PART 10 of my Historical Jesus series

The most convincing aspect of Jesus’ historicity is that he belonged to a messianic group of Nazoreans. The gospel of Matthew redefined the meaning of Nazorean to say it was a person who came from Nazareth, this may work in English or Greek but in Aramaic/Hebrew the two words have nothing to do with each other, (The name Nazareth is not in any way related to the title “Nazorean” discussed below). Chilton noticed in the gospels their handling of the term nazorean: “But more is going on here. Jesus is rarely called “of Nazareth” or “from Nazareth” . . . He is usually called “Nazoraean” or “Nazarene.” Why the adjective, and why the uncertainty in spelling? The Septuagint shows us that there were many different transliterations of “Nazirite”: that reflects uncertainty as to how to convey the term in Greek . . . Some of the variants are in fact very close to what we find used to describe Jesus in the Gospels. . .”[1]

There are two possible origins for the word nazorean, either explanation would denote a sect as opposed to a geographical location as the origin. 

First explanation was given by J. S. Kennard who sees Nazirites as a title for the separated coming from Numbers 6. [2]. It comes from the noun נזיר (nazir) or from the verb נזר (nazar), to separate or consecrate, (or to dedicate oneself). The Hebrew base for Nazirite is NZR. With the term Nazarite, the Greek letter zeta is rendering the Hebrew letter zayin. So this gives the Hebrew base as NZR, as opposed to NTZR discussed next.

       The second possible origin of the word nazorean comes from the Hebrew base NTZR, from which comes two Hebrew words that are identical (except for their vowels). The first word is netzer נֵצֶר as given by Laupot [3] who sees the name derived from Isaiah 11:1 which connects the Hebrew word ‘netzer’ (branch) NTZR [4] to the Greek transliterated word Ναζωραῖος and Ναζαρηνός (nazorean). This word ‘netzer’ comes from the exact same Hebrew base for ‘keepers’ as discussed next. (Hebrew did not have vowels so words can only be interpreted from their context). Branch was used as a term for the royal descendant of King David, so important to all Jewish messianist groups. All messianist Jewish groups claimed descent from the house of David. Isaiah 11:1 used netzer to refer to a Meshiach (Messiah).

       Another meaning from NTZR was “Keepers /Guardians of the covenant” from the collective plural Hebrew word “nazorim”.  They were also followers of the messianic heir who was called the Branch (“netzer”).  These followers called themselves “netzerim”. 

       The phrase “keepers of the covenant” or “guardians of the covenant” (“natsorim ha brit”) appears repeatedly as a sectarian name in the DSS. In Aramaic the collective plural word for “keepers” (as in jail-“keeper”, or “guardian”) is “natsorim” “natzorim” “nazorim” (all variant transliterations of nun, tsadi, resh, mem) [compare Hebrew “shomrei”, a root word for Samaritans]. The Acts of the Apostles admits that this was a sectarian name [“NazOraios” with an omega (Ω) in Greek showing it was derived from Aramaic “NazOrim” and not from the place name NazAreth].[5].

        In the Talmud, Jesus is known as Yeshu ha notsri as seen in the manuscripts, (Avodah passages) also a derivation from branch.

       William Smith says Nazorean occurs “without any suggestion of tendency, especially in Acts, and more than all, it is used in the plural as the name of the new religionists (Acts 24:5) : Tertullus describes Paul as a ringleader of the heresy of “the Nazoreans.” It seems impossible that this name should have become their vulgar designation, unless it had been a very early and important designation……In Mark the epithet is so distinctive that it is put into the mouth of the maid as the name of the arrested one: “Thou also wast with the Nazarene (Jesus)” (Mark14:67). All this indicates that this epithet was from the start highly distinctive and familiar, a name in itself, which would be passing strange, if it was indeed derived from a most obscure village otherwise unknown.” [6] Of course the gospel of Mark suggests Capernaum as Jesus’ hometown. Capernaum was really the hometown of Jesus in the gospel of Mark:

-Mark 2:1 When Jesus returned to Capernaum after some days, it became known that he was at home.

-Mark 2:15 : While he was at table in his house

-Mark 3:20: He came home …

       Dr R M Price has seen why Jesus’ epitaph was changed –  “Christians could no longer imagine their Lord had himself been simply a “believer” [ie a Nazorean] like themselves, so they inferred that his famous epithet that had denoted he had hailed from Nazareth” [7].

Schonfield saw the main reason for this change: “The name he bears, Jesus the Nazorean, has northern sectarian implications….” [8]. If you wanted to cover up the implication of the name for a sectarian group of Nazoreans, a convenient way would be to say the name derived from being from Nazareth. It is a later misdirection to account falsely for Jesus’ “Nazorene” title so people would fail to identify the historical Jesus with the strict Torah-keeping Zealots who called themselves “Keepers (nazorim) of the Covenant”. This is shown in action where both Luke and Matthew copying an earlier MSS of Mark 1:9 do not have Mark’s one mention of Nazareth. As Turton says Mark 1:9’s reference to Nazareth “does not appear in the parallel passages in Matthew or Luke. In Luke Jesus goes to the baptism from Galilee, but there is no Nazareth. [9] Luke’s evidence is even more compelling, given according to Ehrman that the birth narratives, chapter 1 and 2 are later additions to Luke, therefore Luke had not already introduced Jesus as being from Nazareth. [10] Turton goes on to say, “ this is the only use of the word “Nazareth” in Mark; all other usages are a Greek word, nazarhnos, generally translated as “Nazarene.” “Nazarene” can mean either a sectarian designation, or “of (the location of) Nazara,” but it cannot mean “of Nazareth.”[9]

As Carrier noted “there is no good reason Jesus was called a nazorean (Mt. 26:71; Lk18:37; Jn.18:5-7 and 19:19) and his followers nazoreans other than that this term originally was unconnected with Nazareth and originally was a sect. Nazoraios has no grammatical connection to nazar, Nazaret or Nazareth. Nazor- and nazar- are completely different routes. Matthew knows no other spelling than Nazoraios (Nazorean) and he was using Mark as a source.” [11].The name Nazareth is not in any way related to the title “Nazorean” because sectarian names did not denote a location. There is no convincing evidence that suggests either Nazorean or Nazarene were ever related to a toponym “Nazareth.” By contrast all related forms in every other source unrelated to the Synoptics associates the term with wisdom, truth, or some other religiously significant cultic concept (Mandaeans and the Gospel of Philip for instance). In fact, a text known as the “Rule of the Benediction” (discussed in Charlesworth [ed.], The Messiah:122) which is based on Isaiah 11 actually utilizes related terms as the titles of religious officials associated with Messianism directly, and no relation to the toponym at all.

      Nazoraios has no grammatical connection to nazir, (root of Nazirite). “Natzor” and “nazir” are completely different roots.  The “z”s are the major difference in the root. The “z” in Nazareth is the letter tsadi in Hebrew.  The “z” in “Nazirite” is the letter zayin in Hebrew. Nazareth: נָצְרַת (with tsadi) and Nazarite: נזיר (with zayin) are not related. The words are not at all related in any way. [12] A person from Nazareth would be a Nazarethenos or Nazarethaios from the Greek and if it were in Hebrew then Nazareth would be Nazrat and a person from Nazareth is then a Nazrati, but never a Nazarene or Nazorean. Further, there were movements to separate Jesus towards sophisticated Greek culture and away from Judaism, and in particular to distance him from extreme fundamentalist Judaism, (especially a messianist group such as the Nazoreans. At the time of composing the gospels after the Roman Jewish war, all messianists were looked on with suspicion).

David Oliver Smith sees that Nazareth breaks the chiastic structures that the gospel of Mark was so fond of. [13] It is possible that Mark’s Original Gospel at 1:9 had “Nazarene,” and “Nazaret” is a later redaction. There are a several reasons that the use of “Nazaret” in this verse is suspicious:

1. Mark identified Jesus as “Nazarēnou” four times (there are different endings for the different cases) and 1:9 is the only time “Nazaret,” is used. While absolute consistency is not required, it is curious that 1:9 is different from the other four times.

2. Matthew eliminated Mark’s “Nazarene” in all of Matthew’s passages that are parallel to Mark’s use of “Nazarene.” At Matt 3:13 when Jesus is coming to be baptized he describes Jesus as “the Jesus from the Galilee” eliminating the “Nazarene” or “of Nazareth,” whichever was there originally in Mark. At Matt 2:23 Matthew says that Jesus and family move from Egypt to Nazareth, and he adds that this fulfills the prophecy that he would be called a “Nazōraios” (Nazorean).

3. Mark usually used an article before “Jesus” as he did at 1:14 “came the Jesus into the Galilee,” as did Matthew at Matt 3:13, just quoted. However, an article is not found before “Jesus” at 1:9 in Canonical Mark. This may be evidence of a later redaction.

4. If “of Nazareth” found at 1:9 was originally “Nazarene,” there would be an exact match of three words in the (K, K’) stich of the chiastic structure in which Chapter 1 of Mark is paired with the passion from 14:33-16:8. This, of course, is a self-fulfilling prophesy, but given the previous ten matches and the following four matches, it could well be that Mark intended an exact word match with this stich. Perhaps in the original Gospel both 1:9 and 16:6 identified Jesus as a “Nazarene/Nazorean’.

The only singular reference to Nazareth in the whole Mark (1:9) is likely an interpolation. It is absent in the parallel and near identical quotation in Matthew 3:13 and there is no reason for this omission, given that Matthew just made up a prophecy to specifically place Jesus in Nazareth. Mark only ever calls Jesus “Nazarene” and similar.

Here is what Mark in the textus receptus writes (1:9):

Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας

Here is what Matthew in the textus receptus writes (3:13):

Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας

And here is my proposed emendation of Mark:

Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας

Literally by just removing the one word, Mark aligns with Matthew, and there is absolutely no good reason why Matthew would have omitted the name of Nazareth after spending so much time trying to justify Jesus living there in the previous chapter, including inventing an entire prophecy wholecloth to do so. I think this emendation is probably a result of harmonization or a scribal gloss.

As a rule, one never finds parallel passages from Mark that use Nazareth:

Mk 1.24 uses Ναζαρηνέ, cf. Lk 4.34 which has Ναζαρηνέ. Mk 10:47 uses Ναζαρηνός, cf. Lk 18.37 which has Ναζωραῖος. Mk 14.67 uses Ναζαρηνοῦ, cf. Mt 26.71 which has Ναζωραίου; and 16.6 uses Ναζαρηνὸν. Once again, no parallel passages attest to the usage of Nazareth in Mark.

       Matthew tries to cover up Jesus’ association with some pre-Christian insurrectionist ‘sect of Nazoreans’ but has retained the use of the term in his gospel (luckily for us). He can do this as he has redefined the term to mean it as somebody coming from Nazareth—— therefore he didn’t have to stop using the term nazoraios. The term must have been too well known, not to use.

He does it in this verse here: Matthew 2:22-23

“Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazorean.” 

This reason is not found anywhere in the Tanakh that through the prophets, he shall be called Nazorean. As we have seen Matthew in downplaying Jewish messianism and downplaying the bad connotation of the term nazorean. He does this by redefining the origin of the term to that of a person coming from Nazareth.

       Even if Jesus was born in Nazareth, the fakery of the gospels trying to get Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem to fulfill prophecy and have him born there, is an argument in favour of Jesus being born in Nazareth. (I do not argue for a dichotomy, just because Nazorean has nothing to do with being from Nazareth, does not mean that Jesus was not born in Nazareth. If he was born in Nazareth, the gospel of Matthew used this fact to cover up the real meaning of being a nazorean). This is clever as nazorean had northern sectarian messianic connotations. This is part of the sanitizing process we see in relation to Jesus, furthering him away from opprobrious roots. The gospels being written post Roman Jewish war, meant Jesus could not be associated with Jewish messianist to ensure the survival of this movement. 

       The latest archaeology by Prof.Dark on Nazareth shows the rebellious times of Jesus. Discovered were special silos with features that were cut into by narrow burrow-like tunnels characteristic of hiding places from the period of the Jewish Revolts. In the “artificial underground spaces” the  “earliest features were rock-cut pits for the storage of crops (silos), cisterns for water storage, and installations for the production of wine and olive oil.” [14] Some of these underground food storage units were used as hiding places for people during the troublesome times Jesus was born into.

       “This leads to the further puzzling question: if Jesus, as the Gospels say, chose Peter as the leader of the Church, why were the Nazarenes, after Jesus’ death, led not by Peter, but by James . . . a person who is not even mentioned in the Gospels as a follower of Jesus in his lifetime? This is the kind of contradiction that, if logically, considered, can lead us to the true picture of the history of Jesus’ movement in Jerusalem, as opposed to the picture which the later Church wished to propagate.” [15]. All this shows one of many cover ups, such as the importance of Jesus’ brother in leading the movement after Jesus’ death.

[As an interesting side note: The translations of “Nasorean/Nazorean” (natsorim ha brit keepers) are the same as the translations for Samaritans/Shomrim.  Samaritan in Hebrew: ࠔࠠࠌࠝࠓࠩࠉࠌ, that’s a transliteration Shamerim ( שַמֶרִים‎, ‘Guardians/Keepers/Watchers (of the Torah)’. We have another interesting similar sect operating around Samaria and not Judah, that of the Mandaeans the descendants of John the Baptist group. It shows this group was similar to the Nazorean group led by Jesus. This all plays in well with the propaganda of the Good Samaritan in Lukes gospel.]

It’s worth ending this paper with a quote from Dr R M Price:

“Despite the rendering of many English Bible translations, Jesus is very seldom called “Jesus from Nazareth” in the Gospels. Mark calls him “Jesus the Nazarene,” as does Luke twice (Mark 1:24, 10:47, 14:67, 16:6; Luke 4:34, 24:9), while Matthew, John, and Acts always call him “Jesus the Nazorean” (Matt. 26:71; John 18:7, 19:19; Acts 2:22, 3:6, 4:10, 6:14, 22:8, 26:9), with Luke using this epithet once (Luke 18:37, the Bar-Timaeus episode, where he has replaced Mark’s “Nazarene” with it)……the difference between “Nazarene” and “Nazorean” does give us reason to suspect that the familiar epithet does not after all denote Jesus’ hailing from a village called Nazareth. “The Nazarene” would imply that, but not “the Nazorean.” That seems to be a sect name, equivalent to “the Essene” or “the Hasid.” Epiphanius, an early Christian cataloguer of “heresies,” mentions a pre-Christian sect called “the Nazoreans,” their name meaning “the Keepers” of the Torah, or possibly of the secrets (see Mark 4:11, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but to those outside all is by way of parable”). ….”Nazorean” occurs once unambiguously in the New Testament itself as a sect designation, in Acts 24:5: “a ring leader of the sect of the Nazoreans.” ….. It should be clear that such a scenario, while quite natural historically, is offensive to the Christological beliefs of some, since it presupposes Jesus was a disciple, that he needed to learn religion. How could that be if he were the incarnate Son of God? Harold Bloom (The Anxiety of Influence [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997]) describes “the anxiety of influence’ as the reluctance to acknowledge the degree to which one’s “distinctives” are owed to one’s predecessors..” [16]

———————————————————

[1] Chilton, Bruce, “James in Relation to Peter, Paul, and Jesus,” in Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner, eds., The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), pp.155–56.

[2] Kennard, J. S., “Was Capernaum the Home of Jesus?” Journal of Biblical Literature 65, no. 2 (June 1946): pp.131–41; and “Nazorean and Nazareth,” Journal of Biblical Literature 66, no. 1 (March 1947): pp.79–81, responding to W. F. Albright’s reply in “The Names Nazareth and Nazoraean,” Journal of Biblical Literature 65, no. 4 (December 1946): pp.397–401.

[3] Laupot, Eric , Tacitus’ Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the “Christiani” and the Nazoreans,Volume:54 (2000), Vigiliae Christianae, p.233

[4] ‘netser’ meaning branch which conceptually meant descendants as in descendants of the Davidic line, a concept so important to Jewish messianism. This word transliterates to Ναζωραῖος and Ναζαρηνός I.e. nazorean. The branch was meant as the royal descendant of King David.

The transliteration of “tsadi” in English can be “ts” or “tz” or “z”, therefore sometimes you will see netzer or netser.

[5] Lawson, C. H., Reconstructing Jesus: What if the historical Jesus was the heir to the throne? A reconstruction based on the First Century Dead Sea Scrolls. (Hamilton, Ontario: Freedom Publishing, 2019) pp.15-16.

[6] Smith, William Benjamin, Meaning Epithet Nazorean (Nazarene), The Monist , January, 1905, Vol. 15, No. 1 (January, 1905), 27-6. Published by Oxford University Press.

[7] Price, R.M., Deconstructing Jesus ch2, footnote 25. Also notice Matthew alters Marks use of rabbi/teacher and the way Mark uses Lord to merely mean sir. Matthew alters this so only outsiders call Jesus Rabbi but insiders call him Lord. In Christianity Kyrios (Lord) is used here in relation to the resurrected Jesus. To Matthew Jesus is not just a Rabbi, no he is a Lord in the exalted sense, no longer just one of Jewish sect. Even the exception to this rule is telling where Judas calls him rabbi.

[8] Schonfield, Hugh J., The Passover Plot, (1st edition 1965), Special 40th Anniversary Edition: The Disinformation Company 2005, p.39.

[9] Turton, Michael A., Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark.

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html?fbclid=IwAR2MjGjKx_diPwEDBE_KTYz-ktpV8nZiivHWoobbviZba7amKHOat03EXrg

[10] Bart Ehrman blog: Did Luke originally have chapters1-2?

https://ehrmanblog.org/did-luke-originally-have-chapters-1-2/

[11] Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, ibid, ch10 fn34.

[12] A full discussion of the etymology between Nazareth and Nazorean is discussed on this forum:

http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7261

Basically one is with a ז and the other is with a צ.

The difference is one of the hardest thing for non-Hebrew speakers to figure out. 

‎נזר is like Nazerth and ‎נצר Is like the Nazarenes/Nazoreans..

[13] Smith, David Oliver, Unlocking the Puzzle, Wipf and Stock, Eugene, (2016) pp.33-4.

[14] Dark, Ken, Roman-Period and Byzantine Nazareth and its Hinterland (The Palestine Exploration Fund Annual), (Routledge 2020).

As cited by Elliot, Mark, The Archaeology of Nazareth in the Early First Century, here in this blog Mark Elliot gives an outline of the findings in Prof. Ken Darks book:

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/archaeology-nazareth-early-first-century

[15] Maccoby, The Mythmaker, Paul and the invention of Christianity, (Harper Collins: Barnes & Noble, 1986) p.120

[16] Price, R M, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition? (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2000), pp. 51–54.

PART 9 of my Historical Jesus series

Jewish Messianists.

The historical Jesus wasn’t a “Christian”.
He was a Jew, a Nazorean – they were “keepers of the covenant” – “natzorim ha brit” – the sect already existed.

Christianity started out as just one of many groups of Jewish messianists. The term itself ‘Christianity’ or christiani in Latin originally referred to groups of Jews who followed a leader whom they believed was one anointed with oil (Heb. Mashiach) by God.

“Christianoi is a Latinism (Christiani), on the model of Herodianoi (Herodians), or Kaisarianoi (Caesareans) – that is, supporters of or members of the faction which regarded the one named as their leader. This suggests that the title was coined by Roman authorities in Antioch who recognized the growing body of followers of the one known as ‘Christ’ as a significant faction within the melting-pot of Jews and Jewish adherents in Antioch.” [1]

          As seen in Josephus many minor insurrectionists were seen as messianic figures where an actual historical figure rose up and was expected to lead the peasants out of oppression from the Romans. With God’s intervention he would restore God’s kingdom. Many a messianic rebel played this messianic card.

         A parallel was found in the Roman Republic. Here the consuls would select a “dictator” at a time of crises, he would receive power of an absolute “imperiam”. The Israelites would select “one whose head had been smeared with oil” to deliver them from immediate crises.

        The Jews were downtrodden and oppressed [2] and expected a warrior type figure to rise up and usher in a new Kingdom of God. This meant the existing power (that is the Romans) would be done away with and a new power, a diarchy of a Priest messiah and a King messiah would rise up to rule. Frank Moore Cross believes the doctrine of the two messiahs found at Qumran has its roots in the restoration of a diarchy, that of a perfect King and a perfect High Priest, who “shall take office standing by the side of the Lord of the whole earth”. (Zechariah 4:14). At Qumran, the Damascus Document, the Rule, the War Scroll, the Testamonia (4Q175) and the Testaments of twelve patriarchs all show the doctrine of the two messiahs. The double messiah concept shows a division of power that was already reflected from the time of Moses and Aaron. [3]

         It was the king messiah that would lead them out of trouble. Josephus reports many sporadic revolts against the localized maladministration of the Romans. Many messianic figures were reported in Josephus works, (Josephus often says that they were declared a king or diadem wearers) and many of the downtrodden Jews had believed these charismatic figures would lead them out of oppression from the Romans. 

         One of the titles thrown at Jesus in the gospels- ‘King Messiah’ or anointed King, (in Greek, χριστὸς βασιλεύς) is the same title that was applied to many messianic rebels . 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). 

Let us now look at evidence from Tacitus. Tacitus’ Annals cut off around 66 CE before the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem. Tacitus’ Histories is likewise incomplete, ending in early 70 CE when it is believed to have recorded events through to 96 CE. 

     Back in 1861 Jacob Berays [4] noticed that Sulpicius Severus, a Christian writer born in the mid-fourth century used Tacitus as a source in his best known work, Chronicle or Sacred History, written in 403 CE. James D. G. Dunn suggests that the citation may come from the lost portion of Annals, noting that it “breaks off in book 16, when his account had reached the year 66, before the outbreak of the Jewish War”. [5].

