or title. However, why do you propose that Josephus did not even write of him by calling him by his name, Jesus, and that in the original passage he would only write “a certain man”? What would be the implication for Josephus to write that his name was Jesus? Do you consider that he did not know his name, as is the case with some of the other “sign prophet” characters you mention?
Answer:
Point 1
Reconstruction of the TF
First of all, the original is lost but we do know Josephus did not write what is in the textus receptus (received text in Antiquities) from the variants alone. There are words we know that are from the original from these variants. The academic papers I released show how these original words would fit in a model of what Josephus would have realistically written.
Rather than attempt to do a textus restitutus, I instead opted for a model reconstruction. This can be successfully done by examining how the text of the TF was quoted and misquoted through the generations. In my paper I separated the text into layers and through the variants and indirect quotes determine through some textual criticism what were the most primitive phrases that would have come from the hand of Josephus.
Point 2
“He was the Christ.”
First of all we have three witnesses that are missing the phrase, “he was the Christ.”
1. The Excidio
De excidio urbis Hierosolymitanae (”On the ruin of the city of Jerusalem”) Pseudo-Hegesippius did not see that exclamation in his copy of Antiquities written by Josephus. In Pseudo-Hegesippius paraphrase of the Testimonium Flavianum (TF), he would have certainly used that phrase in his Christianised document.
Here is an abstract from my paper to put this in perspective:
“ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν! (”He was the Christ”). When Pseudo-Hegesippius wrote De excidio urbis Hierosolymitanae (”On the ruin of the city of Jerusalem”) he did not see that exclamation in his copy of Antiquities written by Josephus. In Ps-Hegesippius paraphrase of the Testimonium Flavianum (TF), he would have certainly used that phrase in his Christianised document. When Jerome translated the TF for his book De Viris Illustribus (”On Illustrious Men”) he lifted it from Eusebius’ History and wrote et credebatur esse Christus (”he was believed to be Christ”). The Textus Receptus (”received text” of Antiquities) has a third redactional layer stating ”he was the Christ”. This paper aims to examine at least three redactional layers in the TF.” [1]
2. The Slavonic
Christians do not downgrade and drop that phrase, so a different transmission line than Eusebius’ tampering. This argues that a source of the addition to War in the Slavonic was pre Eusebian.
There are numerous sources to track especially in regard to the additions inserted and added to Josephus’ War book by the Russian chronographer in creating the Slavonic. Apart from Byzantium historians Hamartolus and Malalas, I find a different transmission line going east which would have also influenced those insertions. The Russian chronographer was highly educated and had lots of sources. One possible source could have been a pre Eusebian manuscript that went east.
As observed by Kate Leeming, “Jesus is rarely referred to by name … elsewhere he is the “wonderworker” or the “king who did not reign” or some other term. Why would a Christian be reticent about naming Jesus?”[2]
Meschersky (Meščerskij) in trying to explain why the Slavonic dropped Jesus’ name in the exact passage, he states unconvincingly that it was to make it less Christian, unlikely given how Christian the passage already is.[3]
A better explanation other than why the name Jesus was dropped and the title Christ is if there was a source that originally had “a certain man”. Eusebius is chief suspect for adding the name Jesus and the phrase “he was believed to be Christ.” An interesting paper on the hypothesis of a pre Eusebian TF going east examining the Latin quotations is written by John Curran:
“Copies of Josephus’ original continued to circulate in the East where they failed to make an impression on a succession of Christian readers from Chrysostom to Photius.”[4]
3. Origen
As stated by Zvi Baras, “Eusebius is clearly contradicted by the statement of Origen (185-254), the revered church father who preceded Eusebius at the school of Caesarea. [This opposes Eusebius’ quote of “He was the Christ”.] Origen, in his writings, twice criticizes Josephus for not having accepted Jesus as the messiah. The first occurs in his polemical book, Contra Celsum I.47, which was intended to refute the attack on Christianity made by Celsus the pagan. Here Origen refers explicitly to Josephus: “The same author, although he did not believe in Jesus as Christ.” The second appears in his Commentarii in Matthaeum X, 17.” [5]
This actually ties in with the Excidio as Johannes Nussbaum observed:
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.[6]
Point 3
There is no real justification to translate “legomenos” (λεγομένου) as “so-called.”
I can find no other occasion in Josephus where it is used in such a fashion, and that translation I have never seen any decent justification for. And looking at the Greek, you can tell this translation is even less sensible. Specifically, the only instance of it being an insult that I can find (“so-called” 2 Thess. 2:4) also excludes the article τὸν… which is present in the TF. And most similar occasions, where legomenos or legemenon (or other variants) are used with τὸν, it is not an insult.
The “so-called” you are referring to tends to be the apologetic translation of legomenos of Josephus Ant. 20.200. And what do we find there, “τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος” the article in question.
The text is best read, “called the Christ” not “so-called.” And if this was an insult that Christians left out of the Testimonium Flavianum, why wouldn’t they leave it out of Ant. 20.200 as well? Why the inconsistency in the editing?
I see no evidence anywhere that Christianity was influential in Rome in the 90s CE. And Josephus wouldn’t care, as they were not a recognized cult, and according to Pliny and Trajan, could face the death penalty. He wouldn’t care about pleasing a cult that wasn’t approved of by the state, the state which kept his head on his shoulders.
Josephus did not know the name of most of the sign prophets, a few exceptions are Theudas, he also knew the nickname of the ‘’Egyptian’ (though not his actual name) and the only reason Josephus knew Jonathan the Weaver was 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).
[2] Kate Leeming, “The Slavonic Version of Josephus’s Jewish War” in Chapman and Rodgers (eds.) A Companion to Josephus, (Oxford, 2016), p.395.
[3] H. Leeming and K. Leeming eds, The Slavonic Version of Josephus’s Jewish War, A Synoptic Comparison of the English Translation by H. St. J. Thackeray with the Critical Edition by N. A. Meščerskij of the Slavonic version in the Vilna manuscript translated into English by H. Leeming and L. Osinkina, in Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums und des antigen Judentums und des Urchistentums 46 (Boston: Brill 2003), p.19
[4] J. Curran,“To Be or to Be Thought to Be”: The Testimonium Flavianum (again), Novum Testamentum, 59(1), 2017, p.93
[5] Zvi Baras, “The Testimonium Flavianum and the Martyrdom of James, chapter 16 in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, Eds Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), pp.339-340.
[6] Johannes Nussbaum, Das Testimonium Flavianum Ein klassisches Beispiel einer Echtheitsdiskussion, 2010 Novum Testamentum 52(1), pp.72-82
For this blog I would like to thank the many happy discussions I had with my friends, Ben Evan, Chrissy Hansen, Fred J Kohn and Stephen Nelson.
There are many reasons why I’m a historicist and one of these reasons is just the unconvincing arguments put forward by Mythicists. Here I’m going to discuss Paul’s use of born and made. It is noteworthy that Paul seems to break with the Biblical precedent of this idiom, using γίνομαι (ginomai = made) rather than γεννῶμαι (gennomai = born). Perhaps it just sounded better for him to use the same verb in succession, rather than switching verbs γεννῶμαι (ἐκ γυναικός) verses γίνομαι (ὑπὸ νόμον). Γίνομαι is consistent with his characterization of the incarnation in the “Christ hymn” in Philippians:
but (Christ Jesus) emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made (γενόμενος) in the likeness of men. (Philippians 2:7 (NASB)
So Paul may be emphasising the idea that Christ “became incarnate” as a human being, beyond merely being born. And then he was “put under law” in the sense described in Luke 2:21-23, where Jesus was circumcised after eight days according to the law and presented at the temple (Lev 12:1-8, Exod 13:2).
Let us examine some of Carriers arguments taking Romans 1:3 as an example., “… concerning his son, born [γενομένου] of the seed [σπέρματος] of David according to the flesh.”
The grammar of the text does not lend itself to Carrier’s reading of Romans 1:3, as there are a few examples in the LXX, [1] other Jewish texts, [2] and Greco-Roman literature [3] where similar language is used for physical birth.
Now let us examine Rom. 1:4
In Romans 1:4, a phrase like “Ginomai” is “τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει,” which translates to “was declared to be the Son of God in power.” The term “ὁρισθέντος” or “horisthentos,” means “declared” or “designated,” and “Ginomai” isn’t explicitly in this phrase, but its essence is implied in the meaning of “horisthentos.”
So we can see Paul is quite comfortable interchanging the ideas of made/born even in between two verses. This reduces an over significance of meaning on the word “made” which Paul probably employs to emphasise Jesus being greater than one just born.
Carrier appeals to 1 Corinthians 15:45 to argue that Paul uses γίνομαι to say that Adam’s body was “made” or “manufactured” by God. However, this passage actually hinders Carrier’s interpretation. As Chrissy Hansen points out,
“… Paul’s entire purpose in this passage is both noting that Adam is historical (as the founder of the human race) and that Adam had a physical (earthly) body. His contrast in the passage is Christ’s raised up, resurrected, i.e., spiritual, body meaning initially he had a body equivalent to Adam’s, i.e., an earthly historical one. As such, this parallel between them could help establish that Paul thought of Jesus as a historical person.” [4]
Hansen also rightly draws attention to the fact that Paul is citing LXX Genesis 2:7, which uses ἔπλασεν for the forming of Adam’s body, and εγένετο for when Adam’s body comes alive (the aorist indicative meaning “became”).
“Therefore, Paul is not referencing the manufacturing of Adam’s body in his citation of LXX Gen 2:7, but a change of state in which Adam’s body is made alive. As such, there is no bodily construction happening in 1 Cor 15:45, which the grammar lends itself to.” [5]
Likewise, and contra Carrier, 1 Corinthians 15:37 uses γενησόμενον as in “to be” (future tense), but not to indicate the manufacture of bodies. As Craig Keener notes, 2 Corinthians 5:1–5 (in parallel with 1 Corinthians 15:51–54) actually indicates that the body we die in “will be changed” (ἀλλαγησόμεθα), not manufactured. [6]
Since “seed” (σπέρματος) is often used in both Jewish [7] and Greco-Roman [8] literature as a metaphor for genealogical descent, Carrier’s attempt to read σπέρματος in Romans 1:3 in a literal fashion is problematic.
Finally, Carrier’s point that Paul never uses γίνομαι to mean ‘be born’ is irrelevant, because, as Simon Gathercole points out,
“… Paul does not frequently in his letters refer to people being born: where he uses γεννάω, he is referring to the immediate parents, and so this would not work in the genealogical sense of Rom. 1.3, because David did not beget Jesus.” [9]
“Born of a woman” was a common Hebrew idiom for “human.” This goes back at least as far as Job, which is believed to be the oldest book in the bible. It occurs at Job 14:1; 15:14; 25:4. The references in Job (14:1, 15:14, 25:4) to man/men as being “born of a woman” (γεννητὸς γυναικός), using the adjectival form of “begotten”. And the phrase in Job lacks the preposition ἐκ (“from”), relying on the genitive form “of woman/women”. Matthew 11:11 reflects the exact same phrasing (contra Paul), only in the plural – “among those born of women” (ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν).
The Septuagint version of these verses uses the same “gen-” Greek verb as the Galatians 4:4 reference. The same “gen-” verb is also used in Matthew 11:11 and Luke 7:28 as a description of John the baptist: “among those born of women there is no one greater than John,”
Dr. Carrier is correct in that this is not the same verb for “born” as Paul uses in Galatians 4:23 “geg-“, but that is beside the point. Idioms are locked expressions in a culture, and can only be interpreted on a phrase level, not as a literal. The typical English example would be “kick the bucket” meaning “die,” when death has nothing to do with kicking a bucket.
Also the Dead Sea Scrolls yield many interesting examples of the phrase “born of woman” referring to humans in general. In one of several instances – 1 QS (Community Rule) 11.21 – it says man is “one born of woman… shaped from dust has he been”.
No text ever claimed that someone who is born of a women was actually born in heaven. ginomai is just regularly used for human birth and it doesn’t take much to find the references. If you have Loeb Classical Library access, you can just search it and find so many examples.
The references in Job (14:1, 15:14, 25:4) to man/men as being “born of a woman” (γεννητὸς γυναικός), using the adjectival form of “begotten”. And the phrase in Job lacks the preposition ἐκ (“from”), relying on the genitive form “of woman/women”. Matthew 11:11 reflects the exact same phrasing (contra Paul), only in the plural – “among those born of women” (ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν).