I go with Louis Feldman myself where he says “most scholars have . . . adopted the suggestion of Bernays that Sulpicius’s source was none other than a lost portion of Tacitus’ Histories.” [6] The gap in Tacitus Histories is thought to be preserved in Sulpicius Severus Chronica 2.30.6-7. This piece that is preserved is known as: Tacitus’ Fragment 2. Laupot makes the case in his paper [7] that Sulpicius used Tacitus as a source:

“ [The] evidence takes the form of the discovery of a significant statistical relationship among the following three words: The metaphor (1) stirps (Latin for branch, descendants) used to describe the (2) Christiani (Latin for messianists) in fragment 2, and (3) Ναζωραῖος and Ναζαρηνός; (Nazorean), describing the New Testament sect associated with the Χριστιανούς (Christians) of Acts 11.26. The connecting link among, as well as the common source for, the three words listed above appears to be the Hebrew netzer (branch, descendants-apparently influenced by Isa 11.1), which both translates into stirps and transliterates into Ναζωραῖος/Ναζαρηνός;”

          Laupot mistakenly thinks that the ‘Christiani’ in frag. 2 were a particular group that revolted against Rome in the first Jewish revolt of 66-73 CE. [8] I will show that this was a generic term for Jewish messianists.

Sulpicius, Chronicle2.30.6-7:

(2.30.6) It is reported that Titus first deliberated, by summoning a council of war, as to whether to destroy a Temple of such workmanship. For it seemed proper to some that a consecrated Temple, distinguished above all that is human, should not be destroyed, as it would serve as a witness to Roman moderation; whereas its destruction would represent a perpetual brand of cruelty. 

(2.30.7) But others, on the contrary, disagreed-including Titus himself. They argued that the destruction of the Temple was a number one priority in order to destroy completely the religion [per Severus. Tacitus or another classical author would have used the word superstitio (alien religious belief). Compare Hist. 5.8 and Ann. 15.44 (exitiabilis superstitio)] of the Jews and the Christiani: For although these religions [i.e., superstitiones] are conflicting, they never the less developed from the same origins. The Christiani arose from the Jews: With the root removed, the branch [stirps] is easily killed’. [9].

Josephus gives a parallel to this account in War 6.236-243, but this is a biased account in favor of Titus. Severus has probably preserved Tacitus’ less biased account.

       Laupot doesn’t think the Christiani in Tacitus are the same Christians as “Pauls Christians” (Laupots expression). [10] But they could be! All Christiani meant is Jewish messianists! 

No Christian can accept rebellious beginnings and as such many lacunae exist (such as the Caligula/Claudius gap in the Annals). Ivan Prchlík [11] has made the interesting observation on the missing years of 29–31 in Tacitus Annals, the loss in “book V would also become well explicable when some monk angry about the way Tacitus had spoken of Jesus in it would have damaged it.” If Jesus was mentioned as a rebel here, this would explain the destruction and non preservation of this section better than as Carrier has said, that Jesus was not mentioned at all. This would not be enough of a reason to tear out these pages. Carrier is right about the deliberate cutting though, “That the cut is so precise and covers precisely those two years is too improbable to posit as a chance coincidence.” [12] Edwin Johnson has said in his book Antiqua Mater that the Romans used the term Christiani as a name for Jewish Messianists. [13]. He brilliantly explains that Roman commentators of the time simply named any messianic Jews as Christiani. (A movement that followed a messiah figure, this figure was usually a militaristic figure). The passage above also explains why the sectarian group at Qumran were destroyed after the Roman Jewish war, all Messianists who were so troublesome during the war were destroyed by the Romans. It is worth repeating the last line of the quote above in light of this:

“The Christiani arose from the Jews: With the root removed, the branch [stirps] is easily killed’.”

(Sulpicius, Chronicle 2.30.7).

Here Christiani simply meant all the rebellious Jewish messianists that caused so much trouble in the Roman war. The nazorean movement that Jesus joined only started to adopt the name Christiani for themselves in the second century as attested by their 2nd century document- The Acts of the Apostles [14]. The use of the term Christians is used anachronistically in Acts 11:26, but was more likely only adopted by this Nazorean group at the time of composition. “Christianity first appears in our sources once again in the early second century, that is, in the Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius, Magn. 10.1-3; Rom. 3.3; Phil. 6.1; Mart. Pol. 10.1).” [15] James Dunn went on to say that in Antioch that many Greeks and God-fearers or ‘judaizers’ were during this period attracted to Jewish ways and mixed themselves with the Jewish com­munity. Josephus shows that this was typical of many places. (War 2.462-3; 7.45). [16] This is where Laupot has gone wrong thinking Tacitus was commenting on an actual sect instead of just all Jewish Messianists in general. This in turn also suggests that the Jesus messianic group had rebellious beginnings.        

       Laupot is right in seeing how these Roman commentators described these messianic Jews.

It should be noted that “Tacitus’ description in Annals 15.44 of the “Christiani’s” superstitio as dangerous (exitiabilis), sinister (atrocia), an evil (malum), etc. and Suetonius’ portrayal of the “Christiani” in Nero 16.2 as following a “new and dangerous [malfica] superstitio.”[17] Pliny the Younger (who was on about the actual Jesus sect) accuses them of being  “infected by this contagious superstition.” (Pliny the Younger, Book 10, Letter 96). 

This of course makes sense of Seutonius’ so called mention of Jews in Life of Claudius 25.5 about a Chrestos that got thrown out of Rome during the reign of Claudius. He did not mean the Jesus movement as some apologist scholars equate this Chrestos with Christ but Jewish Messianism in general. Jesus was not the only Christ figure of the time. Jesus would hardly be living in Rome in 49 CE! This apocalyptic Jewish movement Suetonius reports about could have derived from some other Christ figure. Drew’s on Chrestos explains that that term could have been picked up by Latin speakers in describing this event. Jewish messianism and religio-political revolt go hand in hand. There were other expulsions of Jews such as reported in 139 BCE. Also in 19 CE reported in Seutonius, Tiberius 36:

Because some Judaeans must have shouted the title Christos often and loud enough to be heard by Latin-speakers, it is likely that the Roman vulgus would have referred to those who did so as Christiani, or Chrestiani. The name, analogous to the names Pompeiani and Caesariani for partisans of Pompeius and Caesar, would have been something like “partisans of Christos” and had political overtones.

Robert Drews (2023) Judaean Christiani in the Middle Decades of the First
Century, Journal of Early Christian History, 13:2, pp.53-54.

“He abolished foreign cults in Rome, particularly the Egyptian and Jewish, forcing all citizens who had embraced these superstitions to burn their religious vestments and other accessories.”

This makes more sense as the Jesus movements were hardly in Rome during the reign of Claudius. (Cf Acts 18:2, where Paul is said to have met two of these expelled messianic Jews. Acts associating with these religious-political rebellious types just shows the common traits between early Christianity and rebellious Jewish Messianists).

As Edwin Johnson [18] comments, Tacitus “could have known nothing of the distinction between believers in a Messiah and believers in the Messiah, Jesus. In writing of the event of the year 70, he enables us to understand how the Messianic expectation shaped itself to the thought of a Roman.” And…

“Our explanation then of the passage in Tacitus is that the term Christiani had for him a value altogether different from that which it has long borne for us and the history of the world since the great Messianic illusions faded away…. [Messianists] who were inflamed with those ardent and passionately confident hopes of the downfall of the Roman Empire and of the establishment of a kingdom of Hagioi and the elect which are reflected in the Book of Enoch and the Apocalypse.[19]

This of course shows that Roman commentators did not mean what we think they meant when they used the term ‘christiani’. They did not mean Christianity but Jewish messianism. And the type they meant was the troublesome type, the type that gave them so much trouble during the Roman Jewish war. In Roman eyes, Christians and Jews came out of the same excretion pot! Christians and Jews were viewed as trouble makers (especially in the aftermath of the Roman Jewish War). Christians were therefore linked to Jewish revolts against Rome and was now infiltrating the Roman people by converting them. Later the Christian movement adopted this term in the 2nd century but were originally known as the Nazoreans.

Tacitus omits the name Jesus, so if he was using my reconstructed TF, this would be consistent as Josephus (we know through textual criticism) did not seem to know Jesus’ name either.

Helen Bond in her latest book The first biography of Jesus says that the gospel of Mark:

“accounts for the air of persecution that hangs so heavily over this work, [Mark 4:17; 8:34; 10:37–40; and 13:9–13], persecution that broke out brutally and unexpectedly under Nero in 65 CE, and might well have continued to threaten the community of Christ followers after the war.” 

 A knowledge of the Flavian triumph, celebrated in Rome in 71, might also explain the “anti-triumph” motif that several scholars have detected in Mark’s account of the crucifixion.” [20].

There is an apparent allusion to Nero in Revelation via gematria that adds weight to Neronian persecution and its relevance to the Jesus Christians. (Revelation 13:18; cf Ascension of Isaiah 4:2). Schmit recognises a “particular segment of the crucifixion narrative (Mark 15.16-32) evoking a Roman triumphal procession, and that Mark designs this ‘anti-triumph’ to suggest that the seeming scandal of the cross is actually an exaltation of Christ.” [21]. Winn using Schmidt’s paper lists these parallels:

1. the Markan reference to the ‘Praetorian’ that parallels the presence of the Praetorian Guard at a Roman triumph (15.16);

2. the Markan reference to the presence of an ‘entire cohort’ at Jesus’ trial that parallels the presence of such a unit at a Roman triumph (15.16);

3. Jesus being adorned with a purple robe, a garment also worn by the Roman triumphator (15.17);

4. Jesus adorned with a crown of thorns, paralleling the triumphator who wore a laurel crown (15.17);

5. Jesus receives mock honor from Roman soldiers, paralleling the honor given to the triumphator (15.18-19);

6. Jesus’ triumph culminates at Golgotha, ‘the place of the skull’, and a Roman triumph culminates at the Capital, named for a skull that was found when the buildings’ foundation was laid (Mk 15.22; Livy 1.55);

7. Jesus is offered and refuses wine to drink, paralleling the offer of wine to the triumphator who refuses the offer (15:23);

8. immediately after the offer of wine Jesus is crucified, whereas a bull is sacrificed directly after the triumphator refuses wine (15:24);

9. Jesus is crucified between two thieves while the triumphator was usually seated between two people (15:27);

10. after his death Jesus is hailed ‘Son of God’ by a Roman centurion, a common claim for a triumphant Roman emperor (15:39). [22]

       The mockery of Jesus as a Jewish king finds an approximate parallel in Philo Flaccus 6.36-39; On the occasion of King Agrippa I’s visit to Alexandria the people seized a lunatic named Carabbas. As Agrippa was not popular the local populace staged a mock coronation on poor Carabbas. The evangelist interest in portraying Jesus as Caesar’s rival has made him correspond this periscope more closely with Agrippa I story found in Flaccus 6.36-39. The Carabbas incident shows the mocking these messianic rebels would have got at their execution. No doubt Mark used this incident to write his gospel.

[(Cf Isaiah 50:6-7; 4 Macc. 6:1-30, for treatment of Eleazer; 1 Macc. 10:20,62 for the purple robe reference.)

Also cf Josephus War.6.301-309 for similarities with Jesus Ben Ananias.]

CONCLUSION

This brings the historical Jesus back down to the reality and context of his own time. A man born in troubled times when the residents of Sepphoris were wiped out, he died in troubled times when he was crucified for sedition. The gospel of Matthew has Jesus born around the time when Publius Quinctilius Varus who brought three legions into Israel, after sacking Sepphoris, he went onto Jerusalem and crucified 2000 Jews. (War. II, §75; Ant. XVII, §295). The reason Jesus was crucified has been wiped from Josephus, but all the indications are for a rebellion. Jesus was a “King Messiah” a title claimed by most messianic rebels, his followers were messianists, referred to by Roman observers as ‘Christiani’ (followers of a messiah figure). This derogatory term used by the Romans for troublesome messianic Jews (who caused them so much trouble in the Roman Jewish war) was eventually adopted by the Jesus movements (the Nazoreans/Galileans) as seen from their second century document -Acts of the Apostles.

————————————————————

[1] Dunn, James D. G., The Partings of the Ways, Between Christianity and Judaism and their significance for the character of Christianity, 2nd Ed. (SCM Press, 2006) p. xv.

[2] Graeme Lang, Oppression and Revolt in Ancient Palestine: The Evidence in Jewish Literature from the Prophets to Josephus, Sociological Analysis,  Vol. 49, No. 4, Oxford Press, (Winter, 1989), pp. 325-342

[3] Frank Moore Cross, “Notes on the doctrine of the two Messiahs at Qumran and the extracanonical Daniel Apocalypse (4Q246)”, From the Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert in 1995, Current Research and Technological Developments on Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume 20, edited by Parry & Ricks. (1996).

[4] Berays, Jacob, “Uber die Chronik des Sulpicius Severus,” in Jahresbericht des jiidisch-theologischen Seminars “Fraenckelscher Stiftung” (Breslau, 1861).

[5] Dunn, James D, Beginning from Jerusalem (Christianity in the Making, vol. 2), (Eerdmans, 2008), p. 58, fn. 25.

[6] Feldman, Louis H., Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, (Brill, 1996), p.2

[7] Laupot, Eric , Tacitus’ Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the “Christiani” and the Nazoreans,Volume:54 (2000), Vigiliae Christianae, p.233

[8] Laupot, ibid, p.234

[9] Laupot, ibid, p.234

[10] Laupot, ibid, p.234

[11] Prchlík, Ivan, Tacitus’ knowledge of the origins of Christianity, Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Philologica 2/ Graecolatina Pragensia, (2017), p.107.

[12] Carrier, Richard, On the Historicity of Jesus, ibid, p.303.

[13] Johnson, Edwin, Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins, (Trübner & Co., Ludgate Hill, 1887), ch1.

[14] Pervo, Richard I., Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Polebridge Press, 2006).

Pervo comes to the conclusion that Acts of the Apostles has a date range of 110-120 CE due to its use of Paul’s epistles, Pastorials and Josephus.

[15] Dunn, ibid, p. xvii.

[16] Dunn, ibid, p. xv, fn 23.

[17] Laupot, ibid, p.237.

[18] Johnson, ibid, p.5

[19]  Johnson, ibid, p.6-7.

[20] Bond, Helen, The First Biography of Jesus, Genre and Meaning in Mark’s Gospel, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2020) Introduction.

[21] Schmidt, T.E. 1995 ‘Mark 15:16–32: The Crucifixion Narrative and the Roman Triumphal Procession’, NTS 41, pp.1-18.

[22] Winn, Adam, Tyrant or Servant? Roman Political Ideology and Mark 10.42-45, Journal for the study of the New Testament 2014, Volume: 36 issue: 4, pp. 325-352.

BACK TO HOMEPAGE

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

PART 7 of my Historical Jesus series

• The Influence of the Maccabees

Torrents has said the beliefs and imagination of the Jewish population subjected to the Roman yoke were inspired by the exploits of the Maccabees, who freed the Jews from Greek domination. The Maccabeans’ independence dream remained constantly alive in popular imagination. [1] This is seen as most of book one of Josephus’ War is taken up with Maccobean history and also 4 Maccabees was being composed in the first or second century. The Maccabees were priests and kings.

Victory in battle does not depend on who has the largest army; it is the Lord’s power that determines the outcome.

1 Macc 3:19

That quote reflects the expectation of God’s intervention in any revolt that these messianic rebels instigated, thus a mindset that made them like a loaded gun.

Geza Vermes sums this era up where the Maccabees “restored the Jewish worship, which had temporarily been transformed by Antiochus into the cult of Olympian Zeus, whose statue he had installed in the holy place in Jerusalem. The upheaval caused by the Hellenists, aided and abetted by Jewish upper-class allies, inaugurated a feverish anticipation of the final age, of the eschatological and apocalyptic era, which was expected to culminate in the arrival of the final Redeemer, the King-Messiah, foretold by the biblical prophets and anxiously awaited by pious Jews dreaming of freedom under God.” [2]

In his preparation of his army against the Seleucids, Judah went under the religious banner:

“The assembly was also put through a process of morale-building. The army’s purpose was defined as a religious cause by a day of fasting, by a display of the Torahs, which had been ‘defiled’ by the ‘Gentiles’, and by Judah’s exhortation. ” [3]

Paula Fredriksen has said the Maccabees “thus served as a model of piety to later generations oppressed by the power of Rome. The great hope, in light of Maccabean success, was that the restoration of Israel could be inaugurated or achieved militarily by warriors whose piety matched their prowess—a combination of attributes that characterized no less a person than Israel’s first king and God’s messiah, David.” She went on to say that the people who lived through these events drew no distinction between the political and religious spheres: “armed insurrection was an expression of religious hope.” [4]

           N T Wright, has explained that Judas Maccabee, against the odds beat the Seleucids with a type of guerilla warfare, that together with their piety showing politics and religion were completely mixed:

“Judas Maccabaeus and his companions accomplished the unthinkable, and organized a protracted insurgency that routed, and eventually wore out, the Seleucid forces. Antiochus IV abandoned the campaign against the Judean rebels…. Then, three years to the day after the Temple’s desecration (25 December 164 BC), Judas cleansed and reconsecrated it. A new festival (Hanukkah) was added to the Jewish calendar to celebrate the event. The Maccabean revolt became classic and formative in the same way as the exodus and the other great events of Israel’s history. It powerfully reinforced the basic Jewish worldview, as you might find it in many passages, for instance Psalm 2.”[5]

James D G Dunn has seen:

“the term ‘Judaism’ (Ioudaismos) first appears in literature in 2 Maccabees (2.21; 8.1; 14.38). These passages clearly indicate the emergence of a self-understanding determined by and expressive of the Maccabean resistance to Syrian oppression. The term itself was evidently coined as a counter to ‘Hellenism’ (hellenismos – 2 Macc. 4.13) and ‘foreignness’ (allophylismos – 2 Macc. 4.13; 6.24). That is to say, for the author of 2 Maccabees, ‘Judaism’ was the summary term for that national and religious identity which was marked from the first by its unyielding insistence on maintaining distinctive and defining Torah practices like circumcision and food laws (1 Macc. 1.60-3; 2-46; 2 Macc. 6).”[6]

Much of religion and politics were inseparable. The Lord’s Prayer is concerned with the strife of the peasants hoping they get enough to eat and to cancel their debts. (“Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses”). John Dominic Crossan tells us that the “Our Father” contains retributive justice like that contained all over the Prophets and Psalms, in his book The Greatest Prayer. It tells of the kingdom of god that is to come, (“thy Kingdom come… on earth as it is in heaven”), a kingdom that was to be established right here on earth. (Daniel 2:44). “The Lord’s Prayer is … both a revolutionary manifesto and a hymn of hope.” [7]

The War Scroll (1QM) at Qumran also shows where religion and politics, even that of violence are completely mixed. Gmirkin believes the War Scroll – in part practical, in part eschatological – should be understood against the highly charged historical background of the Maccabean crisis”. [8] This scroll describes the final battle between the sons of light and and the sons of darkness. This compares to gospel of John:

 “Believe in the light while you have the light, so that you may become children of light.” (John 12:36).

• Influence of Antipas

There are clues left in the gospels of the real background, the one full of trouble and revolts, such as those 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 [ἀνεχώρησεν, anechōrēsen] 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.” [9]

       Paula Fredriksen gives an overview of the political entities under Roman rule at the time of Jesus:

“…for the whole of Jesus’ lifetime, the Galilee was an independent Jewish territory ruled by Herod Antipas, one of the sons of Herod the Great. Another of Herod’s sons, Archelaus, had once ruled Judea. The reign of both sons began only with their father’s death, in 4 “B.C.E. But Archelaus proved inept, and Augustus finally removed him in 6 C.E. Thereafter, Judea—and Judea alone—was placed under Roman provincial rule. No Roman authority presided over the Galilee. The Roman provincial governor or “prefect,” together with his three thousand troops—local pagans in the employ of Rome—exercised authority only in Judea.” [10]

“After Herod’s death, three of his sons divided the kingdom. Archelaus’s rule of Judea (4 BC – AD 6) was vicious and feared. He was titled an “ethnarch” (ruler of a nation) ….. after “both Samaritans and Jews to appeal to Augustus for his removal, this materialised in 6 CE when his territory was placed under the jurisdiction of Roman governors.

Antipas retained his rule over Galilee and also controlled Perea, the region east of the Jordan River (4 BCE – 39 CE). Because he ruled a “part” of the kingdom, he was officially called tetrarch. “Antipas rebuilt Galilee’s ancient capital, Sepphoris, and made it his base. “Later Antipas built a new capital for himself on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, calling it Tiberias.

Philip ruled as tetrarch over the northern regions of the kingdom (4 bc – ad 34): Gaulanitis, Auranitis, Batanea, Trachonitis, Paneas, and Iturea. These areas were chiefly Hellenistic, and he found little difficulty leading them. He built Caesarea Philippi (to distinguish it from Caesarea on the coast) as his capital.” [11]

“The governors of Judaea belong to a rather special group of imperial ad­ministrators, … These are men of non- senatorial rank, technically Roman ‘knights’, [i.e. equestrian provincial governors] a class of men owning a moderate minimum of property, who were used to supplement the senatorial proconsuls and legates by taking over the government of relatively small areas that required special treatment; mostly these were military governments over rebellious or newly acquired areas. Such were the various Alpine districts known as Rhaetia, Noricum, and the Cottian and Maritime Alps, the island of Sardinia, and of course Judaea. The greatest of them was Egypt. Their title in the period before Claudius was not procurator but praefectus.” [12]

This extract is from Dominic Crossan:

“In the generation before Jesus, Herod the Great ruled the Jewish homeland under Roman sponsorship and built magnificently in Jerusalem by expanding the Temple Mount and in Caesarea Maritima by developing a world-class port. Nothing tells so clearly that Romanization equaled urbanization equaled commercialization as the great storehouses and giant breakwaters of that all-weather harbor. In Judean Caesarea Maritima, in Samaritan Sebaste, and in far-northern Caesarea Philippi, Herod built pagan temples to the goddess Roma and divine Emperor Augustus, but he hardly touched Galilee at all compared to those other parts of his kingdom.
In the generation of Jesus, then, it fell to his son Herod Antipas to begin a more intensive Romanization, urbanization, and commercialization of Galilee, with the rebuilt Sepphoris as his first capital in 4 B.C.E. and with the newly built Tiberias as its replacement in 19 C.E. Under Antipas, then, and in proportionate imitation of his father, the Kingdom of Rome struck Lower Galilee forcibly for the first time by the 20s. But, though a veneer of Greco-Roman architecture covered the Jewish homeland and its Roman-urban commercialization redistributed wealth, archaeologists have discovered in both Judea and Galilee the discovered in both Judea and Galilee the persistence of the Jewish people to remain and live in ways distinct from those others with whom they dwelt in close proximity.” [13]

In Mark 8:15 Jesus tells his disciples to watch out for the yeast of Antipas and Luke 13:32 describes Antipas as ‘that fox’. Another allusion is the “reference to ‘a rod, shaken by the wind’ in Matthew 11:7 may have contained a critical reference, barely veiled, to Antipas itself, which used that symbol on the coins he minted.”[14]

Capernaum (Jesus’ hometown, Mark 2:1) “was also on the border with Philip’s territory and thus a tax station for commerce moving down the highway. If Jesus was ever pursued by Antipas, he could “just slip across the border by boat (Mark 6:45). [15]

• The Son of man:

As Maurice Casey said, the ‘primitive Christian community …. was a primarily eschatological group, which expected the end of the world immediately and the return of Jesus as judge.” [16] “The earliest church fathers developed it further, underlying the two natures of Jesus being fully human and fully god, thus taking “important steps away from the historical Jesus…..” They have “Jesus arrive on earth as man and God before using the two referential titles Son of man [Church fathers saw this as referencing the human nature] and Son of God.” [And this title son of god church fathers saw as referencing the divine nature] [17] What the church fathers did with these concepts (“son of man” and “son of god”) is a complete flip around from what these phrases meant in Jesus’ time. As Boyarin said, the “son of god” title was applied to kings and human figures. It was the “son of man” that had an eschatological end time spiritual figure. [*] The son of man title got applied to Jesus by the evangelists and developed by the church fathers to highlight Jesus’ human nature while the son of god was to highlight his divine nature, a flip around from what connotations these titles had in Jewish background.

The son of man became a fixed title with eschatological connotations in the Synoptics. Originally this term just meant “human being” but developed in Daniel 7 (cf 4Q246) into an eschatological figure who would judge mankind at the end of days. The book of Enoch further developed on this concept. “…..those behind the Parables of Enoch [1 Enoch 37-71] are Jews who were interpreting the Son of Man in Daniel in creative ways about 100 years after the composition of Daniel. These Jews seem to be the ones who alone developed the concept of the Son of Man who will come in the near future to serve as the cosmic and eschatological Judge.” [18] Christians derived this title from the book of Daniel, a known Jewish resistance apocalyptic book, resisting the Seleucid persecution of Jewish culture. As discussed above, apocalypticism was usually mixed up with planned military action as seen from the war scroll in the DSS. This apocalyptic redeemer, used by the gospels, was influenced by a resistance book. As Ehrman stated Jesus’ later followers assumed the son of man referred to Jesus himself, but yet earlier strata of the gospels show that Jesus himself was referring to a cosmic judge at the end of the age, for example in Mark:

“If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels. ‘”(Mark 8:38;cf 13:26, 14:62).

Ehrman has shown that this goes against the general gospel references that show the title applied to Jesus; this gives it a greater likelihood of belonging to a more original tradition of Jesus expecting this “son of man” to come. [19]

The following verse even demonstrates this even clearer:

When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.(Matthew 10:23)

How can Jesus be the Son of Man that will come when he is already there?

Jesus would become the Son of Man as part of the rehabilitation of Jesus’ failed apocalyptic message putting it off into the future.

In the next part I will be discussing that all the messianic figures in the lead up to the Jewish Roman War belonged to some sort of Joshua cult, seeing Joshua as some sort of militaristic role model in their fight against Rome. The Son of man reminds you of an angelomorphic figure that came to Joshua’s assistance in Joshua 5 (Joshua 5:13-4). This Son of man title for a divine being who was to appear as a cosmic judge at the end of time appears in Jewish literature before (Daniel, Enoch) and after (Fourth Ezra) the time of Jesus.

I think the ‘son of man’ tradition goes back to Jesus believing some cosmic judge to appear at the end of time, lots of Jews believed this as seen from Jewish literature. Son of Man or Bar Enash in Aramaic is a reference to a divine eschatological figure the is central to the book of Daniel, who is said will one day rule the world. In Second Temple Judaism this figure came to be viewed as a second person of YHWH, what scholars call “Early Jewish Binitarianism” or “The Two Powers in Heaven.” This is evident from the Targums as well as texts among the Dead Sea scrolls such as 1 Enoch. This concept also makes appearances in later Rabbinic literature. The figure of Metatron in Kaballah probably emerged from the same Second Temple framework that the Christological Messiah came from. They share a lot of similar titles, descriptions and attributes.

What Mark is doing is reworking the the ‘son of man’ tradition. I’m going to leave a quote from a book by Borg and Crossan- The Last Week to demonstrate my point:

“Peter confesses that Jesus is the Messiah, but far from applauding him, Jesus “sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him” (8:29–30). Such injunctions to silence in Mark usually do not mean, “You have it right, but keep it secret,” but rather, “You have it wrong, so keep it quiet.” In other words, “Please, shut up!” Peter and the others may well have been imagining Jesus as a militant messiah who would free Israel from Roman oppression using violent means, and it was that notion that Jesus wanted to discourage.

But right after that wrong and silenced misunderstanding about Jesus as Messiah comes that correct and open announcement of Jesus as Son of Man: “Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He said all this quite openly” (8:31– 32a). Jesus names himself as Son of Man,” [20]

The general bodily resurrection (Cf 1 Cor. 15) became part of the apocalyptic eschatology due to the problem of martyrdom during the Seleucid persecution of homeland Jews in the 160s BCE. Where was god’s justice for these executed bodies of martyrs? Daniel 12:2-3 explains the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the age. In 2 Maccabees 7 “a mother and her seven sons refuse to deny God and disobey Torah even while being tortured to death. The dying words of the mother’s second and third sons insist that their tortured bodies will be returned to them by God’s future justice.” [21]

With the “efflorescence of apocalyptic writings: Daniel, the Dead Sea Scrolls, various apocryphal literature. The production of such texts, and the missions of various charismatic figures who left no writings—John the Baptizer, Jesus of Nazareth, Theudas, the Egyptian, and those men whom Josephus refers to collectively as the “signs prophets”—continued as Israel was caught up in Rome’s bumpy transition from republic to empire, in the uncertainties of Roman hegemony (especially following Herod’s rule, 37–4 B.C.E.), and ultimately in two devastating wars against Rome (68–73 C.E. and 132–35 C.E., Bar Kokhba’s revolt).” [22]

The Hazon Gabriel or Gabriel’s vision is an inscription on the stone discovered in 2000 (also known as the messiah stone) and is believed to have been created by followers of the Messianic leader, a group of people who followed him and he was killed during his war against the Romans. Israel Knohl [23] believes the messiah claimant to be Simon of Peraea (Ant. 17.10.6) who died four years before Jesus was born. This movement also tried to survive upon the death of their messiah claimant. This is the only literature left for this particular messianic movement, so we are spoiled with the amount of literature left in the aftermath of the Jesus movements, epistles, gospels and an apocalyptic piece by John of Patmos.

————————————————————-

[1] Torrents, José Montserrat, Jesús, El Galileo Armado, (edaf 2011), ch 3 and 7.

[2] Vermes, Geza, Who’s Who in the Age of Jesus, (Penguin UK, 2006), p.4.

[3] John D. Grainger, Excerpt From
The Wars of the Maccabees, ch. 3.

[4] Fredriksen, Paula, From Jesus to Christ, The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus, 2nd Ed. (Yale, 2000), p.78-79.

[5] Wright, N. T. and Bird, Michael F., The New Testament in Its World, An Introduction to the History, Literature and Theology of the First Christians, (Harper Collins, 2019), ch 5.

[6] Dunn, James D. G., The Partings of the Ways, Between Christianity and Judaism and their significance for the character of Christianity, 2nd Ed. (SCM Press, 2006), p. xvi

[7] Crossan, John Dominic, The Greatest Prayer, Rediscovering the Revolutionary Message of the Lord’s Prayer, (Harper, 2010), p.4.

[8] Gmirkin, Russell, The War Scroll and Roman Weaponry Reconsidered, Dead Sea Discoveries, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Brill., 1996), pp. 89-129.

[9] Chilton, Bruce, Rabbi Jesus, An intimate biography, (Random House Inc.;Doubleday, 2008), Ch4, fn 1.

[10] Fredriksen, Paula, When Christians Were Jews, The first generation, (Yale University Press, 2018), p.19.

[11] Gary M. Burge, Lynn H. Cohick, and Gene L. Green, The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament Within Its Cultural Context, (Zondervan, 2009), p.42-43.

[12] A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, (Oxford,1963), pp.5-6.

[13] Crossan, John Dominic and Reed, Jonathan L., Excavating Jesus, Beneath the Stones, Behind the Text, Revised and updated Ed. (HarperCollins, 2009), Prologue.

[14] Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando, La invención de Jesús de Nazaret, (Siglo XXI de España Editores, S. A., 2018), ch. 6.

[15] Gary M. Burge, Lynn H. Cohick, and Gene L. Green, The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament Within Its Cultural Context, (Zondervan, 2009), p.132.

[16] Casey, Maurice, The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem, (T&T Clark, 2009), p.1-2.

[17] Piñero, Antonio, ¿La verdadera historia de la Pasión de Jesús?, essay in La Verdadera Historia De La Pasión, Según la investigación y el estudio histórico, Piñero, Antonio, and Segura, Eugenio Gómez, Ed. (Edaf, 2011), p.116

[*] Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels, the story of Jewish Christ, (New York: New Press, 2012), ch.2.

[18] Charlesworth, James H., “Did Jesus Know the traditions in the Parables of Enoch?” essay contained in Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift (Jewish and Christian Texts),James H. Charlesworth and Darrell L. Bock, Ed. (T&T Clark, 2013) p.174.

[19] Ehrman, Bart, Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the new millennium, (Oxford, 1999), ch 9.

[20] Borg, Marcus J. and Crossan, John Dominic, The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach about Jesus’s Final Days in Jerusalem (SPCK Publishing; 1st Edition,2008), p.93

[21] ibid, p.173.

[22] Fredriksen, Paula, Paul, The Pagans Apostle, (Yale, 2017), p.27.

[23] Knohl, Israel, The Messiah before Jesus, (University California Press, 2000).

BACK TO HOMEPAGE

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

PART 3 of my Historical Jesus series

“How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us’? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood. (Jeremiah 8:8 (NKJV).

Here is the model reconstruction of the earlier form of Ant 18.63-64. (Last updated 1st July 2025).

There arose about this time a certain man, a sophist and agitator. He was a doer of strange works.

[some eschatological sign similar to other sign prophets could have been the following:

[For they said he was a prophet and the Temple would be destroyed and restored in three days]

Many of the Judaens, and also many of the Galilean element, he led to himself in a tumult; he was desirous of Kingship: And many souls were roused, thinking that thereby the tribe of Judaens could free themselves from the Romans.

[Josephus may have mentioned Jesus as a pseudo prophet here but it has been replaced with the Emmaus passage found in Luke.]

[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.

(Proposed original of Ant. 18.63-64, using textual criticism and the variants of the TF.)

Note:

Without the portions in brackets, the TF would be vacuous. These portions explain the excised bits. As sloppy as Josephus was he would have given a reason for Jesus’ execution.

The textus receptus is the received text that is extant in all manuscripts of Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3

For ease of reference I will color code the following:

The textus receptus in English.

The textus receptus in Greek.

The reconstructed TF in English.

The reconstructed TF in Greek.

Here is the first line of the TF:

There arose about this time Jesus

Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ

And here is the proposed change:

There arose about this time a certain man

Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον ἀνήρ τις

Here are the reasons:

First word:

‘there arose’ 

Γίνεται

•For the first word in the passage ‘γίνεται’ (there arose) Robert Eisler has observed, “The verb Γίνεται (Ginetai) does, however, occur quite frequently in Josephus, particularly at the beginning of paragraphs; but the subject of the sentence is then almost without exception a word such as θόρυβος (tumult), or στάση (rebellion), or ταραχή (trouble), or some such term…..” [2].

He then goes on to give many examples – War 1.99; 1.85; 1.236; 1.648; 1.171; 1.216; 4.208; Antiquities 18.310; 19.366; 20.51; 20.118; 20.173. [3]

In line with Eisler’s observation I have included the word ‘agitator’ ταραχτικός in the reconstruction.

Second phrase:

Jesus 

Ἰησοῦς

to 

‘certain man’ 

ἀνήρ τις

•The Syriac translation of Eusebius’  Ecclesiastical History has “certain man” in place of Jesus. As Schmidt in his new book Josephus and Jesus observes: “In terms of their translations of the TF, the Syriac translator of the Ecclesiastical History does a better job witnessing to the ambiguity of the TF. He preserves the possibly derogatory ‘a certain Jesus’ (Ἰησοῦς τις) as ‘a certain man’ (ܓܒܪܐ ܚܕ)”[*] This actually matches up with the Slavonic, which opens with a ‘certain man’.

The interpolation of the TF into Slavonic version of Josephus War also does not name Jesus in the passage but refers to him as “there appeared a certain man” (Slavonic War 2.9.3/4). This variant is the same found in one manuscripts (one of the earliest physical manuscripts containing the TF) of the Syrian translation of Eusebius discussed below.

It is not unusual for Josephus not to know the name of a popular messianic figure. Case in mind is the ‘Egyptian’ (War 2.13.5) who led a revolt of thousands and featured in both Antiquities and War yet he could only call him the ‘Egyptian’. Same goes for the ‘Samaritan’. (Ant 18.5.1).

•There is a variant found in one of the manuscripts, Codex A of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7. As Bermejo- Rubio said:

“I refer to the variant found in a quotation of the passage in one of the manuscripts (Codex A) of Eusebius’ HE 1.11.7. This reading offers the pronoun τις after Ίησούς thereby referring to “a certain Jesus.” [4]

Schmidt goes on to say tis is attested in many languages and many manuscripts showing this word was original to the TF and did not just sneak in as Hansen or Olson claims (well she has to claim that as this variant just kills her hobby horse of a totally interpolated TF) .

It is little wonder then that Christian scribes omitted the word from all Greek manuscripts of Josephus’ Antiquities, and that the only reason we are aware of its existence is because it is preserved by Eusebius via manuscript Codex A of the Ecclesiastical History [fn. 34 MS Paris Grec 1430 (tenth century) f. 26b line 3. Further pictures may be found at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722779g/f32.item.zoom.%5D and in its ancient Syriac ( ܚܕ ) [fn. 35 MS British Library Add. 14639 (sixth century) f. 14b left col, line 29; MS Russian National Library Siriyskaya novaya seria 1 #24 (462 ce) f. 16a right col, line 26; BL.Add.12154, f. 151r line 20 (eighth/ninth century) and Armenian (մի) translations. [fn. 36 MS HMML 7640 (Codex Mechitaristarum Vindobonensis 49 (70C)) f. 15a line 22.] Michael the Syrian’s version of the TF was derived from Jacob of Edessa (c.708 ce), also preserves ‘a certain wise man, whose name was Jesus’ ( ܓܒܪܐ ܚܕ ܚܟܝܡܐ ܕܫܡܗ ܝܫܘܥ ) [fn.37 Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 5.10 [91] found in MS Edessa-Aleppo Codex 50r left col, line 17.] And according to Bermejo-Rubio, the Slavonic recension of Josephus’ work contains vestiges of this word with the phrase muži nĕkij, which may be ‘retroverted into Greek’ as ἀνήρ τις. [fn.38 Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, p.358.] [*1]

The Slavonic is so bloated, it is laughable. The most telling part of Slavonic is the fact that it says so much about Jesus except his name. It refers to him as “there appeared a certain man” (Slavonic War 2.9.3/4). This suggests that this particular line of transmission has preserved the notion that Jesus was not named in the original TF.

“The Slavonic Josephus offers a trace of the same pronoun: the phrase muži nēkij retroverted into Greek would correspond to ἀνήρ τις.” (‘certain man’) [6]

I have used this word ‘certain’ in the reconstruction, but instead of a certain Jesus, I have said a ‘certain man’. This is the same reading as the Slavonic and one of the earliest physical manuscripts that contains the TF- the Syriac translation of Eusebius EH has this variant in one of its manuscripts- MS British Library Add. 14,639. (This phrase ‘τις’ was also used for Judas the Galilean, War 2.118). The use of ‘certain’ suggests a figure not well known. The qualification of ‘certain’ would only be omitted if the figure was well known.

Justin Martyr by saying that Trypho would caricature Jesus writing Iēsous tinos (Dial. Trypho 108) a variant of tis (plural tines τινες), suggests that it was common knowledge that the Christian polemicists referred to Jesus that way. This could have been easily taken from the original TF.

All scholars recognize that the Slavonic has been destroyed with Christian gloss as explained very well by Van Voorst:

“The Slavonic Josephus reflects the growing Christian tendency to excuse Pontius Pilate for Jesus’ death and to blame the Jews, even to the point of saying that the Jews themselves crucified Jesus. To make this point, the Slavonic version has to ignore Josephus’s original statement that Pilate crucified him….The Slavonic Testimonium uses the New Testament extensively at several points to develop its story.” [7]

But then Van Voorst goes on to say that the Slavonic does “not provide an authentic textual alternative to the main Testimonium Flavianum in the Jewish Antiquities.” [8]

So after he said that Christians were trying to bolster up the TF he fails to explain why they dropped his name “Jesus” and title “Christ”. Of note, the line “he was the Christ” does not appear in Pseudo-Hegisippus, De excidio urbis Hierosolymitanae [On the ruin of the city of Jerusalem] book 2 chapter 12, (see part 2) Olson trying to claim Pseudo-Hegisippus rewrote that phrase to claim that even the leaders of the synagogue acknowledged Jesus to be God is bullshit. If that phrase was in Ps-Hegisippus source copy, he would have wrote that same phrase. Also Van Voorst does not explain (or notice) if the Slavonic came from a source that was earlier than the textus receptus found in the MSS of Antiquities.

A number of Greek words taken over literally by the Russian, (Eg: igemon, metropolja, archierei, skinopigja, katapetasma, aramatji), which just shows that the Slavonic is working off an early Greek exemplar.[9]

Next bit:

‘a wise man’ 

σοφὸς ἀνήρ

to 

‘sophist and agitator’ 

ταραχτικός τε σοφιστής

•Josephus usually uses the expression σοφὸς ἀνήρ ‘a wise man’, as his highest praise for people. There is only two cases where he uses it: King Solomon and the prophet Daniel; it is not a phrase he uses for the messianic leaders he reports. Usually it is not σοφὸς (wise) but σοφιστής (sophist).

Example: In War 2.118, Judas the Galilaean is described as a σοφιστὴς ἰδίας αἱρέσεως (“sophist of his own sect”). There is a clue this word sophist was originally written when Justin Martyr combatting his anti Christian interlocutor says:

“He was no sophist, but His word was the power of God.” (1 Apol. 14).

Justin had heard off of his interlocutor that Jesus was a sophist, information he may have got off the TF.

Cross reference this with what Lucian wrote in his satire called The Passing of Peregrinus:

“Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once, for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws.” (Lucian, Peregr. Proteus, ch. xiii).

It is common knowledge that Jesus was a sophist, information that was easily accessed and out in the public. Information easily got from Josephus Antiquities found in public libraries.

• Jesus is not named in this reconstruction as explained above. This variant ‘certain man’ is also witnessed by one of the earliest physical manuscripts we have: MS British Library Add. 14,639. That was a Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Church History, showing us that ‘certain man’ was the earlier reading that existed in Eusebius’ copy of the TF.

The fact Jesus is not named and the fact of the TF being a negative original could explain why Origen never cited this passage in all his works, (but he did acknowledge it when he digressed onto it). Most church fathers would simply quote the gospels (discussed below) when it came to Jesus, as the gospels had a glorious history of Jesus as opposed to any negative history found anywhere else (such as a negative TF).

The next section:

if one may properly call him a man.

εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή

•Meier has seen this line interpolated by Eusebius along with the line he was the Messiah. [10] Ken Olson evaluates this phrase in the wider context of where Eusebius made use of this phrase in an argument contained in Demonstratio Evangelica, book III (Demonstration of the Gospel). [11] He cites the TF at Dem. Ev. 3.5.106. Here Olson shows “Eusebius is carrying on an extended defense of the incarnation and answering the charges of critics of Christianity. One of these is Porphyry’s argument against the divinity of Jesus.” [12] What makes us suspicious that Eusebius interpolated this phrase is that he needed to show both the human and divine nature of Jesus. Also a Jewish hand could never have written this.

Therefore we will cut this section out of our reconstruction.

The next phrase:

He was doer of strange deeds

ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής

• Geza Vermes argued in 2009 that the expression “surprising feats” (paradoxon ergon) (example used in Ant. 12.63) is repeatedly used by Josephus in his works to describe many miracles associated with the Old Testament (such as the burning bush and the miracles of Moses and Elisha). [13] So the word in itself is not negative (just like many words in English), but in context it can be negative. There is an example of this when Josephus describes the miracles of Pharoahs court magicians. Josephus “makes Pharaoh say that the ‘wise’ (σοϕῶν) magicians of Egypt employed their dark arts (μαγείας) to perform a παράδοξον before Moses by turning their staffs into snakes” (Ant. 2.285–6).[*2] Originally Josephus would have seen Jesus as a gōes (wizard) and this would be reflected in the phrase ‘doer of strange works.’ This phrase may be original but read negatively. The anti-Christian polemicists may have got the impression that Jesus was a γόης (goēs) from the original TF containing παραδόξων Celsus picks out that exact word describing Jesus as such in Contra Cels. 1.6. Other anti Christians also suspected Jesus of magic such as the Jew interlocutor of Justin Martyr (Dial. 69.7). For a detailed discussion of this consult Thomas Schmidt new book Josephus on Jesus. [14]

Here is the second line of the TF:

a teacher to those who receive the truth with pleasure.

διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένω

This line sounds like one of the creeds that Eusebius would have written into the TF, you don’t see Josephus being so flattering to other Sign Prophet messianic troublemaker figures. Jesus being described as a sophist originally may have prompted Eusebius to change that phrase into a much more positive phrase. The earlier form of this phrase may have been a sophist (see above). Therefore we will cut out this phrase also.

[For they said he was a prophet and the Temple would be destroyed and restored in three days]

The gospels all try to sanitize this prophecy, it is exactly like the promises made by a group of people in Josephus such as Theudas and the ‘Egyptian.’ Modern scholars refer to these people as Sign Prophets.

•A new line should be added in brackets as there was no reason given for Jesus Crucifixion rendering our current TF vacuous. That line is lost but will be noted. There was originally a reason which I suspect was cut out.

(Many messianic figures made crazy claims as seen from the ‘Egyptian’ and ‘Theudas’ discussed later in part 7 under the heading “Crazy Messianic claims). Mills thinks that when the Temple really got destroyed that this was a memorable prophecy. [16] This in turn meant the gospel of Mark included it in his gospel, with a qualifier that it was a false report. Ian Mills drawing from E P Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, says the gospels are uncomfortable with a failed prophecy of Temple destruction. (Mark 13:1-31). Mark is writing after the destruction, and therefore highlighting this prophecy appropriated to Jesus. Jesus proclaims that the Messiah, the “Son of Man” in “great power and glory” would return within the lives of some of the people listening to him. He links the blessed event of his second coming with the destruction of a Jerusalem and it’s famous Temple. It is very unusual for those trying to glorify Jesus, to put in a failed prophecy, it is not something you makeup from scratch. If you keep reading into Mark’s gospel, onto the trial of Jesus (Mark 14:57-59) you will read about people falsely accusing Jesus that he will destroy the Temple and rebuild it:

“Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’” (Mark 14:57-58).

While Jesus was on the cross people mocked him about it:

“Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!” In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.” (Mark 15:29-32)

Mark knows his readers are well aware of the prophecy and tries to refute it. You do not try to refute a non-existent failed prophecy, that is one of the reasons for suspecting that this prophecy was circulating. 

[After the ‘Egyptian”’s failed revolt, I can picture those around him, mocking him as to why the walls of Jerusalem didn’t come tumbling down. I discuss the Egyptians’ crazy messianic claim later in this paper. The belief he may have had about being a messiah would have been shattered like what happened to other messianic movements in the event of failure. Without gods intervention- they can’t be the messiah. Really Jesus was not unique and had similar problems experienced by other messianic types. The gospel of Mark tries to get around peoples opposition to Jesus being the messiah by inventing a literary construct of the messianic secret]. 

John 2:19 also had this prediction of destroying the Temple and rebuilding it in three days. Mark is in denial about the prediction whereas John spiritualized it. 

       Stephens speech also has it about the prophecy in Acts:

“They produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.” (Acts 6:13-14).

Even the gospel of Thomas has this prophecy, saying 71:

“I will destroy this house, and no one shall be able to build it again.”

Next line:

and many Jews, and also many of the Greek element, he led to himself;

καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο

To

and many of the Judaens, and also many of the Galilean element, he led to himself in a tumult;

καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Γαλιλαίου ἐπηγάγετο ἐν θορύβῳ

•I replaced the line-

“and many Jews (a Christian translation of Judaens, same word), and also many of the Greek element, he led to himself;”

With

“and many of the Judaens, and also many of the Galilean element, he led to himself”

as the original line sounds Paulinist. As Paula Fredriksen said, Josephus “is the only one of our early sources to name gentiles (those “of Greek origin”) as among Jesus’ original followers. No New Testament source corroborates this claim,…. the movement that formed after Jesus’ death seems to have involved gentiles only eventually and tangentially, and not from its very initial stages.” [17] Fredriksen thinks that this was written anachronistically by Josephus but as Rosen-Zvi and Ophir noticed about Josephus is that the syntactic construction is playing on the Jew/Gentile binary, which is not a feature of Josephus’ language anywhere else. [18] In fact, having Jews and Greeks join together in any sort of movement from the time of Herod the Great to the Jewish Roman War 66-70, is extremely unlikely. Steve Mason showed that these two sets of people were at each other’s throats in the run up to the war: “the appearance of charismatic prophets, militants, and sicarii; and the immediate background to the war itself (e.g., events in Caesarea, deteriorating relations with Greek cities, the intervention and defeat of Cestius Gallus” (Cretius was the Legate of Syria who led a legion into Judea in 66 to wipe out the revolt). [19]

We can also note that Eusebius swapped out Ἑλληνικοῦ (Greek) for Γαλιλαίου (Galilean). Also the Greek does suggest two groups as ἐπηγάγετο means the source of, the spring of. It is tantalizing that the Jesus movement was big enough to lead two groups of people into a revolt! One from his area of Galilee who came down for the Passover, joining with those more local from the south, the Judaens.

Figuring out that the TF could have said Jesus was leading two groups into a tumult, comes about inadvertently from the scholarship of somebody who dismissed the TF because it did not contain the word θόρυβος (tumult):
“Norden noted that the section running from Ant 18.55-90 was united not by chronology—the two events reported after the TF, the expulsions of the Isis cult and of the Jews from Rome, concern events traditionally held to have taken place in AD 19 (Tacitus Annales 2.85), some time before Pilate’s tenure of office in Judaea. Rather they are united by the fact that they all conform to disturbances or θόρυβος (tumult), that is disturbances of a particular kind (either the noun θόρυβος or the verb θορυβεîν is found in the description of each incident) Such a bunching together of θόρυβος was, Norden noted, a well-known ancient historical ploy, and it is possible that Josephus had access to a source which characterized Pilate’s tenure of office as a succession of θόρυβοι ……Norden appeared to exclude arguments that assumed some tampering with an originally more negative passage which would have fitted more easily into the ‘thorubic’ context he outlined……If one adopts the view entertained, amongst others, by Thackeray and Eisler, that in the original account of the TF the word θόρυβος did in fact appear. Such an observation would also serve to counter Norden [20]

I found that a derivative of the word θόρυβος best fitted here as the greek says Jesus led two groups and term “ἐπηγάγετο” can also apply to “leading an army” [21] To repeat the reconstructed line above shows how easily it fits here. The polemics of the anti-Christian’s stating Jesus being a criminal (see next part) ensured that the bit in between the asterisks here would be the first to get expunged.

καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Γαλιλαίου ἐπηγάγετο *ἐν θορύβῳ*

“…and he lead many of the Judeans, along with many of the Galilean (element) *in a tumult.*”

A failed event consisting of two groups would see one side blaming the other. Judas Iscariot may be a literary construction in the gospels (discussed below) to represent the Judean element being at fault for the failure. The size of this messianic group would explain that the Jesus movement was big enough to make it into Josephus. [22] It shows Jesus leading a full-on revolt of at least two groups before he got executed. Jesus was not a nobody, a nobody would not make it into Josephus and be the cause of the rise of the NT literature. Romans crucified for sedition, they were never interested in common thieves. Crucifixion was used as a deterrent to rebellion. “Jesus was condemned to aggravated death. If we look at the ten chapters [Roman Law,] by which this type of death was inflicted on individuals of pilgrim and humble status, we will see that only two of them can be taken into consideration: popular uprising and crime of lesa-majesty.” (law of Treason, lex maiestatis) [23] (Cf The Digesta 48:1, 3)

There was a two-fold advantage for Eusebius to replace the word “Galileans” with the word “Greeks”. Firstly he would get rid of a negative rebellious connotation by getting rid of a ‘Galilean’ reference. Secondly having ‘Greeks’ makes this movement sound universal, Eusebius wished to confirm Jesus’ “letter” (this was made up by Eusebius) to King Agbar. (H.E. I.13.1). As Paget notes in the Demonstratio “Eusebius picks up on the TF’s statement that Jesus attracted to himself many Jews and many Greeks to prove that ‘he must evidently have had some extraordinary power beyond that of other men’.” [24]

Also the early followers of Jesus were known as Galileans, as attested by Epictetus, Diss. 4.7.6. Circa 110-115CE (Cf Luke 13:1-2; Mark 14:70):

 “Well then, if madness can cause people to adopt such as attitude towards these things [not being scared at the swords of tyrants] and habit too, as in the case of the Galileans, can’t reason and demonstration teach people that God has made all that is in the universe, and the universe itself as a whole, to be free…” (Diss. 4.7.6)

This passage shows that Christians were known to be persecuted by the Emperor Nero, and Epictetus had been within close proximity to the Emperor’s household. Also Epictetus’ opprobrious mention of the Galileans means they could just as easily have been messianic rebels. The gospel of Mark may also have preserved the fact that this movement was Galilean:

 “Again he denied it. After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.” (Mark 14:70).

Josephus views the Galileans as a separate ethnos. (E.g. War 3.42). He views them condescendingly; they mainly reside in the urban centres of Galilee. Thiel says that Josephus described them as “restive and emotional mob ready to ignite at the slightest indignation” [25]

This, together with that the textus receptus says “of the Greek (nation)” and not “Greeks” in the plural, shows that Eusebius was working with something that was already there. There is no other instance in Josephus of his referring to “Greeks” in this exact way, but there is an instance where he refers to the Galilean ethnos.

Next bit:

He was the Christ.

ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν.

To

he was desirous of Kingship

επιθυμών βασιλεὺς εἶναι

• As with many messianic figure followers reported in Josephus works, they usually declared the would be leader a King, (this is a messianic title). Many messianic figures in Josephus works such as Simon of Pereae, a slave of Herod the Great (Ant 17.10.6) and Athronges the shepherd (Ant 17.10.7 ) were declared King (βασιλεὺς) at a drop of a hat. This is a common theme throughout Josephus, this line is telling:

“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.” (Josephus, Ant 17.10.8).

This theme of popular messianic figures expected to lead the disgruntled has gospel tradition too, example:

“Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.” (John 6:15).

Also the Titulus Crucis, where Jesus’ crime was stated “King of the Jews” points to the nervousness of the governor (a common theme in Josephus) that the Sign prophet (in this case Jesus) was going to start a revolt.

Therefore I replaced “he was the Christ ” using Jerome’s Latin recension with the more primitive phrase “he was believed to be the Christ”. The variant reading converting the Latin back to the Greek is supposedly “ὁ χριστὸς *λεγόμενος* οὗτος ἦν”, which sounds super awkward in Greek.

For the Greek I used the verb νομίζω (consider) i.e. “ἐνομίζετο”. I also replaced Christ (χριστὸς) with King (βασιλεὺς) as Josephus did not use this term for all the other messianic figures. If you read Josephus you would be surprised with how many messianic contenders were declared to be a king. Therefore I used the term ‘King’ in this reconstruction. Origen stated that Josephus did not like to use the term “Christ” in relation to Jesus. Josephus preferred to apply that title to Vespasian in his Roman propaganda, citing the Balaam prophecy (War 6.312-313). In a lecture, Henry Abramson explains why Josephus could not have wrote ‘Christos’ in this passage, “When Josephus uses the word Mashiach, [hebrew for Christ] that’s like game over, end of time, that’s like resuscitation of the dead. The world ends as we know it. We go into a brand new period of history unlike anything we had before. For him to go on to write another few volumes with only one passage about this one event is just beyond belief… a modern analogy is to say we have found intelligent alien life but we will finish this lecture. Another impossible event.” [26] Of course the word ‘Christ’ does fit into Paul’s letters as Paul is describing the end game. Paul’s epistles do describe this brand new age of history already started by Jesus the messiah, Jesus being ‘first fruits’ is the first of the dead to resurrect.

Next section:

And many souls were roused, thinking that thereby the tribe of Judaens could free themselves from the Romans.

πολλαὶ δὲ ψυχαὶ συνεχύθησαν ὡς οὕτως τὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων φῦλον ἐλευθερώσῃ ἑαυτό ἐκ τῶν Ῥωμαίων.

       In the following sentence contained in the Slavonic TF could have come from an original TF, “And many souls were roused, thinking that thereby the Jewish tribes could free themselves from Roman hands.” The word tribe is also in the last sentence of the TF.

Next line:

[So Pilate sent forces, footmen to slew them and seize a number of them along with the certain imposter.]

πέμπει δὲ Πιλάτου δύναμιν πεζικὴν ἥτις ἀπροσδόκητος ἐπιπεσοῦσα πολλοὺς, πολλοὺς δὲ ζῶντας ἔλαβεν από αυτούς μαζί με τον γόητος τις

This line is more likely given what was written before and after the TF. See what was written before the TF: “Who laid upon them much greater blows …” (Ant. 18.62) and the see the line after the TF: “About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder” (Ant. 18.65). It is also more likely seeing how Josephus wrote about other Sign Prophets. Certain imposter or γόητος τις is the usual way Josephus described the Sign Prophets.

Any movement that gathered a crowd initiated a sending out of troops by the Roman governor. Here I will provide a few examples-

The first example was a movement other than Jesus’ that was put down by Pilate:

“but Pilate prevented their going up, [to Mt. Gerizim] by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and footmen, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.” (Josephus, Ant. 18.87)

Here Fadus sent out the horsemen against Theudas and his group:

However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt [Theudas splitting the Jordan], 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. (Ant. 20.98)

The Sign prophets under Felix met the same fate.

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 2.260)

The Egyptian who command the biggest group of these Sign Prophets, had to face the horsemen and footmen.

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. (Ant. 20.171)

And later 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).

The gospel of John reports an incident very similar to these:

Then a cohort (speira) with its commander (chiliarchos) and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. (John 18:12)

As noticed by Lena Einhorn, “a σπεῖρα (speira), that is a cohort consisting of 500 to 1000 Roman soldiers was sent out and John uses the word χιλίαρχος (chiliarchos), for their commander, this is a commander of one thousand (Jn. 18:12). [27] Dale Martin consulting the gospel of Mark alone showed tte Jesus movement were lightly armed expecting a break in of a Yahweh intervention . ^[28] “At least one of Jesus’ disciples was armed when Jesus was arrested. The mistake made by most readers is to read the Gospel of Mark in light of the Gospel of Luke, which insists that only two swords were involved (Mk 14.47; Lk. 22.3638, 50). What happens if we read Mark’s account pretending we know nothing of how it is presented in the other Gospels?” [29] This is similar to the Samaritan sign prophet whose movement were only armed for self defence. (Ant.18.86, 88). Josephus consulted the records under all the various governors of Judea, where footmen or cavalry had to be sent against any mass movement. This suggests just such an incident of footmen and cavalry were sent out for Jesus, this would generate such a report by the prefect (Pilate), a report that would ultimately be picked up by Josephus. Such incidents were picked up all over the place in Judea for Josephus’ books. Most of the Acta records which would have included orders for footmen and cavalry sent out, under each of  the governors of Judea were included in his book Antiquities.

It is most likely Jesus was crucified as being a threat to Roman security. Justin Meggit’s reason for Jesus ending up on a cross for simply being mad is a bit anachronistic as we do not talk for a rational age. [30] He was right to say Pilate did not need much of an excuse or trial to have Jesus Crucified (Philo, Legat. 302). [31] You could say all the Sign Prophets were mad as they went against yet odds expecting gods intervention but this was due to an apocalyptic age beliefs.

Another assumption by Meggit, that  Jesus was crucified alone is not to be taken for granted as Bermejo-Rubio argued those crucified with Jesus could have been his followers. ^[32] Josephus refers to bandits as lestes (Greek for robbers), It’s hard to see why Jesus wouldn’t be seen as a bandit as he was crucified between two bandits. As Paula Fredrikson says, “Perhaps Jesus was arrested as a lestes: he was certainly executed as one, crucified between two others (duo lestai, 15:27); and he was charged with making a seditious claim, that is, that he was “The King of the Jews” (15:26)”^[33]

Next section:

And when at the indictment of the first men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to a cross.

καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου

•Paul Winters, an expert in Jewish and Roman Law in first century Palestine sees this line as genuine. “The balanced distinction between ἐνδείξει (verb ένδείχνυμι) writ of indictment, attributed to Jewish leaders, and the act of awarding sentence (επιτιμάν σταυρῷ) is not likely to be the work of a Christian interpolator …Such an interpolator would scarcely have been content with reproaching Jewish leaders for drawing up an indictment against Jesus whilst stating that the imposition of sentence by crucifixion was an act of Roman justice.” [34]

I also found Schmidt is right to say that when Josephus says “first men among us” he would have known of them which brings Josephus himself closer to the Jesus case. [*2]

•Shlomo Pines had thought this line was not in the original TF as the Agabius Arabic version does not blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. [35] The key phrase “at the suggestion of the principal men among us” reads instead “Pilate condemned him to be crucified”. But Whealey has proved that the Agapius version is a paraphrase. She proved this as she showed Michael the Syriac recension used the same source. Therefore it is most likely that this line is original. [36]

John 11:47-50 reflects the collaborating High Priest’s fear of the danger posed by a messianic figure:

Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. “What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”

This is also backed up in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15:

For you, brothers, became imitators of God’s Assemblies in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those Assemblies suffered from the Judeans…..

The Dead Sea Scrolls mention an earlier high priest, seen as a collaborator, whom they dubbed the “Wicked Priest,” (“cohen resha” mentioned in 1QpHab; cf 4QpPsa) which shows one need not read the Josephus business about priestly involvement in Jesus’ execution as a product of vilification by Christian interpolators.

Next section:

those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him

To

[Josephus may have mentioned Jesus as a pseudo prophet here but it has been replaced with the Emmaus passage found in Luke]

Final line:

The tribe of the Christians, so named after him, survive to the present day.

εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.

To:

Yet this tribe has until now not disappeared.

‘ετι καί νύν ἀπὸ τοῦδε δεν έχει εξαφανιστεί

As noted by Whealey and Paget, Josephus probably used the phrase “until now”, where Eusebius had changed this to his own idiosyncratic phrase “still to this day.” [37] At the time of writing Josephus must have been aware of Christians existing in Rome.

• I stated the Galileans were slain because of the opening line of the passage after the TF:

 “About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder..” (Ant 18.3.4)

and also see what was written before it:

“Who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them; and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not. Nor did they spare them in the least.“(Ant 18.3.2)

•Significantly, the TF is to be found right in the very middle of the rebel passages. This argues against an ex nihilo interpolation, since it is highly unlikely that Christian scribes would have chosen to put the testimony to Jesus right in the middle of the rebel section of Antiquities. This observation supports the rebel paradigm for Jesus. This is underappreciated.

•The incident that happened in Ant18.3.2 reminds me of unarmed protesters being shot in Northern Ireland that started a 30 years guerilla war. This gives me a suspicion that the Jesus movement was reactionary in its resistance. Luke’s gospel picks up on this:

“Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.’” (Luke 13:1-5).

•Church fathers before Eusebius would have had both histories of Jesus, that of the gospels and that of the passage found in Antiquities. The gospels shed the best possible light on Jesus with their glorification. The original negative TF would have shed a very bad light. Put yourselves into the shoes of these church fathers and ask yourself, if you were discussing Jesus, would you use those histories that put Jesus in the best possible light or would you use that negative passage. This is what P. R. Coleman-Norton prescribed when he examined John Chrysostom’s use of Josephus. For all his reports of Jesus he went to the gospels. [38]

Here are links to the rest of the blogs in this series:

Part 1 The Original Testimonium Flavianum

Part 2 The evidence of the Variants of the TF

Part 4 The Layers of the Testimonium Flavianum

Part 5 Wanna know what Josephus originally wrote about Jesus?

Part 6 Exposing the Pre-Eusebian Strata of the TF

Part 7 Why we know there was a Testimonium Flavianum.

—————————————————————

[1] Allen, Dave, An Original Negative Testimonian, The Journal of Higher Criticism Volume 15 Number 1, (2020), 67-90.

[2] Eisler, Robert, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist, The Dial Press 1931 (English Translation), p.50.

[3] Eisler, The Messiah Jesus, p.50, fn.2

[*] T. C Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, New Evidence for the one called Christ, (Oxford, 2025), p.47.

[4] Bermejo-Rubio, Fernand, Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a “Neutral” Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on Antiquitates Judaicae 18.63-64 Journal for the Study of Judaism, 2014, 45/3, p.357.

[*1] T.C. Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, p.68.

[*2] T.C. Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, p.75.

[5] Eisler, ibid, p.47.

[6] Bermejo-Rubio, ibid, p.358

[7] Van Voorst, Robert E., Jesus Outside the New Testament, An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, (Eerdmans, 2000), p.87-88.

[8] ibid, p.87

[9] Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist, ibid, (English Translation), p.130.

[10] Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew ,Rethinking the Historical Jesus Volume one: The Roots of the Problem and the person, (Doubleday, 1991), p.60.

[11] Olson, Ken, A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius of Caesarea Tradition and Innovations, Edited by Aaron Johnson and Jeremy Schott. Center for Hellenic Studies (2013), 101-3.

[12] ibid, 101

[13] Vermes, Geza, Jesus in the Eyes of Josephus (2009) https://standpointmag.co.uk/jesus-in-the-eyes-of-josephus-features-jan-10-geza-vermes/

[14] Thomas Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, pp.73-76

[15]

[16] Sanders, E.P., Jesus and Judaism, (First Fortress Press, 1985) pp. 61-76.

Ian Mills in an interview with Derek Lambert on his Mythvision podcast (linked) drawing on the arguments of E P Sanders discussed in his book.

[17] Paula Fredriksen, When Christians Were Jews, The first generation, (Yale University Press, 2018), page 80.

[18] Rosen-Zvi, Ishay and Ophir, Adi, Paul and the Invention of the Gentiles, The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Winter 2015) pp.1-41.