The argument that Paul used a less frequent Greek term for giving birth is completely off. Just think of all the strange expressions surrounding pregnancy and child birth in modern European languages. The English idiom “be in labour” sounds very strange to people outside the anglo-saxon language community. To be clear, thinking there is a pattern based on the occurrence a term only four times in an entire text is just a bit off so Richard Carrier claiming “Paul’s usual term for birth is not ginomai” does not work. You cannot make any solid conclusions about someone’s regular language and terminology on the basis of four occurrences of a word. It is already exceptionally uncommon and inconsistently used to begin with. Carrier concluding that “ginomai cannot be Paul’s standard word for birth because he uses gennao three times elsewhere for it” is absurd to say the least.
Here’s a deeper analysis, my friend Stephen Nelson is an expert in ancient attic and koine Greek:
That “γίνομαι” is simply not a rare or particularly significant term. And Philippians does not explicitly narrate Jesus’ birth, per say. I obviously don’t read into it that way.
The counter to that would be to point out that later scribes obviously took issue with Paul’s language, changing the spelling in Gal 4:4 and (to a lesser extent) in Rom 1:3 from “γενόμενον” to “γεννώμενον” (at the expense of grammatical coherence).
And my response to that would be to point out that this was done to counter Docetism, not Mythicism. Changing Paul’s description, to say that Jesus was “born” (explicitly), was probably thought to be a more effective tool to counter Docetism, than leaving Paul’s actual description of Jesus’ “coming into being”.
As you may know, “γίνομαι” is only formally ‘grammatically passive’ (on the surface). And the term ‘deponent’ is falling out of fashion (as an umbrella term for describing ‘Middle-only’ and ‘passive-only’ verbs in Greek) – since it’s a verbal category borrowed from Latin. The term’s actually become a bit stigmatized in Greek studies. But I still think ‘deponent’ (MG – αποθετικό) is a useful category.
So I think his analysis of Paul’s use of “γίνομαι” is symptomatic of this kind of approach to the Greek text, where one finds a range of definitions in a lexicon and backs into one particular ‘sense’ of the word for the purpose of exegesis. That approach can have limitations when dealing with a complex and ubiquitous word like “γίνομαι”.
For example, it has 10 different definition categories in BDAG.
1. to come into being through process of birth or natural production, be born, be produced
2. to come into existence, be made, be created, be manufactured, be performed
This challenges Carriers false dichotomy between ‘birth’ and ‘manufacturing’.
So, from a Greek perspective, I think the best way to read Philippians 2:7-8 is to view Jesus as the active agent of his own incarnation throughout the process. There’s no need to insert God as the agent here.
More analysis:
Paul may be emphasizing/reiterating the idea that Christ “became incarnate” as a human being, beyond merely being born. And then he was “put under law” in the sense described in Luke 2:21-23, where Jesus was circumcised after eight days according to the law and presented at the temple (Lev 12:1-8, Exod 13:2).
There are references in Job (14:1, 15:14, 25:4) to man/men as being “born of a woman” (γεννητὸς γυναικός), using the adjectival form of “begotten”. And the phrase in Job lacks the preposition ἐκ (“from”), relying on the genitive form “of woman/women”. Matthew 11:11 reflects the exact same phrasing (contra Paul), only in the plural – “among those born of women” (ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν).
And here are Ancient Greek examples:
ANCIENT EXAMPLES OF “COME INTO BEING FROM”:
It was noted in the comments recently that nowhere in the NT is “γενόμενος ἐκ…” ever used to imply “made from…”, as in “made from some material”. But, as described above, such a connotation would be more along the lines of “came into being from…”. This is actually a rather common idiom that implies a transition from one state to another.
IN ISOCRATES’ “ARCHIDAMUS” (6.17) IT SAYS,
“When Heracles had put off this life and *from being mortal became* a god…” (ἐκ θνητοῦ γενόμενος).
Here “mortality” isn’t really a material that Hercules is produced from. It’s the mortal state from which he is immortalized and deified.
Many such examples are found in Plutarch: cf. Tiberius Gracchus (4) where Tiberius is described as “emerging from boyhood” (ἐκ παίδων γενόμενος); cf. Timoleon (1.2) where Nisaeus is described as “becoming a master from an exile” (ἐκ φυγάδος… κύριος γενόμενος); cf. “Quomodo quit suss in virtue sentient prefectus” (1.7 or 1.4) where he describes Caeneus’ transformation, into a man from a woman (γενόμενος… ἀνὴρ ἐκ γυναικὸς). This last example contains similar wording to Galatians 4:4; but in the context of a mythological SEX-CHANGE!
The other example is from “Helen” (10.18), where Theseus is said to be the *offspring of Poseidon* (γενόμενος δ’ ἐκ Ποσειδῶνος). So that example falls in line with the figurative use of “γίνομαι” for ‘birth’ or ‘begetting’.
This is a third blog in a series of why I find mythicism unconvincing. To the first one on the brother of lord, I’d like to add the following comments
Carrier insists that the only way Paul could ever specify biological kinship would be to say something like “brother in the flesh”. Yet in Philemon 16 is the only spot where Paul does this. Philemon 10 has the reference which includes the verb “γεννῶ”, where the author indicates that he “begot” Onesimus, which would contradict Carrier’s claim that Paul reserves that word for actual, literal “birth”. This shows that words for “birth” are flexible (either metaphor or literal), to the extent that Carrier cannot make that arbitrary division anymore.
[2] Of particular importance is Josephus _Antiquities_ 1.150 where γίνομαι and γεννάω (Paul’s supposedly more common term for “birth” [Carrier, _OHJ_, 576]) are used interchangeably; Philo uses γίνομαι to refer to the birth of Moses twice in the forms γενομένων and γενόμενος in _Moses_ 2.192–193; see also Philo, _Virtues_ 37.202; Josephus, in turn, uses γίνομαι for birth on numerous occasions in _Antiquities_ 1.150; 1.303–304; 7.154; 15.11; and 20.20–21.
[4] Chris M. Hansen, “Romans 1:3 and the Celestial Jesus: A Rebuttal to Revisionist Interpretations of Jesus’s Descendance from David in Paul,” MJTM 22 (2021): 36; see also Gordon D. Fee, _The First Epistle to the Corinthians_ (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) (Eerdmans, 1987), 788-790; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, _First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary_ (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries) (Yale University Press, 2008), 597-598.
[5] Ibid., 36-37.
[6] See Craig Keener, _1-2 Corinthians_ (The New Cambridge Bible Commentary) (Cambridge University Press), 179.
Much like fundamentalists, there are many passages from Paul’s letters that make mythicists uncomfortable. From the passages in 1 Cor. 11 & 15, Jesus is eating and drinking and talking to someone before his death and resurrection, before the appearances to the apostles in 1 Cor. 15. Most mythicists miss the point thinking that this does not matter as to them it is an obvious ahistorical event. But that is not the point. It also does not matter about the reliability of Paul’s depiction or his source of information (whether it comes from a revelation or not, and that we simply do not know whether the kernel of this story did or not). What concerns me are the circumstances and timeline of the narrative. It doesn’t need to be a “historical event”. It might be, it might not be. Either way, it attests to an understanding of Jesus by the earliest communities that Jesus taught stuff prior to his crucifixion, over supper. So even if Paul is making it up or thinking he’s receiving it in a revelation, he still seems to be speaking about an earthly Jesus event. Paul represents what the earliest community thought, whether they are imagining it or not, and they think Jesus did stuff before he died. This contradicts Carriers main thesis that the earliest communities only understood Jesus as an angel who did not live or die. Paul describes a scene that has all the hallmarks of a teacher – breaking of bread, the giving of “do this” instruction, etc. This passage argues against minimal mythicism. The mythicists have no decent explanation for Paul’s references to Jesus’ having a communal meal “on the night he was handed over” in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.
Another passage that makes the mythicist hypothesis unlikely is where Paul disagrees and differentiates the teaching of Jesus on divorce from his own. If Jesus was a figment of Paul’s imagination, this would hardly happen. (A figment of Paul’s imagination would actually agree with Paul, logic that escapes mythicists). Basically you don’t have ideological disagreements with people who aren’t real.
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
1 Cor. 7:10-12
Paul cannot be referring to the Hebrew Scriptures, because in the Tanakh it is acceptable for a man to divorce a woman (Deut. 24:1–4), so it can only be the words of Jesus here. So as it is not the LORD in the Tanakh, it can only have come from somebody whom Paul calls Lord – Paul refers to “Jesus the messiah” as the Lord as seen in 1 Cor. 8:6.
Jesus has an absolute prohibition on divorce whereas “Paul then takes an intriguing turn as he overrides Jesus’ command by specifying when divorce is acceptable.” [1] among mixed marriages of believers and unbelievers:
“But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances” (1 Cor 7:15)
Paul’s pretty explicit that Jesus was human: “For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.” (1 Cor. 15:21-22)
I think this is a problem for mythicism. In Jewish reckoning at the time, Earth is where humans are – they’re literally made out of material from the Earth (as Paul understands as well – see 1 Corinth 15:46-49).
If Paul thought Jesus was human (he did), it’s far more likely he assumed he lived where other humans do – the Earth – or else he likely would have clarified otherwise somewhere. 1 Cor. 15 would have been a great spot for him to indicate that Jesus wasn’t on Earth like other humans, because he emphasizes that future human resurrections will be just like Jesus’ resurrection (the first fruit). And then he goes on to discuss the distinction between Earthly bodies and resurrected bodies.
Another point lost on mythicists is that to first century apocalyptic Jewish people only actual people resurrect, Jesus could only have been understood to be human here as Paul sees him as the first to resurrect (1 Cor. 15:23).
All indications seem to be that, for Paul, fleshy and bloody human bodies *are* specifically Earthly bodies: “There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another.”
Yet never clarifies that Jesus’ flesh and blood wasn’t Earthly.
“… that Jesus had in fact lived and died a few years earlier. When Paul claims that he no longer knows Christ “according to the flesh” (2 Cor 5:16), he is not describing his ignorance of the earthly Jesus but his [previous] failure to recognize the crucified Jesus as the Messiah.” [2] Michael B. Thompson shows that in context, Paul’s “limited, human evaluation of the significance of the crucifixion of Christ changed dramatically when he came to faith.” [3] Paul “knows that he has seen the Lord (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8; Gal 1:16) and would insist that these intrinsically revelatory appearances are as real and historical as the ordinary observation of other concrete persons and events……..No doubt, Paul’s Christ is not a purely mythological figure.” [4] “…we regard no one according to flesh, we know him no longer in that way” (2 Cor. 5:16) does not mean you met the person personally. It is obvious that 2 Cor. 5:16 does not mean the Corinthians knew Jesus personally, Carrier seems to think this is a requirement on historicism, but that it is not so, the passage shows that they knew of him and that is enough. [5] What is in the passage is that Paul (who also did not meet Jesus), knew that Jesus had recently lived. The “we” in this passage also means that the community he is speaking to also knew Jesus had lived recently and they also did not meet Jesus. So it’s hard to see what Carrier’s objection is here.
The phrase “Kata Sarka” (according to the flesh) in 2 Cor. 5:16 cannot refer to an otherwordly existence.
“… even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view [kata sarka, ‘according to the flesh’], we know him no longer in that way.” [6]
2 Cor. 5:16
In the context of the letter: Paul uses spiritual and fleshy people to mean spiritual and unspiritual. “Those interpreters who followed Baur in regard to the theological centre of Paul were convinced that Paul’s language about the Spirit and its antithesis—the flesh—came from the Greek world of thought.” [7] Unspiritual cannot be applied to Jesus when Paul describes him “according to the flesh” in the context of this verse, so it can only have one meaning: that of when Jesus was alive. Paul also referred to Jesus as an actual human being in Romans, there are just too many indications of Paul emphasising the humanity of Jesus, to take Jesus as a revelatory being only:
For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Rom. 5:10 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!”
Rom. 5:15
And after his death, Jesus became an intercessor on behalf of God the father (Rom.8:34). In Romans 9 Paul distinguishes between descendants/children of Israel and children of God. Several times he makes this distinction with the phrase “according to the flesh”.
In Roman’s 1:3 Paul uses the same distinction to describe Jesus’s relationship to king David. Saying he is a descendant according to the flesh. This should be enough to settle any debate of Paul thinking Jesus was a real person.
The only place where mythicists really think they have a strong case was once brought up by Doherty, this is where Paul claimed in 1 Cor. 2:8 that Jesus was crucified by supernatural forces, the archons. The short answer to this is that archons were influencing people, which is common in Jewish literature.
In one of the places Paul references Jesus as crucified he uses the word Stauros. (Philippians 2:8). Josephus uses this term Stauros to tell of Romans crucifying Jews. Mythicists claim that Jesus was crucified in outer space but this is not necessary at all. David M Litwa points out that there is no crucifixion in the sky in Paul’s letters. [8] That reading is not there. That’s only a mythicist construct. Jesus was known as of flesh (2 cor. 5:16) and that is on earth not in space. To support this ad hoc hypothesis they claim 1 Thess. 2:14-16 as an interpolation, but the reasons given are suspect and weak. Most of Carrier’s arguments are directed at the verse “But wrath has come upon them at last!” as he associates this with the Temple destruction, but that is only reading the epistles retrospectively. [9] Robert Jewett rightly stated, “From the perspective of those who know about the Jewish-Roman war, it is surely the most appropriate choice. But to someone who lived before that catastrophe, several of the other events could easily have appeared to be a final form of divine wrath.” [10] This is what happens when you are reading this with hindsight, there were plenty other disasters, famines, persecutions etc, plus the fact that “wrath of god” is standard Jewish trope since the time of Amos. As Robert Jewett noted:
“I Thess. ii. 16, ‘but God’s wrath has come upon them at last’, may refer to the disturbance which occurred in Jerusalem during the Passover of 49 when twenty to thirty thousand Jews were supposed to have been killed. (Ant. 20.112 and War 2. 224-7). Since this disturbance was instigated by Zealots (War 2.225), Paul could well have interpreted the massacre as punishment for the persecution against the Christians in Judea. [11]
Much of scholarship has now come around to arguing against this verses’s inauthenticity and as to the verse being anti Jewish, the “Judains” in 1 Thess is referring to the leaders and Sanhedrin, not the people group. I mean “first, that Paul is negative to Jews; [elsewhere] second, that these verses do not apply to all Jews; and, third, that Ἰουδαῖος has a geographical rather than ethnic meaning in this context.” [12]
With 1 Thess. 2:14-16 out of the way the mythicist paradigm is now free to say about 1 Cor. 2:8, that Paul wasn’t referring to physical, earthly rulers at all, but the ‘Archons of this age’ instead. Archons being the spirit beings that crucified Jesus in the sublunar realm. The word “archon” in Greek is also used elsewhere in the Bible, including Matt 9:18, Acts 4:8, and Acts 7:27, where I think it’s pretty clear that it’s referring to human rulers.
Where the confusion comes in for mythicists is that I definitely find it more plausible to interpret Paul as thinking of cosmic, spiritual powers as the ultimate culprits behind the historical crucifixion of the historical Christ – even if those powers were allying themselves with human political actors. The “Archons” and the human “rulers” are intimately connected. Archons are influencing people.
When you have Paul referring to Jesus over and over again in ways that are extremely difficult to explain on Mythicism, (Galatians 4:3-7, 2 Cor. 5:8, Romans 8:1-8, Romans 9:3-5, Philippians 2:5-11, Gal 1:29; Rom. 1:3; Rom 15:8; 1 Cor 2:8 and, most of all, 1 Cor 11:23-26!). All of those pieces of evidence stack up in favor of historicity. All of that stuff adds up and requires a lot of mental gymnastics to explain away piecemeal on mythicism.
Notes:
[1] Chow, Chak Him. “Paul’s Divergence from Jesus’ Prohibition of Divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:10–16” Open Theology, vol. 7, no. 1, 2021, p.169.
[2] Samuel Byrskog, “The Historicity of Jesus, How do we know that Jesus existed?” in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, Ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter, , Vol. 3, Part 2, (Brill, 2011), p.2189-2190.
[3] Michael B. Thompson, “Paul and Jesus” in The Oxford handbook in Pauline Studies, Novenson and Matlock (eds), Oxford 2022, ch. 21, p.390.
[4] Samuel Byrskog, The Historicity of Jesus, p.2189-2190.
[5] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, p.571
[6] Michael B. Thompson, Paul and Jesus, p.389.
[7] Ann Jervis, “Paul the Theologian” in Pauline Studies, eds Novonsen and Matlock, Oxford 2022, p. 81
[8] Litwa, M. David, How The Gospels Became History, (2019), p.37-38; Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, (2014), pp.37– 48;
[9] Carrier, Richard, “Pauline Interpolations.” In Hitler Homer Bible Christ, The historical papers of Richard Carrier 1995-2013 (Philosopher Press, 2014), pp. 203-11
[10] Jewett, Robert, The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Foundations and Facets), (Fortress Press 1986), p.37.
[11] Jewett, Robert, The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation, New Testament Studies, 1971, Vol. 17/02, p.205, fn. 5.
[12] Jensen, Matthew, The (In)authenticity of 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16: A Review of Argument, Currents in Biblical Research, 2019, Vol. 18(1) pp.59–79, quote at p.70.
Five points need to be stressed with this variant of the Testimonium Flavianum.
1. The arguments here do not accept Eusebius as the initial person to have tampered the TF. Tampering of the TF has happened before and after Eusebius.
2. The passage received by both Eusebius and Pseudo Hegesippus was already tampered with.
3. In examining the TF quote contained in the Excidio, the points of agreement with Eusebius show that both used a tampered passage. (See the bold print in the quote below).
4. How we know Pseudo Hegesippus did not use Eusebius is that he would have used Eusebius phrase that he himself inserted – “He was believed to be Christ” (as evidenced by Jerome).
5. We know the TF was also tampered after Eusebius as the textus receptus has “He was the Christ” yet Whealeys scholarship shows the earlier phrase “he thought to be the Christ” which came from Michael the Syrian which in turn derived from Eusebius. This is similar enough to he was “thought to be the Christ”.
Let us now reproduce the passage in full:
They indeed paid the punishments of their crimes, who after they had crucified Jesus the judge of divine matters, afterwards even persecuted his disciples. However a great part of the Jews, and very many of the gentiles believed in him, since they were attracted by his moral precepts, by works beyond human capability flowing forth. For whom not even his death put an end to their faith and gratitude, on the contrary it increased their devotion. And so they brought in murderous bands and conducted the originator of life to Pilatus to be killed, they began to press the reluctant judge. In which however Pilatus is not absolved, but the madness of the Jews is piled up, because he was not obliged to judge, whom not at all guilty he had arrested, nor to double the sacrilege to this murder, that by those he should be killed who had offered himself to redeem and heal them. About which the Jews themselves bear witness, Josephus a writer of histories saying, that there was in that time a wise man, if it is proper however, he said, to call a man the creator of marvelous works, who appeared living to his disciples after three days of his death in accordance with the writings of the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him. From which began the community of Christians and penetrated into every tribe of men nor has any nation of the Roman world remained, which was left without worship of him. If the Jews don’t believe us, they should believe their own people. Josephus said this, whom they themselves think very great, but it is so that he was in his own self who spoke the truth otherwise in mind, so that he did not believe his own words. But he spoke because of loyalty to history, because he thought it a sin to deceive, he did not believe because of stubbornness of heart and the intention of treachery. He does not however prejudge the truth because he did not believe but he added more to his testimony, because although disbelieving and unwilling he did not refuse. In which the eternal power of Jesus Christ shone bright because even the leaders of the synagogue confessed him to be god whom they had seized for death. And truly as god speaking without limitation of persons or any fear of death he announced also the future destruction of the temple. But the damage of the temple did not move them, but because they were chastized by him in scandal and sacrilege, from this their wrath flared up that they should kill him, whom no ages had held. For while others had earned by praying to do what they did, he had it in his power that he could order all things what he wished to be done.
Pseudo-Hegesippus, De excidio 2.12
We can tell that Ps-Hegesippus did not use Eusebius. His Christianised document had “leaders of the synagogue confessed him to be god” and would not have dropped the phrase “he was the Christ”, even a paraphrase would not drop that phrase.
A better explanation is that an already tampered TF was received by both Ps-Hegesippus and Eusebius. This is seen from the points of contact, an example I give below. Realistically Josephus would have called Jesus a pseudo prophet as he did other sign prophets. A new paper of mine sees Jesus as one in a series of sign prophets that Josephus reports about. So this would have initiated a Christian to change this. This tampered passage already had some clever Christian use the Emmaus passage in gospel of Luke to add “for or the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him.” Ps-Hegesippus paraphrase has “the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him.”
This Christianised Latin adaptation of Josephus’s War is independent of Eusebius. As Paget states,
“The importance of this reference lies in the fact that Pseudo-Hegesippus writes independently of Eusebius. This is made clear by the fact that he refers to Josephus’ account of John the Baptist after the TF, following the Josephan order and not the Eusebian order as we find it in HE, and at an earlier point in the same book (2.4) (cf. Ant. 18.3.4) refers to the Paulina incident which Eusebius never mentions. [43]
De excidio was created out of the Greek War in c. 370 CE, but it is known that this author had direct access to Antiquities, not only from Paget’s points but also from the report of pestilence which followed Herod’s execution of his wife Mariamne (1.38; cf. Ant. 15.7, 9). This paraphrase does not blame Pilate for crucifying Jesus (which could be explained by the general trend of Pseudo-Hegesippus taking the blame off the Romans and placing it onto the Jews) nor does it state that Jesus was the Messiah. ‘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.’ [44] If the statement ‘he was the Christ’ was in Pseudo-Hegesippus’s received text he would have used that exact phrase. Jerome’s recension had ‘he was believed to be the Christ’ which shows it is earlier than the TF. Jerome’s recension was known to have used Eusebius’s version as Jerome literally copied it from the Historia ecclesiastica. [45] Interestingly, in two manuscripts of Rufinus’s translation of Eusebius’s Historia ecclesiastica, the same phrase is used. [46] Pollard observed, ‘the Latin manuscripts are generally much earlier than the surviving copies of the Greek original, meaning that we need to know the Latin before we can restore Josephus’ Greek.’ [47] The importance of the De excidio usage of the TF is that his received text from Antiquities was prior to Eusebian tampering.
As Nussbaum states,
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. [48]
———————————-
Here are the footnotes from my paper for the extract above:
[43] Paget, ‘Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity’, Journal of Theological Studies, 52/2, Oxford, (2001), pp. 566-67.
[44] Paget, ‘Some Observations’, p. 567.
[45] Jerome used Eusebius’s Historia ecclesiastica when he reproduced the TF: ‘that Eusebius Pamphilus in the ten books of his Church History has been of the utmost assistance’ (Vir. ill. 13). This recension is earlier than the TF. Jerome’s recension has ‘he was believed to be Christ,’ which is what Eusebius wrote into the TF. The other Latin translation De excidio is a paraphrase but what makes this interesting is that he took from a copy of Antiquities before Eusebius tampered with it. It means that one translation of Jerome is before the TF but after Eusebius. The other translation of Ps-Hegesippus is before both the TF and before Eusebius tampering.
[46] See David B. Levenson and Thomas R. Martin, ‘The Latin Translations of Josephus on Jesus, John the Baptist, and James: Critical Texts of the Latin Translation of the Antiquities and Rufinus’ Translation of Eusehius’ Ecclesiastical History Based on Manuscripts and Early Printed Editions’, JSJ 45 (2014), pp. 1-79 (25), who say, ‘By far the most interesting variant in the texts we are discussing is the reading et credebatur esse Christus for Christus hic erat, which is found in two manuscripts of Rufinus currently in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek: Clm 6383 from the late eighth century and Clm 6381 from the early ninth century.’
[47] Richard M. Pollard, ‘The De excidio of “Hegesippus” and the Reception of Josephus in the Early Middle Ages’, Viator 46 (2015), pp. 65-100 (72).
[48] Johannes Nussbaum, ‘Das Testimonium Flavianum: Ein authentischer Text des Josephus’, NovT 52 (2010), pp. 72-82.
For historical context, Jesus best aligns with the many sign prophets attested in various books by Josephus, written at the time leading up to, and during the Great Revolt of the Jews against the Romans. (66-73CE)
John P. Meier notes, “These ‘sign prophets’ seem to have called down Rome’s wrath on their heads at least partly because of the large crowds of followers they attracted. Jesus fits into this larger pattern at least to the extent that there probably was some connection between his ability to attract enthusiastic crowds and his violent end.”[1] Meier sees “the overall pattern suggested by Josephus can be seen in the cases of the Baptist and Jesus as well: a prophetic figure who draws large crowds attracts the unhealthy attention of the civil authorities”[2]
The evangelists tried to disassociate Jesus from his own type- the sign prophets who were described by Josephus in the lead up to the Great Revolt (66-73 CE) by the Jews :
For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
Mark 13:22
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many …For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you ahead of time. “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.