[19] Mason, Steve, Flavius Josephus, Translation and Commentary, Volumne 1B, Judean War 2, (Brill, 2008), Preface, p.xv,

[20] Norden, Eduard, 1913, ‘Josephus und Tacitus uber Jesus Chnstus und seine messianische Prophetie’, NJKA N F 31, pp 637-66 = Kleine Schnjten zum klassischen Altertum (Berlin, 1966), pp 241-75; cit op Paget, ibid, p.579-580

And this is from Paget, ibid, P579 Footnote 162 “Pilate threatens to punish those protesting against the legionary standards ‘unless they ceased to cause a disturbance (θορυβεîν)’ (AJ 18 58), those who participate in what Josephus calls an insurrection (στάση) connected with Pilate’s use of temple revenues are referred to as θοροβούντας (18 62), Tiberius’ suppression of the cult of Isis and expulsion of the Jews from Rome is introduced with the words ‘About the same time another evil disturbed (έθορύβει) the Jews’ (18 65), and the uprising connected with a Samaritan and which brings Pilate’s tenure to an end is introduced with the words ‘Meanwhile not even the Samaritans were without unrest (θόρυβος)’ (18 85)”

[21] “ἐπηγάγετο” can also apply to “leading an army” – http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morphl=%E1%BC%90%CF%80%CE%B7%CE%B3%CE%AC%CE%B3%CE%B5%CF%84%CE%BF&la=greek#lexicon

Per LSJ – “b. lead on an army against the enemy, “Ἄρη τινί” A.Pers.85 (lyr.); “τὴν στρατιήν” Hdt.1.63, cf.7.165; “τὸ δεξιὸν κέρας” Ar. Av.353; “στρατόπεδον” Th.6.69; “τινὰ ἐπί τινα” Id.8.46: intr., march against, “τισί” Plb.2.29.2: abs., dub. in Luc.Hist.Conscr.21: metaph., Diph.44 (nisi leg. ἐπῇττε).”

[22] Horsley, Richard A, What has Galilee to do with Jerusalem? Political aspects of the Jesus movement, (1996) HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies, Vol. 52, No.1, pp.88-104.

[23] Torrents, José Montserrat, Jesús, El Galileo Armado, [Jesus, The Armed Galilean], (Jerusalem 2011) chapter 7.

[24] Paget, ibid, p.562.

[25] Thiel, Nathan, The Use of the Term “Galileans” in the Writings of Flavius Josephus Revisited, Jewish Quarterly Rebiew, University of Pennsylvania Press, Volume 110, Number 2, Spring 2020, pp. 221-244. (Quote from p.221).

[26] Abramson, Henry, Who was Josephus, the Roman Jew? Jews of Italy pt. 3, Part of the Jews of Italy series at henryabramson.com, (2019). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZQmhb1QRx8&fbclid=IwAR1YewsSQeKwXzfoQ42W4pkl0UDQ0BUWglLUZXb0JADDX4EVm6LlBv0fvlg&noapp=1&noapp=1

[27] Lena Einhorn, A Shift in Time, How Historical Documents Reveal the Surprising Truth about Jesus, (Yucca, 2016), Premise Two.

[28] Dale B. Martin, “Jesus in Jerusalem: Armed and Not Dangerous”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37.3 (2014), pp.3-24.

[29] Martin, Armed and Not Dangerous, pp.4-5.

[30] Justin Meggit, The Madness of King Jesus: Why was Jesus Put to Death, but his Followers were not?, JSNT 29.4 (2007) pp.379-413

[31] Meggit, Madness,, p.380.

[32] Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “(Why) Was Jesus the Galilean Crucified Alone? Solving a False Conundrum”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36 (2), pp.127–54.

[33] Fredriksen, Paula, From Jesus to Christ, The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus, 2nd Ed. (Yale, 2000), p.116

[34] Winter, Paul, On The Trial of Jesus (De Gruyter 1974), p.40.

[*2] T. C. Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for The One called Christ, (Oxford, 2025), pp.6-7.

[35] Pines, Shlomo, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications. (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, 1971).

[36] Whealey, Alice, The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic, New Test. Stud. 54, (Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 573–590.

[37] Alice Whealey, “Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum”, in C. Böttridge and J. Herzer (eds), Josephus und das Neue Testament, (Tübingen 2007), pp.73-116 (105); Paget, “Some Observations”, pp.574-575.

[38] Coleman-Norton, P. R. “St. Chrysostom’s Use of Josephus.” Classical Philology, vol. 26, no. 1, 1931, pp. 85–89.

BACK TO HOMEPAGE

Part 1 of my Historical Jesus series

(This post has been updated 3rd July 2025 to include my latest research).

Overview of Historical Jesus Research.

Paul tells us nothing of the historical Jesus other than he was crucified, that he had a brother James (Gal 1:19) who with two others – John and Cephas were high up in the Jesus movement (Gal. 2:9). He lets us know this movement was based in Jerusalem. He also lets us know that it was James that was in charge (Gal. 2:12). It makes sense that a brother of Jesus would take over this movement. Paul is only interested that those “in Christ” (that’s how Paul describes the new converts who joined this movement, a description that shows this was a spirit possession cult) are saved by Grace that Christ gave you! (Grace has a Greco Roman connotation of gift).[1]

Jennifer Eyl defines Grace – charis (χάρις) much better than John Barclay, Barclay correctly stated in Greco Roman times Grace had a connotation of gift. Jennifer Eyl goes much further than this to explain that these were divine gifts you got from the God of Isreal as long as you reciprocated with faith/fidelity –pistis. Charis had the same root as charismatic. These gifts could include – prophecy, speaking in tongues etc, all tools you need to become a charismatic![2] Of course here we see Paul is using the buzzwords used by the imperial Caesars demonstrating their own power. The gift of the ceasars was a benefit to all, a reciprocal relationship between ceasar and his subjects. This is especially seen in an inscription from Ephesus where Augustus was shown as “example of beneficence” representing  an “instance of the Augustan ‘age of grace’.[3] The inscription reads as follows:

By means of [t]he [favou]r (χαριτ[ι]) [chariti =grace] of Caesar August[us] from the sacred reven[ues] (εκ των ιερων προσο[δων]) [w]hich he himself [gave] freely (εχαρι[σατο]) to the goddess a road was laid under the procons[ul] Sextos Appoleios.[4]

So we see here, Paul was only interested in exalting Jesus with the imperialist buzzwords of the day, giving away very little about the historical Jesus himself other than he was executed on a Roman cross by fault of the Jewish authorities (1 Thess. 2:14-16) who ratted him out!

The gospels only mould Jesus to their own theological interpretation, they are literary creations soaking with Tanakh allusions. The Evangelists merely crafted their narratives from historical memories. To see this in action- press here). Many of these Tanakh allusions are an ex eventu appropriation in reaction to Temple destruction.

And then when it comes to Josephus mention of Jesus, the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) we find the passage severely tampered, so much so that I have found four redactional layers! Of late Thomas Schmidt like Whealey before him try to keep the TF intact but really they only get it back to what it was like after Eusebius tampered with it. How we know Eusebius was working with a TF circulating is due to a very early variant ‘certain man’ in place of the word ‘Jesus’ found in one of the Syriac translations of Eusebius. This is the smoking gun- Eusebius did not write it! So to get at Jesus history we have to do many things such as mirror reading in Paul’s letters, memory studies in the gospels (I show an example of that here), and comparative studies with similar movements to Jesus in Josephus. (Jesus best aligns with the Sign Prophets).

Schweitzer insisted that Jesus is unknowable[5], while Jesus may be lost to history, this can be corrected by doing critical inquiry of Paul’s letters (mirror reading), the gospels (memory studies) and background history contained in Josephus (comparative studies) – we can get an outline of Jesus. (Admittedly we cannot get the real historical Jesus- just an outline).

Reimarus (who kicked off this whole critical historical study of Jesus over 250 years ago) and Schweitzer agree is that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, this is much like the other Sign Prophets. Schweitzer observations caused the end of the first historical quest of the historical Jesus where he had noticed that scholars generally created a Jesus that was a reflection of themselves.

When historical Jesus scholars look down into the deep well of the evidence for Jesus they tend to see a Jesus that looks alot like themselves.[6]

– Scot McKnight, similar to a saying by George Tyrrell, Christianity at the Crossroads, (1909), p.44

Preconceptions are easily incorporated into scholars hypotheses as the gospels are such contradictory compilations that all you have to do is pick out the concepts that suit your hypothesis and away you go. The gospels portray Jesus as a prophet, a king/messiah/son of God/son of David, a rebel or even a rabbi/teacher or a cynic sage. Evidence of the gospels proves difficult to determine the earliest layer or the added layer. Schweitzer had noticed scholars tended to build a hypothesis of Jesus from their own pre-conceptions. Those who propose Jesus as a millenarian apocalyptic eschatological oracular prophet usually have not entered this area of history with those preconceptions. This view results from comparative and background studies.

The second quest (dubbed the new quest by the people from that time) added a number of criteria for evaluating the historicity of each pericope of the New Testament. But it still proved impossible to parse out the historical from the mythological. The third quest launched by Geza Vermes and continued by E. P. Sanders made a lot of progress as it added the Jewish layer back onto Jesus but still relied on faulty criteria of historicity. A new quest was recently launched by James Crossley (of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus(JSHJ) fame) now dubbed the ‘next quest’ and is all about historical context. This will inevitably start turning to the historical contextualization and in my latest paper I see Jesus as one in a series of Sign Prophets Josephus reports about. Lately I have toyed with the idea that another modern quest should be amalgamated with Crossley’s “next quest” and that is the “fourth quest” (i. e. putting the gospel of John back into the historical mix) as initiated by Paul Anderson and memory studies (as espoused by Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher). I do an example of amalgamating these quests on one sample verse in the gospel of John with successful results of extracting real history out of the gospels. To see that press here.

The Testimonium Flavianum.

We will discuss this in good time but here in this blog we will first get at what Josephus most likely wrote about Jesus. What we can know of the historical Jesus, his place in history was contained in that one passage originally written by Josephus and subsequently overwritten. This information could be added to the little data Paul provides- namely Jesus had a brother James who took over the Jesus movement in aftermath of Jesus’ execution. (Gal. 1.19, 2.12).

In my own research and three peer review papers I do some serious untangling to get at the original TF.[7] Here is the result of that research:

And there arose about this time a certain man, a sophist and agitator. He was a doer of strange works.

[some eschatological sign similar to other sign prophets could have been the following:

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.

[Josephus may have mentioned Jesus as a pseudo prophet here but it had been replaced with the Emmaus passage found in Luke. 

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. 

Proposed original model of Ant. 18.63-64 (Testimonian Flavianum)

In the coming parts each line will be explained and shown where they derived from. Other than Paul adding the data that Jesus had a brother (Gal. 1:19), who had took over the movement (Gal. 2:12), this is all that could possibly be known of Jesus if it had not been overwritten. While we will not be able to recover the exact words of the original TF as echoed by R. T. France and E. P. Sanders, we can still have some idea of what the original passage was like given how Josephus wrote about other similar figures, namely – the Sign Prophets. Sanders gave the following observation:

“A reference to Jesus in Josephus (Ant. 18.3.3 [§ 63-4]) has been heavily revised by Christian scribes, and the original statement cannot be recovered.” (Yet Sanders also said there was an earlier form of the TF and that is useful in itself for historicity. He said Christian scribes probably only rewrote the text.[8]

We know there was an earlier form of the TF as there is a very early Syriac variant that was translated out of Eusebius. This variant has ‘certain man’ in the place of ‘Jesus’ for its recension of the TF.[9] As Eusebius would never have written ‘certain man’ if he was responsible for making up the TF from scratch, this variant proves Eusebius copied that phrase from his own source. That source was an earlier form of the TF that was circulating at that time.

Rather than attempt to do a textus restitutus, I will instead opt for a model reconstruction. This can be successfully done in three ways: 1) by examining how the text of the TF was quoted and misquoted through the generations. 2) By doing a comparison with other comparative passages – namely the Sign Prophet passages. 3) By seeing the anti Christian polemics that may have been working off an original TF. In the next part I will examine the variants. In the part after that I will separate the text into layers and through the variants and indirect quotes determine what were the most primitive phrases that would have come from the hand of Josephus.

Getting back to the TF, Contra Cels. 1.47 contradicts the TF statement ‘he was the Christ’ showing that that statement was not in the earlier version of the TF. Those that try to keep the TF intact such as T. C. Schmidt and Alice Whealey claim that “so called Christ (Schmidt) or “thought to be the Christ” (Whealey) was the original statement. But I think Origen did not see any such phrase in his copy of the TF,  that it was Eusebius that wrote in “he was thought to be the Christ.” The Syriac translation (this translation happens to be the earliest physical manuscripts that contain the TF), backs up that that was what Eusebius had wrote when reproducing the TF:

Syriac TF the word mestabrā (‘thought’ or less likely ‘proclaimed’) can also be interpreted as reflecting the meaning of λεγόμενος (‘said’ or ‘declared’) somewhat closely, while the Latin credebatur (‘believed’) follows the meaning too, but more loosely. [*]

The Excidio using a similar source is missing the phrase altogether. Origen stated “Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ” (Contra Cels. 1.47). Origen would not have made that assertion thus weakening his own argument against Celsus unless Origen had a passage on Jesus by Josephus missing that phrase “He was the Christ” that is in the textus receptus.

Baras observed:

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. Origen’s commentary on this verse, refers to the case of James, the brother of Jesus, who, according to Josephus (XX, 200), was handed over for trial to the Sanhedrin. Here Origen repeats his discontent with Josephus’ skeptical attitude toward Jesus’ messiahship: “and wonderful it is that while he did not receive Jesus for Christ, he did nevertheless bear wit­ness that James was so righteous a man.” Such a clear contradiction cannot be pushed aside; one is therefore bound to conclude that the text of the Testimonium was tampered with—a conclusion corroborated also by modern scholarship.[10]

The argument of pre Eusebian knowledge of the TF is a certainty when seeing the variant ‘certain man’ was translated out of Eusebius’s Church History, something Eusebius would never have written if he made up the TF from scratch. This taken together with the two other witnesses of the TF: De Excidio and the Slavonic, show that the authors (Ps-Hegesippus and the Russian chronographer) used sources prior to Eusebian tampering. (Neither recension have the phrase “He was the Christ”, so it is more likely that they used a version of the TF before Eusebius added the title Christ or the word Christians, as discussed in part 2). In the next couple of blogs, recognizing earlier versions of the TF which are proved by the variants alone, I will take up the challenge by Sanders that while the TF “cannot be recovered”, this does not mean that we cannot explore what would have been realistically written. This is a necessary exercise as I will now proceed to show that the TF was not created ex nihilo by a forger and therefore we can show what would have been the realistic original given how Josephus wrote of other messianic figures and Sign prophets.

Reconstructing the TF is not a fruitless exercise. It is important to build a model of what Josephus could have written so that we can think outside the box, see it’s implications and come as close as we can to viewing the historical Jesus. When we examine the earliest layers of the TF, it is easily seen that the TF lines up quietly nicely with other Sign Prophet passages we see in Josephus. This alone tells us who Jesus was in history. As BeDuhn said when reconstructing Marcions New Testament, (The First New Testament), “The desire to recover the exact wording of Marcion’s texts has interfered with full appreciation of what we can learn about its overall content.”[11] I do not claim to have what Josephus wrote but will build a model of what he may have written given that all scholars today know that the textus receptus of the TF has been tampered with. [whether it was tampered with minimally (as per Whealey, Schmidt) or creeds were added (as per Meier, Goldberg, D.Allen)]. We know this from the variants alone. (discussed next part). This model I will build by using the framework of the textus receptus of the TF (found in all manuscripts of Antiquities), by using all the indirect variants of the TF and by making use of all the anti Christian polemics. These polemics seem to be working off of the TF. Another factor in building this model is taking note of all the Sign Prophet passages.

Paul’s letters say very little about Jesus and only mention him in passing, giving instructions to newly formed churches. You can tell they are real from the anger Paul writes, his insecurity and loss of respect by his congregation especially in Galatia, his letter didn’t work there but a series of letters in Corinth pulled it back for Paul in Corinth. Frank W. Hughes has an excellent book called The Corinthian Correspondence, a book he wrote with Robert Jewett.[12] Paul knows a lot more about Jesus but only mentions anything as the occasion arises. The gospels do the opposite to Paul and say a lot about him but did not seem to know much about him, as they used all previous literature (especially their use of Paul’s letters and the Tanakh for allusions) not just to tell Jesus’ story but to justify their claims about Jesus.[13]  The gospels mostly provide allegorical backstories to Paul’s epistles.[14] They are works of pesherim (that is biblical metaphors) that propagate Jesus’ glory and the eschatology rather than just narrations. All over book 17 and book 18 of Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews and Josephus War book is a long line of messianic pretenders, self styled sign prophets with similar passages just like the one reconstructed above. In part 8 we will deal with these other messianic pretenders just to show you the similar characters to the historical Jesus. 

My latest paper sees Jesus as one in a series of sign Prophets, and the sign prophet passages provide a model for the Jesus movement. As The Jesus Handbook says:

“Domination, subjugation, imperialism, and theocracy are part of both the gospel tradition and the relevant contextualizing sources, and represent perhaps the only way people could realistically conceive an alternative to the present world powers. A similar phenomenon of mimicry-through-criticism can be found in the earliest “christological” traditions. In different ways, scholars have compared Jesus with figures associated with millenarian movements who provocatively challenge the status quo (Rowland 1986: 111–13; Allison 2010: 85–86, 221–304; cf. Theissen and Merz 2014: 175–80).[15]

In a later post I show Jesus social classification.

The general sweep of scholarship shows the TF is not A Creatio Ex Nihilo by a forger.

A very early Syriac variant of ‘certain man’ in the place of ‘Jesus’ in a TF recension translated from Eusebius original copy of EH, proves we had a pre-Eusebian form of the TF.[16] Eusebius would never have written ‘certain man’ if he was responsible for making up the TF from scratch. So we actually know there was an earlier form of the TF. Regardless let still go through previous scholarship that will back up this fact.

Let us now test the TF in both a Josephan and Eusebian framework.

Ken Olson has written a thesis showing the TF being more Eusebian than Josephean.[17] Eusebius was the first church father to introduce and reproduce it and therefore has come under suspicion of being the interpolator. Yet Eusebius was only one of the redactors of the TF and he was using it specifically in his propaganda fights with Porphyry of Tyre and Eusebius’ contemporary Hierocles and the earlier critic Celsus as well. Ken Olson explains why he used the TF specifically and therefore changed it specifically.[18]

Ken Olson has put the TF into a Eusebian framework and compared the Eusebian use of language where he quotes it in three of his extant works: the Demonstration of the Gospel 3.5.106, the Ecclesiastical History 1.11.8, and the Theophany 5.44. But even by Ken Olson’s own admittance, his own arguments only support the following premise:

“most likely hypothesis is that Eusebius either composed the entire text or rewrote it”

– Ken Olson, “A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum”[19]

I will show that Eusebius overwrote some of it with Christian creeds and thus you will find that I will be agreeing with some of Ken Olson’s arguments, but show that a creatio ex nihilo by Eusebius is not supported by his own arguments. His arguments are useful in showing Eusebius tampered with it. In fact the hypothesis that Eusebius wrote the TF from scratch is well and truly refuted!! (No matter how much Olsen protests).

First I will show the original TF was negative, a negative vorlage exists making it unlikely that the TF was created from scratch. The best argument for a negative original was inadvertently provided by Norden, he argued that since the passages before and after the TF had all contained a tumultuous sort of episode that the TF should be dismissed automatically. What Norden had not realized is that he really did provide an excellent argument for the TF being a negative original passage, (this I will discuss in part 3).[20] It is as worth quoting Paget in full here on this:

Norden noted that the section running from Ant. 18.55-90 was united not by chronology—the two events reported after the TF, the expulsions of the Isis cult and of the Jews from Rome, concern events traditionally held to have taken place in AD 19 (Tacitus Annales 2.85), some time before Pilate’s tenure of office in Judaea. Rather they are united by the fact that they all conform to disturbances or θόρυβος (“tumult”), that is disturbances of a particular kind (either the noun θόρυβος or the verb θορυβεîν is found in the description of each incident) Such a bunching together of θόρυβος was, Norden noted, a well-known ancient historical ploy, and it is possible that Josephus had access to a source which characterized Pilate’s tenure of office as a succession of θόρυβοι (“tumults”) … Norden appeared to exclude arguments that assumed some tampering with an originally more negative passage which would have fitted more easily into the ‘thorubic’ context he outlined … If one adopts the view entertained, amongst others, by Thackeray and Eisler, that in the original account of the TF the word θόρυβος did in fact appear. Such an observation would also serve to counter Norden.

J. Carleton Paget, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity,”[21]

All this shows that the TF was originally negative containing a tumultuous event (but not polemical, negative in the sense that it was just another report about another Sign Prophet, but it was not polemical in the sense that it was not anti-Christian). This I reconstruct in the next part.

As Bart Ehrman has said, “The Testimonium is so restrained, with only a couple of fairly reserved sentences here and there, that it does not read like a Christian apocryphal account of Jesus written for the occasion. It reads much more like what you get elsewhere throughout the manuscript tradition of ancient writings: a touch-up job that a scribe could easily do.”[22] Steve Mason states “if the Christians had written the paragraph from scratch, they might have been expected to give Jesus a little more space than John, and to use language that was more emphatically Christian”.[23] If it was a wholesale forgery, a better job would have been done. As Paget noted, “Indeed, in contrast to Christian interpolations of the LXX, it is difficult to see within an ancient context to what obvious use the TF could have been put. Any suggestions that the passage could be used to support a particular doctrinal position are unconvincing.”[24] It is more likely that Eusebius simply “improved” an already existing passage. He “improved” the TF with the help of the Emmaus narrative in Luke and a few other touch ups.

Hooper has shown that Eusebius used some existing Christian creeds in his endeavour to overwrite the TF. As he says, “Some credal elements are clearly present: Jesus was the Messiah; he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (passus sub Pontio Pilato, in the words of the Apostles’ Creed); he came back to life on the third day after his death; the movement founded by him the Christian church continues to flourish; he performed miracles; the biblical prophets foretold many details of his life.”[25]  Hooper comes at this from a linguistics point of view shows the anomalies with this passage and other Pilate passages^[26]. Hooper argues that the TF is the oddball when compared to other Pilate passages, but Hoopers thesis suffers from not recognizing that we do have an earlier form of the TF. Most scholars of the ex nihilo hypothesis only test their arguments off of the textus receptus without ever recognizing the earlier forms of the TF. It is the Textus Receptus that is an oddball, any earlier form of the TF would not be an oddball, this is how easy it is to counteract Hooper’s arguments. In agreement with Hooper the textus receptus has some added Christian creeds.