Matt. 24.11,24-26
And yet the gospels do recognise that others saw Jesus that way:
Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him. (Mark 14:65)
After Jesus was caught, the gospels say the Roman’s recognised him as a false king, similar to at least one other sign prophets, the ‘Egyptian’. Josephus uses the Greek verb τυραννεῖν (tyrant or to be sole ruler, War 2.262, cf.Mk 15.16-20; Mt. 27.28-31; Jn 19.2-5).
Our earliest witness to the Jesus movement, Paul has references to Jesus’ kingdom’ basileian (βασιλείαν), which indicates that he was somehow considered a king:[3]
“Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom (βασιλείαν) to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.”
Even examining the gospels alone John J. Collins sees similarities of the sign prophets to Jesus. In the “Gospels, Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey, to shouts of Hosanna to the Son of David. For the biblically illiterate, Matthew 21:4–5 supplies the quotation from Zechariah 9:9, even providing Jesus with two animals rather than one, missing the Hebraic parallelism. It is certainly tempting to understand this incident in light of the sign prophets in Josephus.”[4]
Attributes of the Sign Prophets
Rebecca Gray has seen the following common attributes to all the sign prophets:
1. The sign prophets were all leaders of sizable movements.
2. The movements they led were popular movements; that is, their followers were drawn mostly from the common people.
3. These figures presented themselves as prophets. In some cases at least, they appear to have modeled their behavior on certain prophetic figures from the ancient past.
4. These prophets are all reported to have led their followers from one place to another. In several accounts, their destination is described simply as the wilderness or desert; in some cases, specific sites are mentioned, including the Jordan River, the Mount of Olives, and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
5. The sign prophets announced to their followers that God himself was about to act in a dramatic way to deliver them. We shall see that it is in most cases extremely difficult to determine precisely how they visaged this deliverance or what they thought its consequences should be. [5]
6. I have changed point 6 by Gray using a better nuance that would not describe these actions as miracles as Gray did, but re-enactments. These re- enactments were the great eschatological signs promised by these prophets. In connection with their announcement of imminent divine deliverance, these prophets would re-enact some dramatic scriptorial event, From the particular terminology that Josephus uses to describe their action these figures have acquired the name “Sign Prophets”.[6]
How these attributes apply to Jesus.
As we examine an earlier form of the Testimonium Flavianum (TF), many of the attributes Rebecca Gray describes above are applicable. For the first point Jesus led two groups to himself before he got executed (Josephus, Ant. 18.63). [This is actually in the textus receptus as it stands]. Dale Allison commenting on the 500 were that Jesus appeared to in his ressurection appearances, according to Paul says “ἔπειτα ὤφθη… πεντακοσιίοις ἀδελφοῖς, after that he appeared to…five hundred brothers (1 Cor. 15:6). Allison goes on to say “with reference to the five hundred, speaks of “brothers” (ἀδελφοί), not “brothers and sisters” (ἀδελφοί καὶ ἀδελφαί),”[7] This could be the remnants of the groups that Jesus led in Jerusalem. “Whereas the apostle was writing to people in Greece, the appearance to the five hundred must have occurred in Israel, where surely the majority of surviving witnesses still lived.”[8] For point 2 these were the common people, my reconstruction has Judeans and Galileans.[9] Eusebius’ tampering as proven by Ken Olson of the TF[10] goes out of his way to stress Jesus as a prophet, probably triggered by what Josephus originally wrote of Jesus being a false prophet. On the rest of the points Jesus probably led his followers to Jerusalem and onto the Temple and may have expected it to be destroyed as a failed prophecy of the gospels suggest. “Yet Jesus’ original purpose is far from clear. The most likely interpretation is that he was symbolically predicting the destruction of the temple, something which was part of visions of the end time.”[11]
We know of an earlier form of the Testiminium Flavianum due to words preserved in the variants such as τις (Codex A of Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7 quoting the TF). τις after Ίησούς referring to “a certain Jesus.” This is the same reading as the Slavonic. “The Slavonic Josephus offers a trace of the same pronoun: the phrase muzi nekij retroverted into Greek would correspond to ἀνήρ τις” (certain man).[12] This expression denotes somebody unimportant, a certain so and so. As this word tis is attested in two separate recensions from two different transmission lines increases the likelihood of this word belonging to the original TF and argues against the TF being made up of whole cloth. Josephus often used the phrase ‘τις’ for sign prophets and messianic figures such as Judas the Galilean War 2.118, Theudas Ant. 20.97 and the unnamed prophet under Festus Ant. 20.188. Another word man ἀνήρ (Slavonic) instead of Jesus. Of course Jesus not being named is not unusual for Josephus: cases such as the ‘Egyptian’ (War 2.261– 263; Ant. 20.169–172) who led a revolt of thousands and he was featured in both Antiquities and War yet Josephus could only call him the ‘Egyptian’. Same goes for the ‘Samaritan’ who was also 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). From Ken Olsens scholarship there is evidence of Eusebius writing the phrase “doer of wonderous works” (παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής)[13] but this could have been to cover a Josephan phrase about Jesus showing signs. Eusebius could have easily picked out the word παραδόξων (wonderous) that is also used in Luke (Lk. 5.26). The Emmaus passage from Luke looks like it was used to cover over any expression Josephus may have described Jesus as a false prophet. Instead a Christian scribe was using Luke for this phrase – “the divine prophets having said both these things and myriads of other wonders concerning him.” Goldberg’s study shows that the Emmaus narrative in Luke resembles the TF and even observed “that they might signify that an inventive Christian forger of the Testimonium was influenced by the Gospel of Luke;”[14] Later on in this blog I give my most updated model of what the original Testimonium Flavianum would have looked like and see how this passage compares to other sign prophet passages.
Geza Vermes saw Jesus as one in a long line of charismatic prophets, naming Honi and Ben Dosa as comparative figures. Much of the rise of these figures had to do with healing and exorcisms as people had thought the devil was the we cause of sickness – “in the final period of the Second Temple era (second century BC to the first century AD) prophets were still expected, as the first Book of the Maccabees (1 Mac. 4:46; 14:41), the Qumran Community Rule (1QS 9:11) and the New Testament (Mt. 11:9; 13:57; 21:11; Mk 6:4; Lk. 4:24; 7:16, 26; 24:19) demonstrate roles, that is to say, as healer of the physically ill, exorciser of the possessed, and dispenser of forgiveness to sinners, must be seen in the context to which they belong, namely charismatic Judaism.”[15]
Yet Jesus is not the only comparable figure to these charismatics. We could make the same argument for all the sign prophets Josephus reports about. It was their charisma that attracted the crowds, a charisma that involved authority through dreams and visions. Those from first century Judea and environs thought that the divine actually contacted people from dreams and visions. Many of these dreams were inspired from scriptures, and the sign was a reenactment of a scriptural fantasy, a promise of a sign the crowd incredulously believed would happen. These sign prophets were charismatic prophets.
As these messianic figures and sign prophets acquired a bad name in the aftermath of the Roman Jewish war and were given the blame for the troubles brought on Judea, this aspect of Jesus’ life started to be disassociated with him and this can be seen in the Testimonium Flavianum that was overwritten.
Let’s meet the Sign Prophets!
An unnamed figure during Pilate, i. e. Jesus Christ (Ant. 18.63-64 – TF)
The ‘Samaritan’ (Ant. 18.85-87) also note, Josephus did not know his name and referred to him as “the man”.
An unnamed Baptist figure who was doing something innovative with a known ritual attracting crowds (Slavonic II.VII.2(b), follows on from War 2.110 cf.Ant. 18.117-119).
Theudas (Ant. 20.97-99).
A group of unnamed figures active during the procuratorship of Felix (War 2.258-60; Ant. 20.167-68).
The ‘Egyptian’ (War 2.261-63; Ant. 20.169-72), Josephus was not aware of his name but only what he was referred to by others.
An unnamed figure under Festus (Ant. 20.188).
Another unnamed figure who led his followers to the temple just before it was destroyed in 70 C.E. (War 6.283-87).
Jonathan, a Sicarius refugee from Palestine who was active in Cyrene after the war (War 7.437-50; Life 424-25). Josephus found it easier to name this sign prophet as he was a contemporary of Josephus and because of his personal involvement.[16]
Sign Prophet passages in Josephus Works.
Let us now reproduce each of those passages.
Unnamed figure during Pilate
There arose about this time a certain man, a sophist and agitator. A teacher of men who reverence truth. [For they said he was a prophet and the Temple would be destroyed and restored in three days] Many of the Judaeans, and also many of the Galilean element, he led to himself in a tumult; he was desirous of Kingship: Many were roused, thinking that thereby the tribe could free themselves from Roman hands. [So Pilate sent forces, footmen to slew them and seize a number of them along with the certain imposter.] And when at the indictment of the first men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to a cross. Yet this tribe has until now not disappeared.
But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, 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 file 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. (Ant. 18.85–87)
Unnamed Baptist figure, Reconstructed from Slavonic and Antiquities.
And at that time a certain man was going about Judaea, (dressed) in strange garments. He donned the hair of camel on those parts of his body which were not covered with his own hair. And he was wild of visage. And he came to the Jews and called them to freedom, And he did nothing else for them, except to immerse them in Jordan’s stream, and dismiss them, bidding them to refrain from their wicked deeds. Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) for Herod slew him, who was a wild man, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. (Slavonic II.VII.2(b), follows on from War 2.110; also reconstructed from Ant. 18.117-119).
[Quick note on this reconstructed passage: Christians did not like that baptism atoned for sins, (it’s as if this would bypass Christ), so they negated the passage by putting in the word “not” and “but”. “not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body.” (Ant. 18.117) We have textual evidence where Rufinus’ Latin variant reverses the meaning of the Greek by saying that baptism can serve to wash away sins. In Origen’s copy it hadn’t been interpolated yet: “John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins” as reported in Cels 1.47. This shows that there was originally a passage there that Christians had to “fix”, just like the TF, Christians would not have meddled with such passages if they did not originally exist. The Slavonic preserves the earlier version on baptism- “he did nothing else for them, except to immerse them in Jordan’s stream and dismiss them, bidding them to refrain from their wicked deeds.”
Theudas.
[A.D. 46.] 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. (Ant. 20.97-99)
5. Unnamed figures under Felix.
There was also another body of wicked men [other than the Sicarii, i.e., daggermen] 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)
6. The ‘Egyptian
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)
7. Unnamed figure 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. (Ant. 20.188)
8. Unnamed figure at Temple before it was destroyed.
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. (War 6.285- 287)
9. Jonathan
And now did the madness of the Sicarii, like a disease, reach as far as the cities of Cyrene; 438for 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. 439And 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. 440So 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. 425However, 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)
Commentary on these passages.
Jesus and John the Baptist not being named is taken from the evidence of the Slavonic. As seen from our survey of the passages, this was very common for Josephus not to know their names, after all most were very minor figures. He knew Jonathan’s name as he was from Josephus’ own day.
Richard Horsley observed many messianic figures found an easy following as “they may continue to hold out hope in a manner not unrelated to biblical fantasies.”[17]
All of these promised miracles recalled biblical episodes from Israel’s foundational history. Theudas’ parting the waters of the Jordan echoed both Moses’ 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.
Many sign prophets (that is Theudas, the ‘Egyptian etc, I suspect Jesus was one of these) “presented themselves as prophets. In some cases at least, they appear to have modelled their behaviour on certain prophetic figures from the ancient past.”[19]Some modelled themselves on the great military leader Joshua, reenacting great divine interventions from the book of Joshua. “In the case of the sign prophets, the appeal to signs that recall Israel’s past—specifically the exodus and conquest narratives—points to the similar goal of freedom and indigenous repossession of the land.”[20] The Temple destruction may have been an ex eventu prophecy placed on Jesus. Jesus making the claim of the Temple being destroyed and restored miraculously, may have been a pesher (commentary finding meanings in the scriptures for today’s events), on the first Temple destruction in Daniel 9:26 or Jeremiah 7. This is exactly the type of claim these sign prophets made as seen from their actions. This is real life, people love prophecies and they get repeated much more than anecdotal stories do.
“They were sign prophets inasmuch as they sought to reveal this knowledge with a dramatic, supernatural sign (parting the Jordan, felling city walls, or revealing hidden tablets). Notably, these signs also have an apocalyptic function insomuch as they reveal previously unseen or unseeable heavenly realities (God’s power to deliver, or revelations of cryptic artefacts).”[21]
These signs prophets in desperate times looked into their scrolls for inspiration, for some, Joshua was the perfect role model in their battle with Rome. From comparative examples it could be seen that during the lifetime of Jesus the scriptures were used to bolster the movement against oppression. These same scriptures were also used to try and survive in the aftermath of the death of their leader.