But the most likely outcome as Goldbergs study in 1995 shows is that the Emmaus narrative in Luke, which resembles the TF, could have been the source of the rewrite.[27] Both the creedal statements and the rewritten TF are so similar to Luke’s verses 24:19-21;25-27, that you can see the Emmaus narrative being used as a framework for some of the overwrite of the TF.

Here is the extract so you can see the similarities with the textus receptus:

The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who was a man, a prophet, mighty in deed and word before God and all the people; and how the chief priests and leaders of us delivered him over to a sentence of death and crucified him. But we had hoped he would be the one to liberate Israel. Yes, and besides all these things, is passing this third day today since these things occurred. […]” Then he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things in all the scriptures about himself. (Luke 24:19-21;24:25-27).

Yet as I have shown earlier Eusebius did not create the entire text ex nihilo. Carrier dismisses the TF by comparing the Emmaus narrative to the textus receptus (passage found in all manuscripts of Antiquities).[28] This argument that the TF was created ex nihilo using the Emmaus narrative is moot for two reasons. Firstly, the Luke narrative was used to rework the TF. Secondly it is only like the textus receptus found in the MSS of Antiquities and we know through textual variants (especially the Syriac and Latin recensions of the TF) that there were earlier versions of the TF. So as there is an earlier version you cannot dismiss it over the Emmaus narrative, (as this narrative would not match an earlier version). Other considerations Carrier brings up are adequately dealt with in my reconstruction, such as the unlikely situation of Josephus calling Jesus ‘Christ’. I agree with Carrier here on that point as Josephus inferred this title for Vespasian. Other considerations such as why Jesus was crucified and what kind of movement it was, are all adequately given in my reconstruction later in this series. (See part 3).

In 1992 Schreckenberg and Schubert noticed that the Testimonian was absent from an ancient Table of contents (argumenta).[29] Etienne Nodet has shown that all that meant is that Josephus did not consider it important and has shown what was not already mentioned generally in his earlier book War 2, did not generally make it into his table of contents.[30] So it is entirely expected that the TF also would not make it in. Peter Kirby mathematically tested this, he noted a relationship between material that is not mentioned in the table and material that is not mentioned in War 2 (as the majority, about 75%, of the material not in the table is also not in War 2 but only 25% of the material not in the table is in War 2).[31]

Testing both the Josephan and Eusebian framework for the TF.

By putting the TF into a Eusebian framework, Olson has successfully argued Eusebian tampering. Yet his arguments are not enough to explain a creatio ex nihilo by Eusebius – there are far too many niggling problems to sink that argument. The most obvious is the variant ‘certain man’ in the Syriac translation of Eusebius- Eusebius would never have called Jesus a ‘certain man’ in his forgery, out of most of the Sign Prophet passages this is exactly the phrase Josephus would have used to describe these people! All the arguments put forward by the creatio ex nihilo guys only test their arguments off of the textus receptus and most of those arguments are sunk by the earlier more ‘primitive’ forms of the TF. We know through indirect quotes and textual variants that there was an earlier form of the TF. The syriac variation of ‘certain man’ in place of ‘Jesus’ proves Eusebius did not write this from scratch.[32]

One question to consider was asked by John Meiers, “What would be the point of a Christian interpolation that would make Josephus the Jew affirm such an imperfect estimation of the God-man? What would a Christian scribe intend to gain by such an assertion?[33] Under Ken Olson’s hypothesis Eusebius could have written anything.

Paget notes that it is odd for a wholesale interpolation to place the Jesus passage before the Baptist passage instead of the in the order found in the Canonicals.[34] This argues in favour of Josephus placing these two messianic figures in this order. This argues for the Josephan framework.

Bermejo-Rubio has observed “It is not really an internally consistent paragraph, but rather a kind of hybrid text, which betrays the presence of at least two distinct hands in its redaction. A wholly genuine text or a complete forgery would have probably resulted in a more homogeneous passage.”[35] Paget has shown that this passage has both Josephean and Eusebian phrases and this shows a passage tampered with rather than a wholesale forgery.[36]

In a study done by Sabrina Inowlocki and her examination of the way Eusebius uses quotations, she has discovered that Eusebius did often manipulate quotations but did not find any case where he made them up wholesale.[37] She provides examples from Plato and Plutarch and shows Eusebius has made theological changes. In one example on Phaedo 114 c she states that “Plato’s manuscripts read that these souls will live without bodies whereas Eusebius’ manuscripts read without sufferings, preserving the dogma of the resurrection of the bodies. (Eusebius, P.E. 11.38.6).”[38]

That was a clear cut example as we have the original manuscripts, there are other examples too where Eusebius changed for theological reasons:

“in Historia ecclesiastica II. 10. 6, the bishop changed Josephus’ narrative of Agrippa’s death in order to adapt it to Luke-Acts (12:19–23): Whereas Josephus claims that a rope announced Agrippa’s death, Eusebius turned it into an angel as told in Acts. It is worth noting that this change occurs in a passage which he claims to cite word for word which is presented in oratio recta, and which is referred to in a precise way.”[39]

This argues for Eusebius as textual manipulator but not as a wholesale forger of quoted passages as Olson’s thesis argues. It was Eusebian practice to manipulate existing passages such as the TF. Inowlocki scholarship backs this up as she has examined every quote in Proof and Preparation.

Origen’s use and acknowledgment of the TF

Whealey said Origen knew of some form of the TF.[40] First of all his assertion that Josephus did not believe Jesus as the Christ:

“Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ” (Contra Cels. 1.47). 

He saw some version of the TF that did not even mention Jesus was the Christ. Ken Olson’s imported argument to counter this says that Origen wanted to find a non Christian to support his argument, therefore he emphasised that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the messiah for this effect. It was common knowledge that Josephus was non Christian so there is no need for Origen to do this. More than likely what happened is that Origen digressed onto the TF.

In order to make his argument Olson uses Cels. 6.41 to equate this with the statement “although not believing in Jesus as the christ” with “Moiragenes … , who is not a Christian, but a philosopher.”[41]

Let us examine this passage in detail

“Origen is trying to argue against the following accusation by Celsus:

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

Origen answers with the following:

that any one who chooses to inquire whether philosophers were ever led captive by it [i. e. Magic] or not, can read what has been written by Moiragenes regarding the memoirs of the magician and philosopher Apollonius of Tyana, in which this individual, who is not a Christian, but a philosopher, asserts that some philosophers of no mean note were won over by the magic power possessed by Apollonius, and resorted to him as a sorcerer; and among these, I think, he especially mentioned Euphrates and a certain Epicurean. (Cels. 6.41)

There is no such argument in Cels. 1.47 to argue against like we have in Cels. 6.41, on why Origen should bring up the phrase “not believing in Jesus as the Christ.” That is the imported interpretation of Olson. Origen has to state that Moiragenes is not a Christian to counteract a specific accusation of Celsus about weak Christians among the group of people that are easily led and thus showing Celsus was wrong. This is not what’s going on in Cels. 1.47. There is no such accusation in Cels. 1.47. And what’s going on in Cels. 6.41 is not what is going on in the Commentary on Matthew either. This is why Feldman noted the following, “More­ over, it makes no sense for Origen to express wonder (Commentary on Matthew 10:17) that Josephus did not admit Jesus to be the messiah if Josephus did not even mention him.”[42]

Of course this is backed up when we realize that the Christian Pseudo-Hegesippus probably using the same source TF made the same complaint. A Christian author like Pseudo-Hegesippus would consider Jesus the Messiah, having the phrase missing from his source (probably the same TF Origen saw), shows it was missing from a copy of the TF still circulating.

Another reason we know Origen was aware of the TF was his remark that the Jews do not connect John with Jesus nor the punishment of John with that of Jesus:

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

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

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

Baras has observed “it is obvious that in the days of Origen (third century A.D.), the text of the Testimonium had not yet been subjected to Christian emendations and corrections.”[43] What passage Origen saw was probably the one written by Josephus.

Origen is very perturbed that Celsus “disbelieves the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove” (Cels. 1.43). This is as an argument Origen starts to highlight as seen in chapter 40 of Contra Celsum and continues arguing against right up to chapter 48. As usual Origen is very thorough in countering Celsus and it is no exception here. In chapter 47 he uses three passages out of Josephus’ Antiquities in defense that the belief is and should be reasonable for a Jew. He cites the Baptist passage saying John was baptizing for the remission of sins. (It should be noteworthy that the Baptist passage was also pre Christian tampering as the received Baptist passage in Antiquities claims that it was *not* for the remission of sins, cf Rufinus’ Latin variant agrees with Origen which is probably the earlier reading, reverses the meaning of the Greek by saying that baptism can serve to wash away sins.) For more on the Baptist passage tampering check out my blog here. As he was using the TF passage he asserts (regretfully) that Josephus did not believe Jesus as the Christ and they put Jesus to death. He then moves onto what he thought was the James passage [some scholars think Origin mixed up the Hegesippus passage on James with the Josephus passage, Josephus in Greek is Ἰώσηπος (Iṓsēpos) sounding similar to Hegesippus), saying James’ death was the cause of the fall of Jerusalem. Then, just like as Josephus reports it, Origen says in the next chapter 48 that “For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Christ.” In the Baptist passage Christianity has nothing to do with the Baptist movement as reported in Josephus, neither does Josephus connect John or Jesus’s execution.

Origen did not quote the TF as it was negative but he did digress onto it. As Nicholas List quoting Harnack states, “Origen, unlike Clemens and Tertullian, does not explicitly (or implicitly) cite a large quantity. Rather, he tries to avoid citation; only when he needs to prove a certain thing does he quote. This is how he cites Josephus and Philo.” [*1] There are other examples of Origen knowing of documents without quoting them. He was aware of the two epistles, 2 John and 3 John without ever quoting them. Origen could not quote a negative TF in light of his fights with Celsus. It is more likely that it was Celsus quoting the TF making it difficult for Origen to combat him.

If we take the phrase “doer of strange paradoxon deeds” Celsus was actually using the word paradoxa in cels 1.6. This makes sense why Origen didn’t quote it, it’s the anti Christians that are making better use of the TF and accusing Jesus of being a wizard.

In fact we can see Celsus using Josephus Antiquities and the TF in a bundle of passages, Against Celsus 3.5 – 3.8, in comparing Jesus to Moses as a rebel. (See Part 4). The TF would have been neutral not polemic, just the same as all the other Sign Prophet passages. (Josephus would have reported about Jesus as a matter of fact picked up from govenors reports). As Whealey says, “Origen’s claim that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ does not match the statement of the Textus Receptus Testimonium ‘ ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν.’ It has also been argued however, that Origen’s certainty that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ must be derived from some sort of Testimonium…. Origen… statement that ‘the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with Jesus’. It is precisely Antiquities 18 that mention both the execution of Jesus and of John without in anyway connecting the two events or figures”. Origen’s statement was made in Against Celsus 1.48.[44]

Next I will deal with Feldman’s arguments as he wrote in 1982, “A point that has not been appreciated thus far is that despite the value that such a passage [the Testimonium Flavianum] would have had in establishing the credentials of Jesus in the church’s missionary activities, it is not cited until Eusebius does so in the fourth century. This is admittedly the argumentum ex silentio, but in this case it is a fairly strong argument against the authenticity of the passage as we have it, especially since we know that Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century (Dialogue with Trypho 8) attempted to answer the charge that Jesus had never lived and was a mere figment of Christian imagination. Nothing could have been a stronger argument to disprove such a charge than a citation from Josephus, a Jew, who was born only a few years after Jesus’ death.”[45] This is a position he reiterated in 2011.[46]Feldman is wrong on both points here:

1. Origen asserted that Josephus did not like to call Jesus the ‘Christ’…. well there is only one way he could have known that.

2. Typho was denying Jesus was the ‘Christ’ by saying a messiah was not born yet, not that Jesus was not born yet. As Origen did not have Jesus “was the Christ” in his copy of Josephus, Martyr could not have used it in this argument. The two points above discredit his reasons for doubting that a form of the TF existed.

Conclusion

The hybrid passage of the TF shows that Eusebius had something to work with. To me it Josephus wrote disinterested in Jesus and just wrote about Jesus as he did other Sign Prophets. This would not have satisfied later Christian commentators resulting in Origen never citing it, it would have been useless as a defense against Celsius (but he did acknowledge by digressing onto it in Contra Cels. 1.47). There is no reason for Origen to assert that Josephus did not call Jesus the Christ unless he saw a passage about Jesus. 

All the points argued for the TF as a total forgery do not hold up to critical analysis. The problem with the arguments for a creatio ex nihilo is that their arguments only work on the textus receptus. As the evidence shows earlier versions of the TF, all their arguments fail. All indications instead show an original piece written about Jesus by Josephus that was tampered with by Eusebius. In the part 3 we will analyze this passage word for word showing what Josephus most likely wrote. As we know a passage on Jesus existed although badly tampered – I tracked at least four redactional layers in the TF.[47] I will reconstruct in the most realistic way, what Josephus would have wrote given how he described other messianic and Sign Prophet figures that he wrote about. 

Part 2 The evidence of the variants of the TF.

Part 3 Analysis of the Testimonium Flavianum

Part 4 The Layers of the Testimonium Flavianum

Part 5 Wanna know what Josephus originally wrote about Jesus?

Part 6 Exposing the Pre-Eusebian Strata of the TF

Part 7 Why we know there was a Testimonium Flavianum.

BACK TO HOMEPAGE

 

---

[1] See John Barclay’s treatment of Grace in Paul and the Gift, (Eerdmans, 2015).

[2] Jennifer Eyl, Signs, Wonders, and Gifts, Divination in the Letters of Paul, (Oxford, 2019).

[3] J.R. Harrison, “The ‘grace’ of Augustus paves a Street at Ephesus,”  NewDocs 10 (2012), p.60.

[4] Harrison, “The ‘grace’ of Augustus,” pp.59-63.

[5] Schweitzer, Quest for the Historical Jesus, p. 401

[6] Goodacre, Mark, Jesus Creed Historical Jesus Series: Third Quest and Summing Up

Jesus Creed Historical Jesus Series: Third Quest and Summing Up

[7] David Allen, “A Model Reconstruction of what Josephus would have realistically written about Jesus”, JGRCHJ 18, 2022, pp.113-143; David Allen, “A Proposal: Three Redactional Layer Model for the Testimonium Flavianum”, RevBib 85 1-2 (2023a), pp.211-232; David Allen, “How Josephus really viewed Jesus”, RevBib 85 3-4 (2023b), pp.333-357; David Allen, “Exposing the Pre- Eusebian Strata”, JHC 20.2 (2025, forthcoming); David Allen. “Want to know what Josephus originally wrote about Jesus”, JHC (2025, forthcoming).

[8] E. P. Sanders, “Jesus Christ,” in David Noel Freedman (ed.), Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 702; Second quote in brackets taken from E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin, 1995), p. 50; cf. R. T. France, The Evidence for Jesus, (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing 2006), p. 30.

[9] The physical Syriac manuscript of Ecclesiastical History that contains the variant ‘certain man’ is from the 6^th century, the manuscript is MS British Library Add. 14,639; cit. op. Thomas Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, New Evidence for the one Called Christ, (Oxford, 2025), p.47, n.57.

[*] Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, p.90.

[10] Zvi Baras, “The Testimonium Flavianum and the Martyrdom of James, ch. 16 in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, Eds Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), p.339-340.

[11] Jason D. BeDuhn, The First New Testament, Marcion’s Scriptural Canon, p.8.

[12] Robert Jewett and Frank W Hughes, The Corinthian Correspondence, (The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, 2021).

[13] Matthias Henze and David Lincicum (eds), Israel’s Scriptures in Early Christian Writings, (2023).

[14] Tom Dykstra, Mark canonizer of Paul, ch.1.

[15] Jens Schröter and Christine Jacobi (eds), The Jesus Handbook, ch.1.

[16] Thomas Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, New Evidence for the one Called Christ, (Oxford, 2025), p.47

[17] Ken Olson, “Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (1999), pp. 305–22.

[18] Ken Olson, “A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum” in Eusebius of Caesarea Tradition and Innovations, Edited by Aaron Johnson Jeremy Schott, (2013), pp.97-114.

[19] Olsen, A Eusebian Reading, p.100.

[20] Norden, Eduard, 1913, ‘Josephus und Tacitus uber Jesus Chnstus und seine messianische Prophetie’, NJKA N F 31, pp 637-66 = Kleine Schnjten zum klassischen Altertum (Berlin, 1966), pp 241-75.

[21]  James Carleton Paget, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity,” Journal of Theological Studies 52.2 (2001),  p.579.

[22] Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, pp.128-129.

[23] Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, p.171.

[24] Paget, “Some Observations”, p.602.

[25] Hopper, Paul J., A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63. Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers Eds. Monika Fludernik and Daniel Jacob. Berlin: de Gruyte, p.166.Compare in Greek the similarities of the Apostles creed and the TF:

σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα, καὶ ταφέντα, καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς…

Cf. the Testimonium:παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου…..ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν…

[26] Hopper, “A Narrative Anomaly”, pp.147-169.

[27] Gary J. Goldberg, Ph.D, 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.

[28] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reasons to Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2014), pp. 332-37.

[29] Schreckenberg, Heinz; Schubert, Kurt, Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christianity., (Van Gorcum. 1992b). p.58

[30] Etienne Nodet, “Josephus and Discrepant Sources,” in Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History, edited by Jack Pastor, Pnina Stern, and Menahem Mor, (Brill 2011), pp. 266-269.

[31] Peter Kirby, The Greek Table of contents to Antiquities 18, A blog in the following link:

http://peterkirby.com/table-of-contents-josephus.html

[32] Syriac manuscript containing the variant = MS British Library Add. 14,639

[33] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew ,Rethinking the Historical Jesus Volume1, p.64.

[34] J. Carleton Paget, Some Observations, p.600-1.

[35] Bermejo-Rubio, Fernand, Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a “Neutral” Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on Antiquitates Judaicae 18.63-64 Journal for the Study of Judaism 45.3, (2014).

[36] Paget, Some Observations, p. 573-576.

[37] Sabrina Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, 64, (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2006). Inowlocki did careful study of all quotations found in Proofand Preparation, concluding that “Olson, e.g., has recently suggested that Eusebius might have been the author of the entire passage. I disagree with this hypothesis, since the creation of a whole passage appears too remote from Eusebius’ common practice.” Quote here from p.207.

[38] Sabrina Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors, p.87

[39] Sabrina Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors, p.194

[40] Alice Whealey, “Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum” in Josephus und das Neue Testament, edited by Christoph Böttrich and Jens Herzer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 83-4.

[41] Ken Olson, “Why Origen said Josephus was unbelieving in Jesus as Christ.” (Blog).

[42] Louis Feldman, Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, Hata and Feldman (eds),(Detroit: Wayne Stste University Press, 1987), p.56.

[43] Zvi Baras, “The Testimonium Flavianum and the Martyrdom of James, p.340.

[*2] Nicholas List, “The Death of James the Just Revisited”, Journal of Early Christian Studies 32.1, (2024), pp.17-44 (23); List was citing the following to make his point- Adolf Harnack, Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegistischen Arbeit des Origens (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010), 50: “Origenes bringt nicht wie Clemens und Tertullian viele ausdrückliche (oder stillschweigende) Zitate; er vermeidet sie vielmehr und macht fast nur dort von ihren Gebrauch, wo er sie zum Beweise nötig hat. Daher zitiert er Josephus und auch Philo” (trans. Mizugaki, “Origen and Josephus,” 331).

[44] Alice Whealey, “Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum”,p.84.

[45] Feldman, 1982: “The Testimonium Flavianum: The State of the Question.” In Christological Perspectives: Essays in Honor of Harvey K. McArthur, p.182

[46] Feldman, “On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum Attributed to Josephus”, in New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations, Elisheva Carlebach and Jacob J. Schacter (ed.s), Brill, 2011, pp. 13-30, p.15

[47] David Allen, A Proposal: Three Redactional Layer Model for the Testimonium Flavianum, RevBib 85.1-2, (2013a),pp.211-232; David Allen, How Josephus really viewed Jesus, RevBib 85.3-4, (2023b), pp.333-357.

 

“And after such statements, showing his ignorance even of the number of the apostles, he proceeds thus: “Jesus having gathered around him ten or eleven persons of notorious character, the very wickedest of tax-gatherers and sailors, fled in company with them from place to place, and obtained his living in a shameful and importunate manner.” Let us to the best of our power see what truth there is in such a statement. It is manifest to us all who possess the Gospel narratives, which Celsus does not appear even to have read…….” (Origen, Contra Celsum 1.62.)

Origen complained about what Celsus said in his book “The True Doctrine” as quoted in Contra Celsum 1.62. From this passage it shows that Celsus could have got his information from somewhere else other than the gospels. (He may have had a disapproving look at Christian literature but he had access to other sources on the Christians that I will examine here).

I suspect many of the anti Christian pagans preserved in the apologetics of church fathers made use of an original negative Testimonium Flavianum (referred to as the TF from now on) before Christians had the power to change the wording of the original books. The TF may have been the source of later anti-Christian traditions. It was known to anti-Christians like Lucian of Samosata and Celsus, in the mid-second century, understood that Jesus had been a “fomenter of rebellion”, and Sossianus Hierocles c.300, that Jesus had been leader of a robber band of 900, as reported by Lactantius. (Lactantius, Divine Institutes 5.3). Christian’s did not control the books until the time of Eusebius, any pagan commentator could easily check any of Josephus works (without interpolations) in public libraries. It was Robert Eisler in his book The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist that suggested the opponents of Justin Martyr and Origen made use of the original TF (therefore making them a pre-Eusebian witness of the TF). [1] Even though F. F. Bruce notes that Tacitus’ information best aligns with Greco-Roman polemical sources on Jews, he also noted that the Balaam prophecy being applied to Vespasian had been taken from Josephus: “It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that both Tacitus and Suetonius depended here, directly or indirectly, on Josephus,” in regards to the oracle applied to Vespasian (Compare Tacitus, Histories 5.13 to Josephus, War 6.312-313 cf. Suetonius, Vespasian 4.5). [2] Tacitus had multiple sources such as Pliny, other Greek and Roman sources and Josephus. (A polemical original TF would have also served Tacitus’ purposes well). Having multiple sources would explain why Tacitus would contradict Josephus in certain points.

It was G A Wells [3] that argued that the sources for Tacitus were not independant and therefore do not corroborate Paul’s epistles. In this series I argue that all the anti Christian polemic worked off of the original TF and that Josephus got his information from imperial or more local army records independent of Christians, for Josephus was on very good terms with Titus and the imperial secretary Epaphroditus. He did the same for the ‘Samaritan’ (Ant. 18.4.1) and Theudas (Ant. 20.5.1) who were not important enough to make into his first book, The Jewish War, but on consulting records included them in his more detailed second book Antiquities of the Jews. Many of these messianic groups including the Jesus movement saw Josephus as a traitor who sided with the Romans, so it is very unlikely they would offer Josephus any information.

To understand the historical context of the TF you have to understand that Jesus was only about as famous as many other messianic figures found in Josephus Works and to some extent he was even less famous than many of them. The gospels exaggerated out of all proportion the happenings around Jesus that nearly went unnoticed by his contemporaries. (I said nearly as I show that Jesus eventually got a mention in Josephus second book, Antiquities of the Jews).

Celsus mentioning the sailors matches what Crossan calls “fishy” stuff in the gospels. He talks about the 1st century boat discovered in Lake Kinneret or the Sea of Galilee as the gospel of Mark calls it. This “Ancient Galilee boat” had 12 types of wood in it showing the inferior repairs that had to be carried out to keep it afloat in hard economic times.[4] Crossan makes the observation that many of Jesus’s disciples were fishermen:

“Mary was from Magdala, whose Greek name, Tarichaeae, means “salted fish”. Peter moved from one fishing village, Bethsaida, to live with his wife and mother in law at another such village, Capernaum. (John 1:44, Mark 1:29-30). [It was Jesus’s hometown in Mark 2:1]. Also Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter (John 1:44). And as Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the sea – for they were fishermen….. as he went a little further he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John who were in their boat mending the nets … (Mark 1:16-19)” [5] Magdalas’ Greek named was Taricheae, which comes from Tarichos (“salted fish”). The fish taken from Lake Kinneret was cleaned and salted at Magdala and exported to Rome.

So you see the gospels have a tradition that this Jesus movement started among the hard pressed economically deprived fishermen of Galilee. In the 20’s CE Herod Antipas’ transformation of the “Sea of Galilee” into the commercial “Sea of Tiberias” had adverse implications on the poor fishermen of the area.

We can see Celsus using Josephus Antiquities and the TF in a bundle of passages Against Celsus 3.5 – 3.8, in comparing Jesus to Moses as a rebel. For example:

“Immediately after these points, Celsus, imagining that the Jews are Egyptians by descent, and had abandoned Egypt, after revolting against the Egyptian state, and despising the customs of that people in matters of worship, says that “they suffered from the adherents of Jesus, who believed in Him as the Christ, the same treatment which they had inflicted upon the Egyptians; and that the cause which led to the new state of things in either instance was rebellion against the state.” (Origen, Contra Celsum 3.5)

“Hebrews, who had been unjustly treated, had departed from Egypt after revolting against the Egyptians” (Origen, Contra Celsum 3.6)

“that the Hebrews, being (originally) Egyptians, dated the commencement (of their political existence) from the time of their rebellion,” so also is this, “that in the days of Jesus others who were Jews rebelled against the Jewish state, and became His followers;

[And Origen does not deny revolt as the beginning of the movement!]

And yet, if a revolt had led to the formation of the Christian commonwealth, so that it derived its existence in this way from that of the Jews,” (Origen, Contra Celsum 3.7)

Josephus had told of the “Egyptian army had once tasted of this prosperous success, by the hand of Moses,” (Ant 2.10.2) and that he “might be the General of their army. (Ant 2.10.1) When the Egyptians had drowned “Moses gathered together the weapons of the Egyptians, which were brought to the camp of the Hebrews, (Ant 2.16.6) and established a Hebrew state, Moses had fought the Amorite King in Ant 4.5.2.

In all Celsus comparisons of Moses with Jesus he also used the TF to augment that Jesus was a rebel:

“that a revolt was the original commencement of the ancient Jewish state, and subsequently of Christianity.” (Origen, Contra Celsum 3.8)

“that in the days of Jesus others who were Jews rebelled against the Jewish state, and became His followers;” (Contra Celsum 3.7)

          As we have discussed in the last part, the lead up to Origen’s mention of the Testimonium Flavianum, a rather long argument developed against Celsus. Origen is very perturbed that Celsus “disbelieves the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove” (Cels. 1.43). This is as an argument Origen starts to highlight in chapter 40 and continues arguing against right up to chapter 48. This has upset Origen so much that he begins to throw everything and the kitchen sink at this. In chapter 47 he cites three passages out of Josephus’ Antiquities in defense that the belief is and should be reasonable for a Jew. He cites the Baptist passage saying John was baptizing for the remission of sins. As he was using the TF passage he asserts that regretfully that Josephus did not believe Jesus as Christ and they put Jesus to death. He then moves onto what he thought was the James passage, saying James’ death was the cause of the fall of Jerusalem. Then, just like as Josephus reports it, Origen says in the next chapter 48 that “For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Christ.” In the Baptist passage Christianity has nothing to do with the Baptist movement as reported in Josephus, neither does Josephus connect John or Jesus’s execution.

          Origen did not quote the TF as it was negative. There are other examples of Origen knowing of documents without quoting them. He was aware of the two epistles 2 John and 3 John without ever quoting them. Origen could not quote a negative TF in light of his fights with Celsus. It is more likely that it was Celsus quoting the TF making it difficult for Origen to combate him.

        Celsus is under the impression that Jesus was the leader of a seditious movement as described by Origen in another later passage here:

“Again Celsus proceeds: “If you should tell them that Jesus is not the Son of God, but that God is the Father of all, and that He alone ought to be truly worshipped, they would not consent to discontinue their worship of him who is their leader in the sedition…..[Origen denies what Celsus has just said by adding the following]… Jesus is, then, not the leader of any seditious movement, but the promoter of peace….”(Contra Celsum 8.14)

As rebellion was the instigating cause of this movement and not great teachings or philosophy, it stands to reason that all these teachings were later attributed:

“Their union is the more wonderful, the more it can be shown to be based on no substantial reason. And yet rebellion is a substantial reason, as well as the advantages which accrue from it, and the fear of external enemies. Such are the causes which give stability to their faith.” (Contra Celsus 3.14)

Neither Tacitus nor Lucian are aware of Jesus’ name, Tacitus calling him “Christos,” [6] whereas Lucian calls him the “crucified sophist.” This suggests that they are not using Christian literature or getting their information from Christians as they would have been able to obtain his name from them. Calling him a sophist suggests Lucian was drawing from a source different from the gospels, such as the original TF that I have just reconstructed.

The opponents of the church father apologetics all seem to be working off an original TF. For example, Justin Martyr answers his opponent, “He was no sophist, but His word was the power of God.” (1 Apol. 14 Cf Lucian, Peregr. Proteus, ch. xiii.). Justin’s interlocutor has got his charge that Jesus was described as a sophist, probably information that was contained in the TF. Judas the Galilean was also described as a sophist by Josephus at War 2 §118 σοφιστὴς ἰδίας αἱρέσεως (sophist of his sect) and War 2 § 433:

“In the meantime one Manahem, the son of Judas that was called the Galilean (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Cyrenius, that after God they were subject to the Romans), (War 2 § 433 cf War 2 §118).

       As Steve Mason says on his commentary on Josephus War book 2:

“Josephus will continue to call both Judas (War 2 § 433) and his son Menachem (War 2 § 445) sophists (σοφισταί). This is significant because he uses the word sparingly, reserving it with Platonic associations (cf. the Gorgias) for teachers who incite the young to rebellious action: War uses it otherwise only of the teachers who instructed their disciples to topple Herod’s golden eagle (1.648, 650, 655, 656; 2.10; cf. Ant. 17.152, 155). The only other application in Josephus is to the anti-Judean writers of Egypt, who are “reprobate sophists, deceiving the young” (Apion 2.236).[7]

Justin Martyr by saying that Trypho would caricature Jesus writing Iēsous tinos (Dial. Trypho 108) a variant of tis, suggests that it was common knowledge that the Christian polemicists referred to Jesus that way. This could have been easily taken from the original TF.

               Here are some more examples that will build a picture of how the anti Christian polemicists viewed the Jesus movements. Firstly a quote of the pagan Caecilius Natalis written by one of the earliest of the Latin apologists for Christianity, namely Minicius Felix: 

“that a man fastened to a cross on account of his crimes is worshipped by Christians, for they believe not only that he was innocent, but with reason that he was God. But, on the other hand, the heathens invoke the Divine Powers of Kings raised into Gods by themselves; they pray to images, and beseech their Genii.”(Minucius Felix, Octavius ch29).

And:

 “he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve.” (Minucius Felix,Octavius, ch9)

       From those two quotes we can see the Romans viewed Jesus Christ as a criminal with his cross.

Lactantius a Christian writer and an advisor to the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine I, complains about his interlocutor Sossianus Hierocles:

“But he affirmed that Christ, driven out by the Jews, gathered a band of nine hundred men and committed acts of brigandage’: ‘Christum … a Iudaeis fugatum collecta nongentorum hominum manu latrocinia fecisse.’ (Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book v. Ch. 3.)

 He also stated in the same chapter:

 “If Christ is a magician because He performed wonderful deeds, it is plain that Apollonius, who, according to your description, when Domitian wished to punish him, suddenly disappeared on his trial, was more skilful than He who was both arrested and crucified.” And of course Lactantius hits back at these pagan critics, “…than from that very cross which you as dogs lick”. (ibid, Div. Inst. v.3).

       In the next passage quoted in full below Celsus makes the following claims, that Christ and members of his church have been put to death in a way appropriate to robbers and Celsus also asks what makes the two “robbers” crucified with Jesus any different from Jesus. Bear in mind the term ‘robbers’ (lestai, λῃσταί:sing; λῃστής, lestes: plural) was a term used by Josephus to mean brigands.

“Celsus in the next place says, with indescribable silliness: “If, after inventing defences which are absurd, and by which you were ridiculously deluded, you imagine that you really make a good defense, what prevents you from regarding those other individuals who have been condemned, and have died a miserable death, as greater and more divine messengers of heaven (than Jesus)?” [Origen interjects here]: Now, that manifestly and clearly there is no similarity between Jesus, who suffered what is described, and those who have died a wretched death on account of their sorcery, or whatever else be the charge against them, is patent to every one. For no one can point to any acts of a sorcerer which turned away souls from the practice of the many sins which prevail among men, and from the flood of wickedness (in the world). But since this Jew of Celsus compares Him to robbers, and says that “any similarly shameless fellow might be able to say regarding even a robber and murderer whom punishment had overtaken, that such a one was not a robber, but a god, because he predicted to his fellow robbers that he would suffer such punishment as he actually did suffer,” it might, [Origen tries to answer the charge by Celsus] in the first place, be answered, that it is not because He predicted that He would suffer such things that we entertain those opinions regarding Jesus which lead us to have confidence in Him, as one who has come down to us from God. And, in the second place, we assert that this very comparison has been somehow foretold in the Gospels; since God was numbered with the transgressors by wicked men, who desired rather a “murderer” (one who for sedition and murder had been cast into prison) to be released unto them, and Jesus to be crucified, and who crucified Him between two robbers. Jesus, indeed, is ever crucified with robbers among His genuine disciples and witnesses to the truth, and suffers the same condemnation which they do among men. And we say, that if those persons have any resemblance to robbers, who on account of their piety towards God suffer all kinds of injury and death, that they may keep it pure and unstained, according to the teaching of Jesus, then it is clear also that Jesus, the author of such teaching, is with good reason compared by Celsus to the captain of a band of robbers. But neither was He who died for the common good of mankind, nor they who suffered because of their religion, and alone of all men were persecuted because of what appeared to them the right way of honouring God, put to death in accordance with justice, nor was Jesus persecuted without the charge of impiety being incurred by His persecutors.” (Origen, Contra Celsum 2.44).

Hoffman has the following opening in his translation of Porphyry’s Against the Christians, taken from extracts in Macarius Magnes’ Apocriticus:

“The words of Christ, “I came not to bring peace but a sword. I came to separate a son from his father,” [Matt. 10.34] belie the true intentions of the Christians. They seek riches and glory. Far from being friends of the empire, they are renegades waiting for their chance to seize control. “ (Apocrit. II.7-II.12) [8]

The Christian apologist obviously reinterprets Porphyry’s charge, “This objection is clear from the thrust of Macarius’ insistence that Christ is speaking of spiritual warfare against the power of sin.” [9] Porphyry of course is insinuating that the current followers were the same as the original Jesus followers of the sword.

Let us examine Mark and Matthew who also used the term “robbers,” lestai, the same term that is used in Josephus for brigands. (Josephus says: “A new species of robbers (lestes) emerged in Jerusalem: the hitmen” (War 2.254).

“Then were there two robbers — (dyo lēstas ) crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. (Matthew 27:38).

“And with him they crucify two robbers (dyo lēstas); the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.” (Mark 15:27)

“And there were also two other malefactors (kakourgoi dyo), led with him to be put to death.” (Luke 23:32).

“And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place  of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha: Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus and the midst.” (John 19:17-18).

After the Roman Jewish war, all literature became the literature of fear. Note that it would have been absolutely critical for the movement to erase any recollection of disciples dying with Jesus. If they had, it would indicate that the movement at large had been condemned by the Romans. An example of this is seen in the pamphlet of Sossianus Hierocles in 303 called The Lover of Truth, which was interested in humiliating Jesus and exalting Apollonius of Tyana so as to justify his own persecution of Christians.

The Jesus movement being rebellious would reveal the entire “conviction for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin” as a fraudulent fabrication. As Bart Ehrman said when Jesus said to the High Priest that he will see the son of man coming on clouds, Caiaphas shouted – blasphemy, but it wasn’t blasphemy at all. (Mark 14:62-64). Neither was claiming to be the messiah blasphemous, that is only delivering the people into God’s kingdom. Many before and after Jesus claimed this title and never got accused of blasphemy (many got accused of sedition). [10] Rabbi Shmuley Boteach made an entertaining observation that if Jesus or anybody else claimed he was god, “in a Jewish court, he or she would be told to go home and get a good night’s rest. Alternatively, such a person might be sent to an asylum. But a punishment of death would never have been issued because absolutely no one would take the claim seriously. In Judaism, blasphemy involves cursing God, not claiming to be God.” [11]

As the religion developed, it would also undermine the salvation concept of Jesus’ death as a unique sacrifice. As Paul Winters says, “No grounds must be given for the inference that Jesus was in any way connected with subversive activities such as those which had resulted in the recent rising. The Evangelists therefore contrived to conceal that Jesus had been condemned and executed on a charge of sedition.” [12] So we see a vigorous attempt by the Synoptic writers to disparage the two who died with Jesus, or in Luke’s case to disparage one and show the other as a random soul saved at the last minute.

The Synoptics wanted to brand those crucified with Jesus as “robbers”, whereas John would be more historical and see the others crucified as their own and would refer to them as others. John’s gospel also shows the real reason why Jesus ended up on the cross. “John’s gospel, in other words, depicts no full priestly council the night of Jesus’ arrest and, even more strikingly, no charge of blasphemy. For John, what motivates the Sanhedrin’s decision about Jesus—taken even before Jesus comes up to the city for the last time—is politics, not piety. The Sanhedrin fears Rome.”[13]

It is quite likely the two who died with Jesus were followers. John says flat out that they were subject to arrest. The Synoptics show it was only Jesus, not the disciples, who was arrested — the conviction for blasphemy, the dramatic kiss of Judas which isolates Jesus only as the one to be arrested and led away, the invention of the moral corruption of the two who died with him. The remarkable thing is that the idea that the disciples were subject to arrest, and the inference that two may have been crucified with Jesus, survives in the gospel of John.

Bermejo-Rubio did not see Jesus as being crucified alone and more realistically sees those crucified with Jesus as part of his group. [14]

Theophylact on his commentary on Matthew knew Jesus was executed as a rebel, uses the gospel cover up (of the narrative about Joseph of Arimathia) on why Jesus was not thrown in a pit like most criminals were:

as Christ had been put to death for being a rebel, one expects that they were about to throw his body aside, unburied; but it seems likely that Joseph, being rich, gave gold to Pilate.

Theophylact, Comm. Matt. PG 123:476A [15]

The Secret book of James has probably picked up the most realistic plausible tradition of Jesus’ burial of Jesus “buried in the sand”. After crucifixion a shameful burial was most likely. As Justin in Dialogue 97.1 says, “For the Lord too remained on the tree almost until evening [hespera], and towards evening they buried him” – in a chapter where the context suggests that “they” may be the Jewish opponents (the high priest or the Roman authorities) of Jesus rather than his disciples. Paul in his letters would not mention such a shameful act, so he would by saying ‘buried’ let his reader think buried according to Jewish practice.

Toledot Yeshu

The Sefer Toledot Yeshu (Generations of Jesus), a Jewish anti gospel is also under the impression that the Jesus movement comprised of insurgents:

34 Now as he was fast in their hands, he answered and said to his fellows before the queen, Concerning me it was said, Who will rise up for me against the evil-doers ? And of them he said. The proud waters. Yea, of them he said, They have made their faces harder than a rock. 35 When the queen heard this she threatened the insurgents, and said to the wise men of Israel, See, he is in your hands.

Toledot ch iii, 34-35

The Queen (dealing with the insurgent followers of Jesus) is a literary invention of the Toledot, but depending on what various manuscripts you use, she is either based on Queen Helena of Adiebene (who chronologically matches the historical framework of the Toledot) or Helena Augusta, Constantine I’s mother.

“The “textual milieu” where Toledot Yeshu best fits in is neither Rabbinic literature nor the canonical gospels, but rather some texts of the early Christian literature known as apocryphal, both the gospels and in particular some of the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, which carry on the prose tradition of the Hellenistic novel, which has also been found to reverberate, although in less consistent modes in late antique Jewish, rabbinic, literature.” [10]

Galit Hasan-Rokem, Toledot Yeshu (“The life story of Jesus”) Revisted, p.250 [16]

While the Toledot is a late composition first mentioned in the ninth century by two different bishops, Agobard and Amulo, it drew from early apocryphal gospels. Robert M Price has said, “the Toledoth Jeschu [is] (dependent on a second-century Jewish-Christian gospel)”. [17] Hugh Schonfield speculates this could be the lost Gospel according to the Hebrews, of which we have only fragmented quotes. Schonfield has a tantalizing prospect with the following reasoning:

“This is all the more likely when it is remembered that it was the Jewish custom to name their books from the opening words. Thus Exodus is in Hebrew Shemoth from the opening words of this book ‘ we-ekh shemoth.’ The title Toldoth Jeshu (Generations of Jesus) must then have been taken from a book beginning with these words, The only known Gospel which does so is of course Matthew which opens with “The book of the Generations of Jesus,’ Now it was commonly held that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the lost Hebrew Gospel of Matthew ; and it is possible that if this work should ever be recovered entire, it will show itself to be the basis of many of the Toldoth stories.”

High Schonfield, According to the Hebrews, p.24. [18]

To conclude this blog I will reproduce a conclusion from one of my papers:

A prophet would be regarded as a rebel by outsiders and this as is seen in later anti Christian polemic (Minucius Felix, Oct. 29; Lactantius, Inst. 5.3). Celsus also seems to be under the impression ‘that in the days of Jesus others who were Jews rebelled against the Jewish state and became His followers’ (Cels. 3.7). The line between rebel and sign prophet is so thin that Josephus had to make a distinction, in that what they did was “not so impure in their actions (War 2.258). This comparative study sees Jesus as just one of a series of Sign Prophets that were reported in Josephus works. [19]

—————————————————————-

[1] Eisler, Robert, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist: According to Flavius Josephus’ recently rediscovered ‘Capture of Jerusalem’ and the other Jewish and Christian sources (Lincoln Macveagh,The Dial Press, New York; English ed. by Alexander Haggerty Krappe, PhD, January 1, 1931); examples given on page 51.

[2] BRUCE, Tacitus on Jewish History, quoted at page 42.

[3] Wells, G. A., The Jesus of the Early Christians (London: Pemberton, 1971); ibid, Did Jesus Exist? (London: Pemberton, 1975; 2d ed., 1986); ibid, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1982); ibid, Who Was Jesus? (Chicago: Open Court, 1989); ibid, The Jesus Legend (Chicago: Open Court, 1996). As cited by Van Voorst, Robert E., Jesus Outside the New Testament, An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000), p.13.

[4] Crossan, John Dominic, The Greatest Prayer, Rediscovering the Revolutionary Message of the Lord’s Prayer, (Harper, 2010), ch 6.

[5] ibid, p.122.

[6] Prchlík, Ivan, Tacitus’ knowledge of the origins of Christianity, Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Philologica 2/ Graecolatina Pragensia, (2017), pp.96 f.

Under UV light it showed that Tacitus had originally written ‘Chrestiani’. Ivan Prchlík says “Tacitus’ orthography of the names Chrestiani and Christus, as occurring in the passage … emphasized that the form Chrestiani had been the popular one.” Prchlík suggests Tacitus knew the originator of the movement had been Christos. He did not use the name Jesus. “In contemporary Greek, however, <ι> and  <η> were already pronounced in the same manner, and so the pagans, or at least a majority of them, coming across the title Χριστός certainly considered it a personal name“ just like the name Χρηστός is.