What we learn about the sign prophets:
The ‘Samaritan’ decided to show the crowd sacred vessels buried on the sacred site of Mount Gerizim, the site where the Hasmoneans had destroyed the Samaritan’s sacred Temple. (Ant. 18.85–87). The vessels were probably instruments used for Temple duties and would connect this Samaritan figure to Moses. Even in the face of danger the crowd still attempted to ascent the mountain. “As in other revolutionary millenarian movements, the belief that salvation was at hand outweighed the clear and present dangers of opposing forces.”[22] Belief was held of divine intervention by both the crowd and leaders. In the slaughter the ‘Samaritan’ was hunted to be killed.
The followers attempted to “proceed up the mountain despite being blocked by Roman troops suggests that the yearning for liberation had reached a fevered pitch and emphasizes their absolute trust in the prophet’s message of divine deliverance”[23]
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.[24] 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 miraculously armed by God. This movement was cut down by Fadus who displayed Theudas severed head in Jerusalem. A deterrent like crucifixion against leading a revolt.
Josephus makes a distinction about the sign prophets under Felix and the Sicarii, hinting at their religious fervor, “not so impure in their actions” (War 2.258). Although Josephus makes this distinction, the actions often turned revolutionary as seen in the passages. You could say the sign prophets were a subset of the revolutionaries. What was a ‘guerrilla tactic’ for the Sicarii (daggermen) in Josephus, was for the sign prophets “better understood as a re-enactment of the Exodus. … Scripture provided the model for the action”[25] The sign prophet under Festus “promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under.” (Ant. 20.188). 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; (War 7.438). Greame Lang had noticed that “Jesus himself is recorded as expressing some rather strong opinions about the wealthy” and “some of [Jesus’] rhetoric certainly would have been received without much argument by some of the revolutionaries described by Josephus.”[26]
The great sign promised (and actually believed by his followers) was god would help with insurmountable odds, like penetrating the walls of Jerusalem as in the case of the Egyptian. 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). From this you can see the scriptural fantasy of re-enactment, that people actually thought this could be actually replicated. The sign prophet at the Temple in 70CE promising deliverance in the midst of Roman slaughter just shows in desperate times how scriptural fantasy offered false hope. (War 6.283). In the passage about this Temple sign prophet Josephus offers a reason why there were so many of these sign prophets at this time- “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. (War 6.287).
We see in the case of Jonathan his followers were unarmed and “John the Baptist, though peaceable, was killed by the authorities because of the sway he held over the people, which to them could easily have spilled into sedition[27]
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’[28]
The gospel of Luke does suggest the Jesus group was lightly armed:
according to Luke’s Gospel, Jesus tells his followers: “The one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.” . . . They [the disciples] said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” He replied, “It is enough” (22:36–38). Their response indicates that they are already armed.[29]
Conclusion
So to conclude, this blog will prove beyond doubt Jesus was a sign prophet, 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, he definitely was a sign prophet. Jesus like the other sign prophets expected a cataclysmic event to unfold. He was a product of his time, an apocalyptic prophet of second Temple Judaism.
The worldview of the common people of first century Judea, Samaria and Galilee was completely alien to ours. The crowd literally believed the sign prophet could pull it off. That God would intervene, that walls would come tumbling down, waters would part or the Temple would get destroyed. This would initiate Gods power struggle as represented by the sign prophet in eschatological hope. Just to run what I just wrote there by you again- To realize people actually thought the sign prophet could pull it off, be it Jesus, the Egyptian of Theudas- they actually believed they could pull it off – we moderns don’t actually get that. I mean the crowd did not just think it was possible- they actually thought it would happen. This is the reason they could pull a crowd and hope to achieve an impossible task, strike a blow against the local administration of Rome. “the thaumaturgical impulse turns revolutionary, and the signs work to both authenticate the charismatic leaders and point to their followers’ impending freedom from oppressive circumstances and rulers.”[30]
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel.” (Luke 24:10-21)
And did so great a nation as that of the Jews, who had long ago received a country of their own wherein to dwell, recognise certain men as prophets, and reject others as utterers of false predictions, without any conviction of the soundness of the distinction?
Celsus as quoted by Origen, Contra Celsum 3.2
[1] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Companions and Competitors, III, p.25.
[2] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, III, p. .36, n.23.
[3] Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, La invención de Jesús de Nazaret, (Siglo XXI de España Editores, S. A., 2018), ch 1.
[4] John J. Collins. 2021. “Millenarianism in Ancient Judaism.” In James Crossley and Alastair Lockhart (eds.) Critical Dictionary of Apocalyptic and Millenarian Movements. 15 January 2021.
[9] Dave Allen, “A Model Reconstruction of what Josephus would have realistically written about Jesus”, JGRChJ 18, 2022.
[10] Ken Olson, “A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum” in Aaron Johnson and Jeremy Schott (eds), Eusebius of Caesarea Tradition and Innovations, Center for Hellenic Studies, (Washington D.C.: Harvard, 2013), pp.97-114.
[11] Wassan and Hagerland, Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet, (T&T Clark 2021) kindle, p.208
[12] Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, (2014a), “Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a “Neutral” Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on Antiquitates Judaicae XVIII 63-64”, JSJ 45, p.358; cf. James Carleton Paget, Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity, Journal of Theological Studies, 52(2), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) p.565.
[14] Gary J. Goldberg, “The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus”, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (1995),pp. 59-77; Quote from Gary J. Goldberg, Josephus’s Paraphrase Style and the Testimonium Flavianum, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 20 (Brill, 2022), p. 2.
[15] Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew, chapter 3, quote at p.58
[16] David Allen, “How Josephus Really Viewed Jesus”, p.349-350. This was an expansion of Rebecca Gray’s list, GRAY, Prophetic Figures, p.112.
[17] Richard Horsley with John S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus, (Trinity Press, 1985), p.70.
[18] Paula Fredriksen, When Christians Were Jews, The first generation, (Yale University Press, 2018), p.177f.
[19] Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine, The Evidence from Josephus, (Oxford, 1993), p.113.
[20] Nathan C. Johnson. 2021. “Early Jewish Sign Prophets.” In James Crossley and Alastair Lockhart (eds.) Critical Dictionary of Apocalyptic and Millenarian Movements 8 December 2021.
[25] Collins, John J. 2010. The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 219.
[26] Greame Lang, Oppression and Revolt in Ancient Palestine: The Evidence in Jewish Literature from the Prophets to Josephus, Sociological Analysis 49/4 (Winter, Oxford, 1989), pp. 325-342, first quote at 327, second quote at 329.
[27] Paula Fredriksen, When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2018), p.178
[28] Nathan C. Johnson. “Early Jewish Sign Prophets.”
“The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” ~ Gospel of John 10:33
This quote from the gospel of John is a later interpretation of a man whom the evangelist thinks that Jesus had claimed to be a god. Many titles were thrown at Jesus, as a result of the messiah mythology already in existence.
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6
As you peel back the layers to earlier traditions contained in the other gospels, Jesus was not thought of as god at all. As a verse in Matthew 9:8 demonstrates, “When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.” Jesus was seen as one of the men god gave authority to. Another verse where Jesus did not view himself as god is in Mark 10:17-18, “As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. ‘Good teacher,’ he asked, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ ‘Why do you call me good?’ Jesus answered. ‘No one is good—except God alone.’” As the title of this post suggests one such title was often applied to many messianic rebels from first century Judea and that title was ‘King Messiah’ or anointed King, (in Greek, χριστὸς βασιλεύς). This is what Jesus is accused of in Luke 23:2 (where it is part of a noun phrase ending in εἶναι to be) – and thus has Jesus claiming himself to be an anointed king, (a ‘messiah’ King). The gospels make many claims in hindsight, but the reality is that many a charismatic figure gathering a crowd would be declared a king. As Josephus said (a historian of first century Judea):
“And now Judea was full of robberies. And as the several companies of the seditious light upon any one to head them, he was created a King immediately, in order to do mischief to the publick.” ( Ant. 17.10.8 )
This ‘King Messiah’ was an expected figure from Jewish scripture, who would establish with god’s help, a “kingdom of god” right here on earth. He would restore Israel from foreign rulers after being imbued with the scriptures, “at the end of days”, (this is an eschatological concept which in Greek literally means ‘end of days’). This is typical of an apocalyptic Jew. Since the time of Schweitzer most mainstream scholars see Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet. [1] Bart Ehrman says all the earliest sources and Jesus’ sayings point to him being an apocalyptic prophet. [2] As Jesus is acclaimed to have said:
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”, (Mark 9:1),
This shows that this new kingdom was imminent. These are the typical sayings of an apocalyptic prophet (apocalypse is Greek for revelation. Back then people thought the divine realm could be revealed through revelations). Many downtrodden peasants would rally around such a figure as all other hope is exhausted. A quote from Josephus demonstrates this nicely:
“in adversity man is quickly persuaded; but when the deceiver actually pictures release from prevailing horrors, then the sufferer wholly abandons himself to expectation” (War 6.286)
Within the scriptures were many inspiring verses that would rally many of the downtrodden around a messianic figure, a rallying call such as:
“The spirit of the lord yahweh is upon me because Yahweh has anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor he has sent me to heal the broken-hearted to proclaim to the captives liberty and to [those who are] bound the opening of the prisons.” (Isaiah 61:1).
Many such charismatic figures appeared on the scene of the Roman province of Iudaea before and after Biblical New Testament times, some willing to lead, others not so willing to lead the crowds. They offered deliverance from the harsh conditions imposed on the lower class by the ruling class. Apocalyptic Jews were even more dangerous as they thought the end of the world was approaching, they could abandon their way of life and become revolutionaries. This is reflected in Mark 1:17-20 17 “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” At once they left their nets and followed him. When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets. Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.” Or in Luke 9:52 it is even more amplified, “Jesus replied, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.” As Adolf Harnack said, these were similar to “a military oath of allegiance” and all these sayings were torn from their real historical context. [3]. The people were hoping for a liberator as seen in the Emmaus narrative in Luke 24:21 where it was expressed after Jesus’s death, “but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to liberate Israel.” Everything was wrong in the life of peasants in Jesus’s day, they were oppressed, overtaxed and over burdened. They worked hard and could not feed their families. The kingdom of god that was promised by messianic figures was going to fix everything with gods intervention. That is why the gospels are the opposite of the background they were set in, they were describing a kingdom of god that Jesus was ushering in. A land of milk and honey where everybody gets healed and fed. There are clues left in the gospels of the real background, the one full of trouble and revolts, such as reported by Josephus. The background atmosphere you could cut with a knife. Not only downplayed by the gospels but even downplayed by translations, one downplaying is held in Matthew 4:12 where Jesus retreats to Galilee as a safe haven. As Bruce Chilton writes, “Many translations water down the meaning of anakhoreo in Matthew’s Greek, giving us “he withdrew.” That is because they ignore the fraught political context that the execution of John by Herod Antipas produced for all John’s disciples.” [4] “the kingdom of the heavens is taken by violence, and the violent claim it” (Matt. 11:12).
“The New Testament offers us neither the historical Jesus unsullied by Christian interests and beliefs and distortions nor Christian distortions and beliefs and interests unsullied by the historical Jesus. For there was always a dialectic. Although ideology imposed itself everywhere, Jesus was not an inert, amorphous lump, waiting for Christian fingers to give him shape. He was not like poor old Enoch, whose laconic five verses in Genesis (5:18, 21-24) set no bounds to speculation, so that he became, in Jewish and Christian legend, a scribe, a proselyte, a preacher, a judge, a king, and the inventor of sewing: quite a list for someone who probably did not even exist. Jesus, by contrast, was a real person and a real memory, and he became a living tradition that encouraged some construals and discouraged others.” [5]
In Judaism the messiah has always been a historical figure.
“The term Mashiach throughout the Hebrew Bible means a historical actually reigning human king of Israel, neither more nor less. … [one of the titles since the dynasty of David is] “Anointed of YHVH” (Messiah, Christos)” [6]
Messiah is a human figure, one who will have children and perform a sacrifice for himself. The Messiah will do sacrifices for his own ‘accidental sins’ as seen in Ezekial 45:22: “And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin-offering.” (Cf Leviticus 4). The Messiah will have children as seen in Ezekial 46:16: “Thus saith the Lord GOD: If the prince give a gift unto any of his sons, it is his inheritance, it shall belong to his sons; it is their possession by inheritance.” There were random verses picked to show Jesus fulfilling messianic expectations. Not the best ones such as mentioned above were picked. This suggests that those that did not fit the historic Jesus could not be used. It looks like whatever traditions there were about Jesus, they picked the Hebrew scripture that could go along with it.
In Paul’s letters, Paul has visions of a recently dead person. He applies the mythology of the celestial messiah to Jesus, but he definitely speaks of a real person. This is seen by contrasting other documents where the celestial messiah is different from the one Paul speaks of. Real people for apocalyptic Jews are resurrected, this is not the case in other Jewish documents about celestial messiahs (e.g. Psalms of Solomon 17, 1 Enoch. 1 Q Melch etc).
[1] Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus.
[2] Bart Ehrman, Jesus Apocalyptic prophet for the new millennium, ch8.
[3] Harnack, Adolf, Militia Christi, The Christian Religion and the Military in the first Three Centuries, (English Translation Fortress Press, 1981), pp.26f
[4] Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, ch4, fn 1.
[5] Dale C. Allison Jr. The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus, pp.28-29
[6] Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels, The Story of the Jewish Christ, pp.26-31 quote at 28.
… when he introduced the creche or Christmas crib, Francis of Assisi became history’s most important interpreter of the infancy chapters of Matthew and Luke. [Footnote 42: The creche conflates the Gospels (Matthean magi, Lucan shepherds), the biblical and nonbiblical (the stable and cave), and OT echoes (camels, oxen, sheep). It highlights the dramatic potentialities and the relation to simple family life.]
Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the NT, p.45 and fn.42.
Why we have the Ox and the Donkey in the crib.
Do you know that the ox and the donkey, so dear to children because they warm the cold environment in which the Sacred Child is born with their warm breath, were born of a translation error?
In a verse from the book of the prophet Habakkuk, it is stated that the Messiah will be born in the midst of years. (See codex Leningrad below).
Yahweh, I have heard your speech and was afraid. Yahweh, revive Your work in the midst of the years, In the midst of the years make it known; In wrath remember mercy. (Hanukkah 3:2, Hebrew translation of Leningrad codex)
When Pseudo-Matthew was writing his gospel he used the Septuagint version of Habukkah 3:2 and the expression in the midst of years should be translated as follows:
ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἐτῶν << “years”
Yet the Septuagint has a mistranslation:
but if you google the LXX, it renders “between the years “ as “between two animals”. ἐν μέσῳ δύο ζῴων << [zóon]. [Genitive plural form of ζώο (zóo) is zóon. This is where we get the word “zoo” from.]
The “animals” may also simply refer to “living creatures” (ζῷα). This variant is covered in detail in chapter 7 of Bogdan Gabriel Bucur’s Scripture Re-envisioned: Christophanic Exegesis and the Making of a Christian Bible. He states that an alternative vocalization of the Hebrew may have yielded “in the midst of…” as “in between two…”, which could have led to an association with Exodus 25 (God’s appearance between the two cherubim) and Isaiah 6 (God’s appearance between the two seraphim), leading in turn to the visual framework for the theophany in Habakkuk.
So the Greek text of the LXX of Hanukkah: ἐν μέσῳ δύο ζῴων (en meso dΰo zóon, literally: “between two animals”), misinterpreting what should have been written ἐτῶν (“years”) instead of ζῴων (“animals”). Hence the wrong interpretation and the error in translation: the Greek should have been “in the midst of years” or even “ in between two ages” but instead was “between two animals”. Pseudo-Matthews Latin also became “between two animals”. That is why in the nativity of the Pseudo-Matthew there is the ox and the donkey, yet Hanukkah’s prophecy just referred to ‘among the years’. (Hab. 3:2) Abacuc is Latin for Habukkah).
Pseudo Matthew a poorly translated Latin translation which in the Hebrew text has a completely different meaning. The text of the apocryphal has:
In medio duorum animalium innotesceris” (“In the midst of two animals you will make known to you”) (Ps-Matt. 14)
The Hebrew vulgate actually had the proper Hebrew Tanakh translation:
Over the years manifest it (In medio annorum vivifica illud) (Hebrew Vulgate Hab. 2:3)
Pseudo Matthew had used the LXX which contained the mistranslation.
So in the Infancy Gospel of Matthew (Psuedo Matthew 14:1-3) it says that after the birth, “the ox and the ass adored Him. Then was fulfilled that which was said by the prophet, saying: The ox knows his owner, and the ass his master’s crib (Isa. 1:3).” It continues its reflection on this event by connecting it to another Old Testament prophet, “The very animals, therefore, the ox and the ass, having Him in their midst, incessantly adored Him. Then was fulfilled that which was said by Habakkuk the prophet saying: “Between two animals you are made manifest” (LXX Hab. 3:2).
So reading Habukkah, it was determined with a mistranslation that the Messiah would be born between two animals. Looking at Isaiah1:2-4 determined what two animals they were.
O LORD, I have heard thy speech, and was afraid: O LORD, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known; in wrath remember mercy.
“O LORD, I have heard thy name and am afraid. O LORD, thy works are in the midst of the years of life, in the midst of years they shall be known; in wrath remember thy mercy.” (Lamsa- Holy Bible from the Eastern Manuscripts) ——————————————————
Isaiah 1:2-4 King James Version (KJV)
2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.
3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the donkey his master’s crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.
4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.
Pseudo Matthew
And on the third day after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, the most blessed Mary went forth out of the cave, and entering a stable, placed the child in the stall, and the ox and the ass adored Him. Then was fulfilled that which was said by Isaiah the prophet, saying: The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib. [2] The very animals, therefore, the ox and the ass, having Him in their midst, incessantly adored Him. Then was fulfilled that which was said by Abacuc the prophet, saying: [3] Between two animals thou art made manifest. In the same place Joseph remained with Mary three days.
We all know it’s an add on but here is the actual scholarship.
For a long time, biblical scholars have recognized the poor textual credentials of the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53–8:11). The evidence against its authenticity is overwhelming: The earliest manuscripts with substantial portions of John’s Gospel (P66 and P75) lack these verses. They skip from John 7:52 to 8:12. The oldest large codices of the Bible also lack these verses: codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both from the fourth century, are normally considered to be the most important biblical manuscripts of the NT extant today. Neither of them has these verses. Codex Alexandrinus, from the fifth century, lacks several leaves in the middle of John. But because of the consistency of the letter size, width of lines, and lines per page, the evidence is conclusive that this manuscript also lacked the pericope adulterae. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, also from the fifth century, apparently lacked these verses as well (it is similar to Alexandrinus in that some leaves are missing). The earliest extant manuscript to have these verses is codex Bezae, an eccentric text once in the possession of Theodore Beza. He gave this manuscript to the University of Cambridge in 1581 as a gift, telling the school that he was confident that the scholars there would be able to figure out its significance. He washed his hands of the document….. except for Bezae (or codex D), virtually all of the most important Greek witnesses through the first eight centuries do not have the verses. (Dan Wallace blog, My Favorite Passage that’s Not in the Bible in Bible.org)
“The pericope about Jesus and the woman taken in adultery appears like a meteorite in the narrative flow of John’s gospel. The passage interrupts the dialogues between Jesus and the “Jews” in the temple area of Jerusalem. The theme appears unusual for John’s gospel. Jesus’ behaviour is different from that which he displays in the chapters before and after this incident. Jesus restrains himself and begins to speak only at the end of the episode. The literary form of the section is that of the so-called paradigm or apothegm, a genre rarely attested in John. Within the narrative, characters appear who are otherwise not encountered in John’s gospel, such as the “scribes” (Jn 8,3). The style is not really Johannine. The gentleness of Jesus causes one to think of that same quality which he shows in Luke (one thinks of the story of Jesus and the woman who was a sinner in Lk 7,36-50). In the early centuries, the attestation of the text is poor and its place in the order of the text inconsistent. Thus, we are confronted with the problem of the text’s authenticity.” (J. Beutler, Commentary on the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017:84).
Many modern textual critics have identified six different places where the story is located in other New Testament manuscripts. They have testified that, in such locations, the story had been marked with obelisk, that is, – or + symbols used in ancient manuscripts, to mark a text or passage of a reasonably doubtful authenticity, especially one suspected of being a secondary addition (Beutler, 2017:85).
The pericope adulterae has all the earmarks of a pericope that was looking for a home. It took up permanent residence, in the ninth century, in the middle of the fourth gospel. traditional location: between John 7:52 and 8:12. But an entire family of manuscripts has the passage at the end of Luke 21, while another family places it at the end of John’s Gospel. Other manuscripts place it at the end of Luke or in various places in John 7.
Some mentions of it by Church fathers:
Jerome Pelag. 2.17
Augustine Incomp. nupt. 2.7
Ambrose Apol. Dav. 1.1,3
Origin (third century), Nonnus (fifth century), and Cosmas of Jerusalem (eight century) appear unaware of the story’s existence.
Tertullian and Cyprian (both third century) do not even allude to the story despite their written suggestions on how to treat adulterous women. (Burge, “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11).”
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 27, no. 2 (1984), pp.142-43)
Here from a paper by Bart Ehrman:
“(1) Textual. Since the oldest and best textual witnesses of the Gospel of John do not contain the passage, how should the allusive references to it from the second and third centuries be evaluated? Did Papias know this story? If so, did he find it in the Gospel according to the Hebrews? Or was it Eusebius, who informs us of Papias’s knowledge of this or a similar story, who found it there? What form of the story was known to the author of the Didascalia and his subsequent editor, the author of the Apostolic Constitutions? Did Origen know the story? If not, when was it first accepted into the Alexandrian canon? (2) Preliterary. How should this story be classified form-critically? And in what Sitz im Leben of the early church would it have thrived? Does the story preserve authentic tradition from the life of Jesus? Scholarship has reached an impasse on these questions because the early evidence is so sparse. Martin Dibelius’s famous pronouncement from a different context applies here as well: ‘Enlightenment is to be expected not from new hypotheses but only from new discoveries.’”
Read on to see my expansion on some of Barts questions.
There are also outside sources from ancient writings that suggest the account circulated as an oral story in different forms. Michael Holmes lists a third-century document written in Syria entitled, Didascalia Apostolorum. The text exhorts its readers to practice the same mercy as demonstrated by Jesus in the adulteress story.
But if you do not receive him who repents, because you are without mercy, you shall sin against the Lord God. For you do not obey our Saviour and our God, to do as even He did with her who had sinned, whom the elders placed before Him, leaving the judgement in His hands, and departed. But He, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her: “Have the elders condemned you, my daughter?” She says to him: “Nay, Lord.” And he said unto her: “Go, neither do I condemn you.” (Didascalia Apostolorum. VIII, ii 24)
————————————
Translated in Michael William Holmes,
The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 558-59
The citation by a fourth-century Alexandrian scholar, Didymus the Blind, provides a second telling of the same story. In this version, the Jewish leaders intend to stone a woman without explicitly stating her offense. Also, the text presents Jesus as the one who initiates the confrontation by intervening on the woman’s behalf. Didymus the Blind believed that the
Gospel According to the Hebrews
(ca. 150) contained this version of the story: We find, therefore, in certain gospels [the following story]. A woman, it says, was condemned by the Jews for a sin and was being sent to be stoned in the place where that was customary to happen. The Saviour, it says, when he saw her and observed that they were ready to stone her, said to those who were about to cast stones, “He who has not sinned, let him take a stone and cast it. If anyone is conscious in himself not to have sinned, let him take up a stone and smite her.” And no one dared. Since they knew in themselves and perceived that they themselves were guilty in some things, they did not dare to strike her. (Holmes ibid :558)
The church historian Eusebius, writing in the first quarter of the fourth century, briefly mentions another tradition about the second-century church father Papias. Eusebius writes, “And [Papias] relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews” (Hist. eccl. 3.39.16). Interestingly, both Didymus and Papias attribute the story to the Gospel According to the Hebrews.
So it didn’t originally belong to John and doesn’t sound like John. In Hist. Eccl. 3:39:16 Eusebius accredits Papias of attributing, what sounds to me like the periscope, to the Hebrew gospel, which could then turn out to be the “source” of the periscope.
So it looks like the canonical gospels took the best from the competing gospels.
As regards to being historical, it is not halakha.
The most powerful argument against the Christ-Myth theory, in my judgment, is the plausibility of what Ethelbert Stauffer called “the Caliphate of James.” It is not merely that Galatians 1:19 refers to “James the Lord’s brother,” though that is powerful evidence that Jesus was a recent historical figure. It is not just that Mark 6:3 lists James and three more brothers and at least two sisters of a historical Jesus. One can also assemble divers (sic) hints from Galatians, Acts chapters 15 and 21, and the Pseudo-Clementines to imply that James was viewed in some manner as Jesus’ vicar or vice-regent on earth, a successor to a deceased or occulted Messiah. Accordingly, various gospel texts seem to show the brothers of the Lord in either favorable or unfavorable light, would appear to be polemical shots between one leadership faction (the Pillars or Heirs of Jesus) and another (the Twelve)
Robert M Price, The Christ Myth Theory and its Problems, pp.331-2.
The disciples said to Jesus, “We are aware that you will depart from us. Who will be our leader?” Jesus said to him, “No matter where you come it is to James the Just that you shall go, for whose sake heaven and earth have come to exist.”
Gospel of Thomas 12
Some gospels reflected who really was second in command during the time of Jesus. (Cf. Gal. 2:12). The rejection of these gospels reflect the denial of certain factions to this fact. The Gospel to the Hebrews has James as being first to Jesus’ post resurrection appearance:
Gospel to the Hebrews Fragment 5
The Gospel is called, “according to the Hebrews” which I have recently translated into both Greek and Latin, a gospel which Origen frequently used, records after the resurrection of the Savior: And when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went to James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he should see him risen from among them that sleep. And shortly thereafter the Lord said: Bring a table and bread! And immediately it is added: He took the bread, blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from among them that sleep.
Jerome, On Illustrious Men, 2
There are reasons for thinking that this gospel was early, for one it had an earlier tradition of the Temple veil being ripped at the death of Jesus (Mark 15:38). The gospel of Hebrews had the lentil falling (Jerome , On Matt. xxvii.51; Letter to Hedibia (Epistle 120, Question #8). “The veil being ripped is a massive anachronism in the gospel of Mark as Titus was the one who ripped the Temple Veil in 70CE (War 5.5.5 cf b. Git 56a). This is known because after Jesus died, all of the Temple activities and services carried on as normal in every way without the trauma of a ripped veil. None of the enormous activities of getting a new veil were needed.
Three hundred priests had to perform its ritual bath” (M. Mid. 1:5; b. Sanh. 88b). It was an enormous, densely-woven tapestry, fifty-five cubits (c. 82 feet) in height (War 5.5.5) and as thick as a hand’s breadth (Exod. Rab. 50:4 [on Exodus 36:35]; M. Sheq. 8:4-5; Num. Rab. 4:13 [on Numbers 4:5]). Despite the mythical claims in Mark’s gospel, the veil was still in place and still intact in 70 CE” [1]
It is Jerome that reports (On Matt. xxvii.51) “In the Gospel I so often mention we read that a lintel of the temple of immense size was broken and divided.” And in Jerome’s letter to Hedibia (Epistle 120 #8) he writes , “But in the Gospel that is written in Hebrew letters we read, not that the veil of the temple was rent, but that the lintel of the temple of wondrous size fell.”
The epithet “the Just” distinguishes the Lord’s brother from others named James. Its use of him is said to have been universally recognized and based on his saintly way of life. Hegesippus provides our earliest evidence of the use of the title in relation to James apart from the Gospel of the Hebrews, which could be dated as early as 140CE. The support of the Nag Hammadi tractates confirms that Hegesippus puts us in touch with a widespread tradition. The surprise is that it is not attested in the New Testament. Perhaps that is because, apart from the Epistle of James, where 5:6 may suggest the title “the Just” or “Righteous,” none of the other New Testanlent books is from a pro-Jamaian perspective.
Painter, Just James, The brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, 2nd ed., p.125.
Painter’s study “confirms that the problem of recovering the historical James is no more straightforward than the quest for the historical Jesus. There is one advantage. With Paul we have firsthand evidence of James. Paul’s letters were written by one who knew James and grudgingly acknowledged his greatness, naming him the first of the three pillar apostles. Such a one was not only great within the context of the Jerusalem church, He ensured that Jerusalem reached out authoritatively to the church of all the nations.”[2] “What singled him out was the conviction that the risen Lord had appeared to him and appointed him as the leader in his place. This tradition is found in the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the Hebrews, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius and might well be found also embedded in 1 Cor 15:7. Paul certainly knew James as the first of the three pillar apostles (Gal 2:2, 6, 9). The leadership of James, rooted in his relationship to Jesus as brother and risen Lord, was also tested and tried in a life that was both exemplary and decisive. Clearly, James was no mere heir to the leadership of Jesus. His leadership proved him to be a towering figure in the early church.”[3] The letters just show James in charge of the whole Jesus movement as “men from James” came checking up on Paul (Gal. 2:12).
The post resurrection appearance contained in 1 Cor. 15 reflects competing factions all getting a look in. On the one hand we have “Cephas and the twelve” (Cephas meaning “Rocky” in Aramaic, believed to be Peter, Petros being the Greek for “Rocky”), on the other hand we have “James and the apostles” all written in to the post resurrection scene. This passage represents competing factions in the power struggle post Jesus’ crucifixion. As the canonicals were an offspring of the Pauline side we have the gospel of Matthew elevating Peter as second in command.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
Matt 16:19-20
The terms ‘bind’ and ‘loose’ reflect the powers of the Sanhedrin as seen in rabbinical literature and also reflects a passage in Isaiah where the power was transferred from King Hezekiahs chief minister Shebna to Eliakim:
And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.
Isaiah 22:22-23
The Second Apocalypse of James has James exceeding Peter holding those keys, James being a keeper at the door to heaven. James is a guide who escorts those through the door of heaven (55,6-14; cf. 55,15-56,13). It is James that is elevated above all in the First Apocalypse of James on a level to that of Jesus.
As Bütz pointed out, “it is not only in the Jewish Christian literature that we see James elevated over Peter. We also see this in Acts and in Galatians. And it is also in Acts and Galatians that we see so much of the evidence for the thoroughgoing Jewishness of James and the apostles. So the leadership of James, and the strict Jewishness of the apostles, are clearly not total fabrications by the later Jewish Christian community. They may indeed be somewhat exaggerated, but they surely have a solid basis in fact.”[4]
Painter notes on James in Acts:
“In Acts the family of Jesus appears among his followers, and James is portrayed as the leader of the Jerusalem church. There is nothing to suggest that this view represents a radical change within the Jesus movement”[5] Not only is James the leader, you can tell from where James is first mentioned that the other brothers of Jesus also had leadership roles, as Peter said, – “Announce these things to James and the brothers” (Acts 12:17). For a leader of the Jesus movement, James is only mentioned three times in Acts 12.17, 15.13, 21 18. “It is as if Luke has pushed James into the background, but, because of his prominence, has been unable to obscure totally his leading role.”[6]
As Eisenman pointed out in his book James the brother of Jesus, fiction does not try to write people out of their narratives and yet that is what happened in Acts.[7]
James is mentioned for the first time in Acts 12:17 as if he had been introduced before and is mentioned as the leader of the Jerusalem church in such an off hand way, that we the reader should know about him and would have if Acts had not been overwritten. Acts assumes we already knew who James was. Another James, James the brother of John was killed at the beginning of chapter 12 (decapitated) just before introduction of this James the Just and according to the epistles is brother of Jesus. (Cf Gal.2:12; 1:19)
It looks like Stephen was a stand in (ie this was the overwrite) for James as Stephens attack in Acts and James attack in the Pseudo Clementines Recognitions are very similar. This similarity can still be glimpsed at in Acts 7:52: “the Just One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered.”
Eisenman has seen a plausible alternative narration contained in the Ebionites Acts of the Apostles, also known as the Pseudoclementine Recognitions, that the Stephen narrative may have replaced an earlier James passage. This is the episode where Paul has physically attacked James with a faggot resulting in James falling down the steps of the Temple.
James held debates on the Temple steps with the High Priests or Temple Establishment, one of these episodes ended in the riot led by Paul – in which Paul picked up the ‘faggot’ – that resulted in James being injured and left for dead. ( Ps. Rec. 1.69-70).
Of course Acts glorifying Paul, had to write that particular passage out of its narrative.
Eisenman has also argued that the election of Matthias may have been originally about James too. Elsewhere it is shown that it was James that was elected for the first bishop of Jerusalem:
“James the Just was the first to have been elected to the Office of Bishop of the Jerusalem Church. (Eusebius, EH 2.1.2).
“After the Resurrection, the Lord imparted the gift of Knowledge to James the Just and John and Peter. These gave it to the other Apostles and the other Apostles gave it to the Seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.”~ Seventh Book of Clement’s Hypotyposes (meaning Outlines in English).
Eusebius uses the same word ‘Episcope’(‘Bishop’), that the narrative of Acts has just used to describe the successor to Judas Acts 1:20.
As Painter said:
The variety of ways in which the appointment of James is described suggests that the direct appointment of James by Jesus, a tradition found in the Nag Hammadi tractates, especially the Gospel of Thomas logon 12, and also in Gospel of the Hebrews and the Pseudo-Clementines is being opposed. There is no tradition in which the risen Jesus authorizes a successor other than James.
Painter, Just James, p.114
In later times we have both the gnostic (Nag Hamadi tractates etc.) and anti-gnostic traditions (Clement, Hegesippus, Origen, Eusebius) claiming James as the leader.
The Psuedoclementines shows us that there is a tradition there that Paul attacked James at the Temple, ( this is a seperate incident from Josephus account), shows a similar story but blames the Pharisees. The real history is in the epistles themselves, it shows Paul hijacking this movement, breaking away from James & co, ignoring any written orders from “certain men that came from James” (Gal. 2:12).
In the gospels too we have attempted cover ups. They go so far as to include Mary the sister of her own sister Mary (John 19:25). Also John actually never mentions James by name when talking about the brothers of Jesus. The Jesus of the gospel of John commits the care of his mother to the Beloved disciple, elevating him above his brothers (including James).
Mark 6:3 names out Jesus brothers James, Joses, Jude and Simon. He also informs us that Jesus has two sisters which later apocrypha name as Mary and Salome. Matthew 13:55 changes Joses nickname Joseph. Luke as we will see has a political agenda not to name any family members.
James Tabor in his book The Jesus Dynasty deals with the mystery of the other Mary.[8] He goes through the crucifixion scenes to gather clues in each of the canonical gospels.
In the gospel of Mark we have
1) Mary Magdalene.
2) Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses. [James to “less” or least (μικροῦ) as it is rendered in greek suggests a younger brother of Jesus].
3) Salome (Mark15:40).
In the gospel of Matthew
1. Mary Magdalene
2. Mary mother of James and Joseph
3. The mother of the sons of Zebedee ( Matt27:56)
Luke just mentions women in his policy of downgrading the family of Jesus. (Luke23:49,55)
In the gospel of John
1. Jesus’ mother Mary
2. Her sister Mary, wife of Clophas
3. Mary Magdalene
With three Marys has John got something to veil?
The Mary in Mark and Matthews gospel who is mother of James and Joses (or Joseph) is more than likely Mary mother of Jesus.
The Mary sister of Mary in Johns gospel is more than likely the same and one person, (Tabor shows both having the same named children). Peter Cresswell believes John 19:25 would have originally read “”But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, Mary the wife of Clopas, and his mother’s sister, and Mary Magdalene”[9]
This would reconcile the three gospel accounts perfectly. Clopas and Alphaeus in Greek both render the Aramaic word ‘Chalphai’. ‘James son of Alphaeus’ (Mark 3:18) or ‘James the less’ (Mark 15:40) is distinguished from James son of Zebedee brother of John. As James is the son of Alphaeus in all the gospels it stands to reason that Jesus was really Yeshua ben Clopas. According to the Patristics, Simon son of Clophas was supposed to have taken over the movement after the murder of James. (Preserved by Hegesippus as reported by Eusebius in Church History 3.11). Being called ‘James the less’ suggests he was a younger brother of Jesus. (Cf Luke 2:7 where Jesus is firstborn). As Painter puts it:
And he did not know her until she bore a son; and he called his name Jesus. (Matt. 1:25) The natural way to read this implies that Joseph did come to “know” Mary after she bore her son, just as “before they came together” (1:18) implies that they did not “come together” until later. … togther with Luke 2:7, which refers to Jesus as Mary’s “firstborn son,” implying that there were others born later, a view which he found to be confirmed by references to the brothers and sisters of Jesus in other parts of the New Testament.[10]
In another book by Tabor Paul and Jesus, we see Lukes political editorial changes to Mark:[11]
“Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” (Mark 6:3).”
Luke omits the names of the brothers and has the people ask, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” (Luke 4:22).
Both the gospel of Matthew and Luke remove “son of Mary”, as the gospel of Mark is not aware of Joseph.
Mark “’Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?’
Matt. ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary?’ (Matt. 13:55).
To call a man the son of his mother would usually imply therefore that his father was unknown – that is to say, he was illegitimate. Both Matthew and Luke changed this.
According to Cresswell, “the gospel of John has two references [to Joseph] that could be taken as Jesus was of the tribe of Joseph, but had a differently named father (John 1:46, 6:42). The latter reads, ‘Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?’”[12]
Dr Price in his book Deconstructing Jesus has suggested Luke changed the northern messianic title Messiah Ben Yoseph into his actual father. Dr Price has shown the rivalries between on the one hand, the northern Israel kingdom and their messiah Ben Yosef and the southern kingdom of Judah and the Davidic messiah, here is a classic bit of commentary by Dr Bob from his book Deconstructing Jesus:
“there is that otherwise baffling episode in which we listen in on Jesus refuting the southern notion that the Messiah must be a descendant of King David (Mark 12:35-37). It would make perfect sense as a bit of polemic aimed from up north in Galilee or Samaria, by Jesus people who rejected any notion of a Davidic Messiah. Mark has preserved it for us, not because he himself rejected the (Davidic) Messiahship of Jesus (he didn’t- Mark 10:47-48), but simply because it was a controversy story showing Jesus trouncing his opponents. Mark didn’t much care what the issue under debate was, as long as he could show Jesus silencing the scribes. But in the process he has told us more than he wanted to……Some scholars have suggested that for Jesus to be called Joseph’s son in the gospels is a later misinterpretation of Jesus’ title as the Galilean Messiah. Just as “Jesus the Nazorean” need not refer to having roots in Nazareth but may instead imply membership in the pious Nazorean sect (see Acts 24:5), “Jesus son of Joseph” may be a messianic title. My guess would be that, once the southern idea of Jesus as a descendant of David caught on, someone tried to reinterpret his northern messianic identity, reinterpreting the epithet “son of Joseph” by making Joseph refer to the immediate, if adoptive, father of Jesus, instead of his remote ancestor, whose prophetic dreams promised him that the sun, moon, and stars would one day bow before him (Genesis 37:9).”[13]Dale Allison has suggested the ending of Mark was cut off as it may have been set in Galilee. “Then again, if the story was set beside the Sea of Galilee (cf. Lk. 5:1-11; Jn 21:1-17), those who, like Luke, thought of the appearances as confined to the south might have wished to expunge it, discreetly pass it by, or move it elsewhere.”[14]
There is more editorial changes in Luke’s efforts to make the family of Jesus anonymous. As seen above Marks crucifixion scene we have “Mary the mother of James and Joses” present. Luke changes this to unnamed women to read “the women who had followed him from Galilee” (Luke 23:49).
At Jesus’ burial scene Mark says that “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses” were at the tomb (Mark 15:47). Here we see Luke changing this account to read “the women who had come with him from Galilee followed and saw the tomb” (Luke 23:55). This is very deliberate editing out of the names.
In the resurrection scenes Luke has them all in Jerusalem. He yet again edits out Galilee as the scene of the resurrection as Luke is determined not to highlight Jesus’ origins and not to highlight his family. This is because he wants to downgrade anything to do with James, his Galilean origins and where James leadership would have taken hold. In Acts Jesus tells the disciples to “stay in the city” until Pentecost and “do not leave Jerusalem”.
Luke also edits what the angel or angels say at the tomb. In Mark and Matthew the angel says Jesus will be seen in Galilee. Luke adds two angels and edits the text to say, “remember what he said while he was still with you in Galilee?”
This is deliberate rewriting of history to downgrade James and his leadership in the aftermath of the crucifixion.
Luke also aims to move away from the apocalyptic messianic movement that the Jesus movement was. First he portrays Jesus as a prophet instead of the political title “messiah” right throughout his gospel, second he changes the apocalyptic age to come in Marks gospel by redefining the kingdom of god to mean just Jesus’s ministry, for example this can be seen as he changes this verse in Mark 9:1, ESV: “And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”” to what is found in Luke 9:27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.” There is nothing about it coming in power.
According to Luke Jesus own ministry is the kingdom of god. It is nothing to do with establishing a political kingdom of god right here in earth. In Luke 17:21 he defines “the kingdom of god is in your midst”, there is no end of age here, Luke has changed it to a theological kingdom of god that is Jesus’s ministry.
Familial politics.
When joining rival tribes sometimes we get symbolic brothers, like the later generations of both organisations make their leaders brothers or cousins. This usually helps when one sect is trying to tag onto another. We can see this with the Nazorean and Mandaean movements especially played out in the gospel of Luke.
Only Luke mentions Jesus and John were related. The other gospels seem unaware of it, or consider it a matter of no importance whatsoever. The Gospel of John says Jesus and his disciples started out associated with John the Baptist, but they split off, formed a separate group that competed directly with him. The gospel of John also shows indications of an active debate between the followers of Jesus and John the Baptist as to which of the two was the authentic messiah. There was apparently a rupture in their relationship over something significant.
The Mandaeans literature saw Jesus as a false prophet (ch7 The book of John).
Then you have Steve Mason’s following remark, “Yet we see an obvious and major difference between Josephus and the Gospels in their respective portraits of the Baptist. To put it bluntly, Josephus does not see John as a “figure in the Christian tradition.” The Baptist is not connected with early Christianity in any way. On the contrary, Josephus presents him as a famous Jewish preacher with a message and a following of his own, neither of which is related to Jesus. This is a problem for the reader of the NT because the Gospels unanimously declare him to be essentially the forerunner of Jesus the Messiah.”[15]
Dr R M Price made a very astute observation, “The historical Baptist had no more endorsed Jesus as the one who was to come (as portrayed in the gospels). It means, too, that Christianity failed to co-opt and absorb the Baptist movement. But it tried.”[16]
From the following passage the Baptist movement can easily be seen as an independent separate movement: Acts 19:1-5 “While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
From this passage we can deduce that these two movements had existed separately, as shown in Acts the Baptist movement had existed in Asia Minor independent to Christianity, both existed after the death of both Jesus and John the Baptist.
Steve Masons said, “the early Christian tradition has co opted a famous Jewish preacher as an ally and subordinate of Jesus”.[17]You can tell that the Baptist movement was a way more popular at the start by the way Christianity attempted to tag onto John the Baptist in their own propaganda tracts, (ie, the gospels). Even Josephus dedicates more space to John the Baptist passage than to the passage about Jesus. Dr R M Price comparing the Baptist movement to the Simonites led by Simon Magus, christianity had also tried to absorb these as seen from their propaganda in Acts 8:9-24.[18]
Rival competing movements aside, when we talk about unified institutions leadership roles are usually passed from family member to family member. At the time of Jesus all the main religions-political movements were run on familial political concepts where a movement passed from father to son or brother. Ethelbert Stauffer provides many examples of this:[19]
High Priests, Kings even other messianic figures all had familial political organisations. Annas provided 9 High priests: 5 sons, 1 son-in-law, 1 grandson and 1 grandson-in-law. With the Maccabee Kings it was felt that God had called a family. Anthroges the shepherd had his brothers as generals.
Ancient people thought in a familial political way. This happened from the highest of institutions such as the Emperors to the lowest such as messianic rebel types. Many messianic type movements as seen from Dead Sea Scrolls, Talmud and the gospels claimed that their messianic leader derived their lineage from the line of David. ( see the genealogies of both Matthew and Luke; cf: 4Q174 III 1-9 is a Midrash on 2 Samuel 7:10-14 (and the use of Exodus 15:17-18, Amos 9:11) for the restoration of Davids house; cf: Erza8:2; Tannit 4.3).
The Emperors at the time of Jesus came from the Julio-Claudio line. Josephus said in Apion 1.7 that the line of High Priests coming from Aaron had to be unbroken. From 6-70CE the house of Annas provided 9 High priests. This concept was not only true of Emperors and High Priests but of the bandits and messianic figures found in Josephus works.
Hezekial the archbandit eventually beheaded by Herod the Great, founded a family of guerilla kings including his son Judas the Galilean and great grandson Menahem who provided much resistance to Roman rule.
Anthroges the shepherd ( Ant17.10.7, War2.4.3) emulated the shepherd king David and took for himself the diadem in Judea. His movement was also led by his brothers who were all over 6 feet tall.
In 1 Macc 5:55 some warriors who wanted to go alone, contrary to Judas Maccabee and his brothers orders, failed miserably because they went against the orders of the family God supported (1Macc5:61).
In the gospels we see more of this concept when we see two brothers James and John (same names as the ‘pillars’) wanting to sit at the left and right of Jesus’s messianic title.
This Judaic principle of familial politics can be seen in the earliest leadership of the Christian Church. A ‘caliphate’ of James was first suggested by Adolf Von Harnack but discussed at length in a paper released by Ethelbert Stauffer. A movement that interpreted Jesus as a new king of the Jews, the tradition of royal succession. Leadership would fall to Jesus’ oldest surviving brother. In this sense the movement’s embrace of James as leader makes sense.
We see much evidence of the relatives of the lord, (1 Cor. 9:5, Gal. 2:19, Acts 1:14) and we see there are many attempts to suppress their leadership role in the NT.
We have the rivalry of seeing the Jesus movement and the jockeying for leadership within this movement. We see many competing factions in the Lord’s resurrection appearance seen in 1 Cor. 15. We have ‘Peter’ and ‘the twelve’ competing with ‘James and the apostles’. Even if this passage was heavily interpolated by competing factions it shows the familial faction as one side and Peter and the twelve in the competing side.
“In the New Testament, as Harnack and Stauffer argued, we seem to see the remains of a Caliphate of James. And that implies an historical Jesus. And it implies an historical Jesus of a particular type. It implies a Jesus who was a latter-day Judah Maccabee, with a group of brothers who could take up the banner when their eldest brother, killed in battle, perforce let it fall. S.G.F. Brandon made a very compelling case for the original revolutionary character of Jesus, subsequently sanitized and made politically harmless by Mark the evangelist. Judging by the skirt-clutching outrage of subsequent scholars, Mark’s apologetical efforts to depoliticize the Jesus story have their own successors. Brandon’s work is a genuine piece of the classic Higher Criticism of the gospels, with the same depth of reason and argumentation. If there was an historical Jesus, my vote is for Brandon’s version.”[20]
Unlike Bob and Brandon, I don’t see Jesus as a zealot, these groups were much better organized groups to Roman resistance than the Jesus group was. A much better alignment would be to a group Josephus distinguished to the zealots and sicarii and that is the sign prophets. Josephus had said of the sign prophets that they were ‘not so impure in their actions’ (War 2.258).
Getting back to James:
“Following the lead of Ethelbert Stauffer, researchers have even used the language of ‘Caliphate’ to speak of a strong line of succession that derived from Jesus through James”[21]
Dr. Price compares the caliphate to that of the succeeding caliphates of Mohammad.
In another book Deconstructing Jesus, Price said that Jesus was part of a group of Nazoreans, but the gospel of Matthew changed this to being from Nazareth because he could not accept that a Jesus was just one of the group members (being god and all that). This to me suggests the Nazorean group is a lot older than Jesus ministry. Also see all the messianic figures in Josephus, DSS and charismatic figures in the Talmud that were just like Jesus. The familial concept was the way all these movements were run, they would only trust their brothers etc and all this is suggested in the attempted suppression of Jesus’ family in the gospels as Tabor suggests.
The caliphate model is slapped on in light of the ample evidence of the familial political situations that ruled Kings, High Priests, messianic leaders etc.
[1] C H Lawson, “What if the Historical Jesus was the heir to the throne? A Reconstruction based on the First Century Dead Sea Scrolls”, Journal of Higher Criticism 17/2 (2022), pp.127-174.
[2] Painter, Just James, The brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, 2nd ed., p.xviii.
[15] Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, p.155.
[16] Dr R M Price, The Amazing Colossal Apostle, ch7, where Price was comparing the Baptist movement to the Simonites led by Simon Magus, christianity had also tried to absorb these as seen from their propaganda in Acts 8:9-24.
[17] Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, p.157.
[19] Ethelbert Stauffer, “The Caliphate of James.” Trans. by Darrell J. Doughty. Journal of Higher Criticism 4/2 (Fall 1997), pp. 120-143; originally: “Zum Caliphate des Jacobus”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte (ZRGG) 1952 p.193-214.
[20] R M Price, The Christ Myth Theory and its problems, p.21
[21] Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner (eds), The Brother of Jesus, James the Just and his mission, p.ix.
[James was an] embodiment of the ancient lost prestige of the Jerusalem church— a prestige it desperately hoped to recapture. According to ancient tradition, the brother of Jesus was the first bishop of Jerusalem, the “mother of the churches.”
Hugo Méndez, The Cult of Stephen in Jerusalem, p.9.
Dave Allens blog 