[7] Mason, Steve, Flavius Josrphus: Judean War 2, translation and commentary, Volume 1b, (Brill, 2008), p. 83.

[8] Porphyry’s Against the Christians: The Literary Remains. Edited and translated with an introduction and epilogue by R. Joseph Hoffmann, (Prometheus, 1994), p.29

[9] ibid, fn.2.

[10] Ehrman, Bart, Jesus, Apocalyptic prophet for the new millennium, (Oxford University Press 1999), p.220.

[11] Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Kosher Jesus, (Gefen, 2012), p.102.

[12] Winter, Paul, On the Trial of Jesus, (Walter De Gruyter 1974), p.34.

[13] Fredriksen, Paula, When Christians Were Jews, The first generation, (Yale University Press, 2018), p.56-7.

[14] Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, (Why) Was Jesus the Galilean Crucified Alone? Solving a False Conundrum, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36 (2) pp. 127–54.

[15] Allison, Resurrection, p.105, footnote 69.

[16] Hasan-Rokem, Galit, “Polymorphic Helena – Toledot Yeshu as a Palimpsest of Religious Narratives and Identities”, in Peter Schäfer, Michael Meerson, Yaacov Deutsch, Ed.s, Toledot Yeshu (“The life story of Jesus”) Revisted, (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingin, 2011), p.250.

[17] Price, R. M., Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, (Prometheus, 2003) p. 40

[18] Schonfield, According to the Hebrews, (London: Duckworth, 1937), p.24.

[19] David Allen, How Josephus really viewed Jesus, (2023), RevBíb 85.3-4, p.354

BACK TO HOMEPAGE

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

The rebel Jesus is no longer my position, after more research my current position is that Jesus was a Sign Prophet. I will leave this blog here as an interesting probing into the historical Jesus. The rebel Jesus fits some of the evidence but not all the evidence like the Sign Prophet category does.

To quote Paula Fredriksen on how the gospels in their cognitive dissonance of why Jesus was crucified, the gospels simply tried to cover up the facts yet left in their narratives, clues as to the real reasons:

“The legal or practical grounds for Jesus’ arrest (e.g., disturbing the peace, sedition, etc.) are nowhere stated, which enhances the evangelical theme that Jesus died for religious reasons. Certain hints, however, point another way. At the moment of his arrest, Mark’s Jesus exclaims, “Have you come out as against a robber (lestes, a political outlaw), with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the Temple teaching, and you did not seize me” (14:48-49). Perhaps Jesus was arrested as a lestes: he was certainly executed as one, crucified between two others (duo lestai, 15:27); and he was charged with making a seditious claim, that is, that he was “The King of the Jews” (15:26)” [1]

“The gospels have undergone a process of distortion by which the political dimension has been eliminated. It is not just about depoliticizing key phrases such as “kingdom of God,” “Messiah,” “gospel,” “salvation,” and “son of David”; the actual political atmosphere of Jesus’ time has been altered beyond recognition. Instead of from a situation of seething political unrest, we have the image of a settled Roman province.” [2]

Ehrman tries to get around the swords in the garden incident portraying Jesus as “violent insurrectionist against Rome.” (Mark 14:47; John 18:10; Luke 22:51). He admits later Christians would not make up the idea of promoting violence as they needed to make “Jesus more palatable in Roman eyes” and “was a peace-loving promoter of nonviolence.” This was for the later Christian’s own protection to try and avoid persecution. So the objections Ehrmans makes that there are too many instances of pacifist statements, is self refuted as the gospels themselves need to add this pacifist layer. He also stated Jesus alone getting executed as an objection but as Bermejo-Rubio rightly stated, this is a false conundrum as those executed with Jesus were more likely followers. [3]

It was S. F. G. Brandon, who stated the most damning piece of evidence for the rebel paradigm, that Jesus got “crucified by the Romans as a rebel against the government in Judea.” He showed the gospels tried to cover up this fact and this fact was also mentioned by Tacitus. [4] I showed in the last part that the Romans only crucified for sedition, the same as a farmer would string up a crow as a deterrent. Dr R M Price has always said that Brandon had done a fine job of higher criticism showing that Jesus had been sanitized in the gospels. He comments that even though he was whitewashed and changed beyond recognition there were some fossils, stories about the historical Jesus that just made it into the gospels simply because they were too good to leave out. These incidents escaped the censorship editors such as the disciples armed with weapons starting to defend him against the arresting mob in Gethsemane. Jesus asked at the last supper have you got any swords. The kingdom of god advances with violence, Jesus saying “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34) and many other such incidents discussed below.

Luke has the Jesus movement supported by wealthy elite women. (Luke 8:1-3) Mary Magdalene was known by the province in which she lived in. This was usually the title of a male nobility or some other noble line of people, women were known by their family name, not their province. This suggests wealth. Among the women was Joanna, whose husband Chusa was Herod’s administrator, this is intriguing, a Herodian insider supporting an illegal organization that supported Jesus as a messiah, that is a rival king to Herod. Herod Antipas was known as the hard man that was well able to deal with organizations headed by messiah figures. This adds to the intrigue. If there’s any historical kernel to the eating on the sabbath controversy in Mark the Jesus movement appear to be wandering vagrants gleaning the crops as allowed in the Tanack in the time of King David. That could also imply they were wandering brigands. Here in the Synoptics Jesus appeals to David wrongfully eating grain on the sabbath (1 Sam. 21:1-6). Jesus argues legally that human sustenance takes precedent over the Sabbath.

Even in the transmission of the gospels Jesus was still being sanitized as Bart Ehrman shows when discussing Mark 1:41 which has two different readings, Jesus feeling compassion, splangnistheis and Jesus becoming angry, orgistheis. (codex Bezae). Usually the harder reading is the preferable but Matthew and Luke clinch the deal as they both drop the word angry when copying this verse. Elsewhere they also drop Jesus being angry from other verses of Mark (example copying Mark 3:5, 10:14, Luke or Matthew have no anger), and Mark has no problem with showing Jesus as angry in his gospel.[5] This all shows the image of Jesus was still being whitewashed after the gospels were written, still being changed in transmission.

        In one interesting review, Dr Price shows one of these sanitising incidents in practice:

“In Matthew 17:24­-27, we find the famous legend of the coin in the fish’s mouth. Simon Peter has just assured the collectors of the Jewish Temple Tax that Jesus intends to pay the tax. Jesus then asks him: “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes- -from their own sons or from others?” “From others,” comes Peter’s answer. “Then the sons are exempt,” replies Jesus. The whole point is that Jesus, being God’s son, has no intention of paying. So far so good. But the story continues: “But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.” The saying is thus defused, and the point is completely reversed. Someone, afraid of the original radical threat of the passage, has tacked on a pious legend which makes the text “safe.” May we not wonder if exactly the same thing has not transpired with respect to Jesus’ teaching on another tax, that paid to Caesar? [6]

        Reza Aslan has a good follow up on Caesar’s tax:

“Give back (apodidomi) to Caesar the property that belongs to Caesar …” The verb apodidomi, often translated as “render unto,” is actually a compound word: apo is a preposition that in this case means “back again”; didomi is a verb meaning “to give.” (Ἀπόδοτε Mark 12:17 and pars). Apodidomi is used specifically when paying someone back property to which he is entitled; the word implies that the person receiving payment is the rightful owner of the thing being paid. In other words, according to Jesus, Caesar is entitled to be “given back” the denarius coin, “not because he deserves tribute, but because it is his coin: his name and picture are stamped on it. God has nothing to do with it. By extension, God is entitled to be “given back” the land the Romans have seized for themselves because it is God’s land: “The Land is mine,” says the Lord (Leviticus 25:23). Caesar has nothing to do with it.

So then, give back to Caesar what is his, and give back to God what belongs to God. That is the zealot argument in its simplest, most concise form. And it seems to be enough for the authorities in Jerusalem to immediately label Jesus as lestes. A bandit. A zealot” [7]

The denarius Jesus demanded to see was roughly equal to a day’s pay. Roman taxation was onerous and burdensome. There is another point about this incident made by Crossan and Borgs book, The last week:

“In the Jewish homeland in the first century, there were two types of coins. One type, because of the Jewish prohibition of graven images, had no human or animal images. [Thus the need for the money changers at the Temple]. The second type (including Roman coinage) had images. Many Jews would not carry or use coins of the second type. But Jesus’s interrogators in the story did. The coin they produced had Caesar’s image along with the standard and idolatrous inscription heralding Caesar as divine and Son of God. They are exposed as part of the politics of collaboration.”[8]

Jesus calling the Syro-Phoenician woman and her child “dogs” in a healing episode in Mark 7:24-30, is more than likely historical. This is one of the sayings that escaped the sanitizing editors. A reluctant Jesus tells the woman, “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” This of course is contrary to the image the gospel has of Jesus and more reflects the xenophobic messianism of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They looked forward to the destruction of all those they hated at the end of days. The Jesus of this episode is a glimmer of the historical Jesus. As Chilton comments, “An encounter northwest of Galilee, with a Gentile woman, highlights the ingrained prejudice and xenophobia that he shared with most rural Jews (Mark 7:27-30; Matt. 15:21-28) [*]

Greame Lang had noticed that “Jesus himself is recorded as expressing some rather strong opinions about the wealthy. After meeting the rich young man who sadly declines to sell all he has and give the money to the poor, Jesus tells his disciples that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god” (Mark 10:23-25). Many attacks in the Jewish war were carried out by the poor against the upper classes. Ananias’ palace and Herodian palaces were burnt down; all of the debt records were destroyed (War 2.17.6). The Dead Sea Scrolls offer a window into the minds of these Jews and in the scroll 4Q171 describes “the time of testing” doing a pesher on psalm 37. It uses the typology of testing on Exodus and Wilderness. All this together with the reversal of fortunes expected at a realized eschatology meant….. “some of [Jesus’] rhetoric certainly would have been received without much argument by some of the revolutionaries described by Josephus.” [9]

W. Domeris sees in the third beatitude in Matthew 5:5, a call by Jesus to restore the land to the oppressed peasants. He says Jesus quotes Psalm 37:11, a psalm that gives hope to the peasants against the evil landowners. He goes on to say that Jesus in Matthew 11:29 aligns himself with the poor and oppressed of the Beatitudes, through the anticipation of his own humiliation and oppression. As usual with many episodes in the gospels this takes on eschatological proportions when the fortunes of these peasants are promised to be inverted in the kingdom of God. They were destined to replace the existing political hierarchy. [10]

Horsley comments on the dire conditions of the Jewish peasants due to conquest, bad administration, civil wars and famine and asks “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.” [11]

Much of religion and politics were inseparable. The Lord’s Prayer is concerned with the strife of the peasants hoping they get enough to eat and to cancel their debts. (“Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses”). John Dominic Crossan tells us that the “Our Father” contains retributive justice like that contained all over the Prophets and Psalms, in his book “The greatest Prayer”. It tells of the kingdom of god that is to come,(“thy Kingdom come… on earth as it is in heaven”), a kingdom that was to be established right here on earth. (Daniel 2:44). “The Lord’s Prayer is … both a revolutionary manifesto and a hymn of hope.” [12]

When Jesus says “Come, follow me …..and I will make you fishers of men. ‘ At once they left their nets and followed him.” (Matthew 4:18-20). This all sounds very like a military oath of allegiance. As Harnack said, “the word of Jesus that one should leave all for his sake and the confession of faith in him at baptism could be conceived to be similar to a military oath of allegiance. To the extent that the sayings of Jesus were later torn from their historical context” [13] Gospel of Thomas has a priceless saying: Jesus said, “People probably think that it is peace that I have come to impose upon the world. And they do not recognize that it is divisions that I have come to impose upon the earth – fire, sword, battle. ( GosThom 16; Cf Matt. 10:34, Luke 22:36). This does not sound like a sage such as Hillel, it gives the impression that the gospels recast Jesus as a sage instead of a rebel.

The kiss of Judas is only the dramatic story telling of the gospels. The only dealings the Roman administration would have with a movement like the Jesus movement is through the payment of informers, whether Judas is a literary invention or not – that is what he represents. Paul’s epistles only say on the night Jesus was handed over without naming Judas. (1 Cor. 11:23-25). Tom Dykstra sees Judas used by Mark (Mark being a Paulinist downplays Jesus’ family and the twelve) to emphasize the 12 before Paul were inferior. “The most straightforward interpretation is that the evangelist wanted to place extra heavy emphasis on the fact that Judas was one of the twelve; or, in other words, he wanted to leave no possibility that his hearers would miss the point that one of the twelve betrayed Jesus. The reader must naturally infer that mere membership in the ranks of “the twelve” – or, in the context of a Pauline epistle, mere status as one of “the apostles before me” -should not automatically confer authority on anyone.”[14]

Many scholars today think that Iscariot means man of Kerioth as the “Is” in Hebrew means “ish” in English, implying Judas was Keriothish, (transliteration of Is-Qeriyot). Another explanation other than coming from Kerioth at the time of Jesus is a Greek rendering of the Sicarii, (an assassin group who had small daggers under their clothing on the pretense of a sacrifice), this implying the name meaning “man of the daggers.” Judah Sicarii became Jude Iscariot, then Judas Iscariot – sicarii after their knife (sicae-Latin/ sikkah-Aramaic). [15] As discussed later, many more disciples had descriptive names associated with the zealots.

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. At the eschaton a messiah will rule a transformed earth, one of non violence and peace, such as the Pax Romana as a result of conquering Empire. (Cf Isaiah 25:6-8 where the Lord will “wipe away the tears from all faces.”) So really, it was applying the messiah mythology to Jesus that added the peaceful layer that a successful messiah would have ushered in. Remember the gospels reflect the desired aspiration of these poor landless outcast people.

John Dominic Crossan in his book God and Empire cannot forgive John of Patmos for describing a warlike Christ in his Great Apocalypse, but Revelation could be describing the earliest realistic layer of Christianity. Crossan commented on Revelation in contrast to the gospels: “The First Coming has Jesus on a donkey making a nonviolent demonstration.The Second Coming has Jesus on a war horse leading a violent attack.” [16] But the gospels are not only trying to do a bios of Jesus but describe the “kingdom of god” he was ushering in. This meant the sick got healed, the hungry fed and a peaceful background that was all inaugurated by Jesus. In Jewish literature the eschaton involved a transformation of the earth where violence would be transformed into an era of peace. Crossan in the same book uses “the Jewish Sibylline Oracles that date from around 150 years before the time of Jesus”, to demonstrate this point. Firstly he shows the new age will have an abundance:

For the all-bearing earth will give the most excellent unlimited fruit to mortals, of grain, wine, and oil and a delightful drink of sweet honey from heaven, trees, fruit of the top branches, and rich flocks and herds and lambs of sheep and kids of goats. (Sibylline Oracles 3.744–48)

And next it shows there will “no longer be any violence in all the world:

Wolves and lambs will eat grass together in the mountains. Leopards will feed together with kids. Roving bears will spend the night with calves. The flesh-eating lion will eat husks at the manger like an ox, and mere infant children will lead them with ropes. For he will make the beasts on earth harmless. Serpents and asps will sleep with babies and will not harm them, for the hand of God will be upon them. (Sibylline Oracles 3.788–95 cf Isaiah 11:6–9) [17]

This is the reason for the peaceful background to the gospels as opposed to the real background as seen in Josephus’ Works. It is the gospels that add the peaceful layer.

The gospels are aware of the rebellion that Jesus was a part of, they presumed the readers already knew of the rebellion, but downplay it in the shame of crucifixion. Here is the original Greek of Mark 15:7:  ἦν δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς μετὰ τῶν συστασιαστῶν δεδεμένος, οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν. 

This translates to: “There was (in prison) the one named Barabbas, tied together with the co-insurrectionists, that at the rebellion, they committed murder.”

       This verse says ‘the’ rebellion. “στάσει” means rebellion, mutiny, insurgency or insurrection. It also says “the one” named Barabbas. The Greek text has insurrectionists [plural] that committed murder, not just Barabbas alone. In historical context as seen in Josephus, the number of rebels the gospels allude to would have been substantial. 

Some manuscripts of Matthew 27:16 have ‘Jesus Barabbas’ prompting some people to see Barabbas (literally means in Aramaic ‘son of the father’) as an alter ego for Jesus. Another Markan literary construct. [18] Tischendorf thought that this was a Greek corruption, but that was before the discovery of the Sinatic palimpsest of the of the Old Syriac Version where the name Jesus is before Barrabban. (This is ‘son of a teacher’). [19] Later scribes found it detestable that Barabbas bore the same name as the son of god and would have discarded it. As Matthew copied his trial narrative from Mark he must have found ‘Jesus Barabbas’ in his copy of Mark. [20] Therefore the earliest copies of Mark originally had Jesus Barabbas. As the Paschal Pardon is not historical, this incident too is an obvious literary construct. Robert Merritt discusses similar Greaco festivals such as Dionysus Eleuthereus that may have been used to recreate this literary construct. [21]

       In the gospel of Luke Jesus advises his disciples to buy swords: 

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfilment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.(Luke 22:36-38, NIV). 

At the arrest those around him, seeing what was going to happen, said:

“Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” (Luke 22:49). 

The word used here is μαχαίρῃ machairē. The machairē was a single edged sword, larger than a Xiphos and could refer to a gladius. “Let us remember that Luke mentioned both swords. Here the singular word sword clearly appears as distributive, [having the same meaning as], ‘Do we take our swords?’. The author of Luke wishes to say that Jesus’ companions were willing to offer armed resistance.” [22] Even if machairē refers to the sacrificial knives as suggested by many scholars such as Paula Fredriksen and Dale Martin, this does not discount them being used in any resistance operations. These sacrificial knives would be carried by many at the Passover. It was these types of weapon, easily concealed, that the Sicarii used when they assassinated the high priest Jonathan.

There are many hints in the gospels that some of Jesus’ followers were zealot resistance types. As Carmichael said, “The echo of the Zealots, for instance is arresting. One Simon the “Kananean” (in the list of the twelve appointed by Jesus) is mentioned (Mark 3;18). The two sons of Zavdai (John and Jacob) are called “sons of rage,” echoing the violence associated with the Kingdom of God activist. Also, Simon the Rock is called “Baryon,” as though it meant “Bar Yonah,” or son of Yonah, but “Baryon” meant “rebel, outlaw,” a political or social outcast living “on the outside,” away from the settled areas controlled by the state.” [23]

I’ll unpack all those points raised above.

SIMON KANANEAN:

Mark 3:18 (Cf Matthew 10:4) has Simon Kananean as one of the disciples. The Hebrew word ‘cana’ means zealot and thus modern translations now translate it as Simon the Zealot. 

Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13 had him as Simon the zealot all along. Simon was Jesus’ brother (Mark 6:3), but more scholars see in Luke 6:15 “James, the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called the Zealot,” as a statement indicating Simon and James were likely brothers. Tabor sees Luke downplaying Jesus’ family as involved in leadership roles and so suggests that these disciples were brothers:

“he mentions by name James, and Simon, and even notes that Judas is the brother of James. As we shall see, the book of Acts was written around a basic undeniable fact—James had assumed leadership of the movement, and Simon his brother took over after ­James’s death in 62 CE.” [24]

SONS OF ZEBEDEE:

James and John, the sons of Zebedee were known as ‘Boanerges’, Boanerges is a transliteration of Aramaic בני רגשא benai regesh (‘sons of noise’) which means “sons of anger”, not “sons of thunder” as Mark misrepresents it.This name was a reflection of their violence seen in Luke 9:53-56.

“James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us what- ever we ask of you.” And he said to them, “What is it you want me to do for you?” And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.”But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink,”(Mark 10:35-38).

Just as Mark severely treats the twelve as disciples that just don’t get it, he also reprimands the Heirs of Jesus. He has James and John skip over Jesus’ death for their own glory. “We have already mentioned how central the theme of failed discipleship is to Mark’s gospel and to Thursday in particular. Judas betrays Jesus, Peter denies him, and the rest flee.” [25] All this is actually a polemic of the Jerusalem church. It was Weeden that wrote, “Mark is assiduously involved in a vendetta against the disciples. He is intent on totally discrediting them. He paints them as obtuse, obdurate, recalcitrant men who are at first unperceptive of Jesus’ messiahship, then opposes its style and character, and finally rejects it. As the coup de grace, Mark closes his Gospel without rehabilitating the disciples.” [26]

Kelber has provided the reason for Mark’s actions, namely he wants to show that the disciples provide instances of a defective Jesus tradition. This is a polemic against those that derive their authority directly from the family of Jesus. [27]

SIMON THE ROCK:

Markus Bockmuehl asks in his paper was Simon Peter a ‘Son of Yonah’ or a ‘Terrorist’? [28]

The Greek for Simons name is clumsy in Matthew 16:17

ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ Μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλ’ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς·

-“Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ”(Simon Bariona):

Shimon (Simon) is Hebrew, bar is Aramaic for son, and Jonas or Jona is a Greek form of the Hebrew name Yonah. However in the Greek text, the name reads as bariona (Βαριωνᾶ). We know this word had a connotation for outlaws from the Talmud, b. Gittin 56a, Bariona – this word has no resonance in Greek, it has a precise meaning in Aramaic – fugitive or outlaw. In the Talmud bariona and it’s plural – biryonim – are used to describe the zealots who fought against Rome. Even if we take the clumsy Greek rendering, there is a known comparable reference to zealot types that has a parallel in one of the Dead sea scrolls (4Q541) where a messianic figure is called “hayonah”, “the dove”.  S(h)imon barjonah could be read as S(h)imon son of the dove.

As Javior Alonso writes, “The image of an absolutely pacifist Jesus does not correspond to the reality of the historical character, but to a later theological creation that modifies, although it fails to hide, certain politically incorrect behaviors of the Nazarene.” [29]

“the kingdom of the heavens is taken by violence, and the violent claim it” (Matt. 11:12).

————————————————————-

[1] Fredriksen, Paula, From Jesus to Christ, The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus, 2nd Ed. (Yale, 2000), p.116

[2] Hyam Maccoby, Revolution in Judea, chapter 9

[3] Bart Ehrman, Jesus Before the Gospels, ch.4; Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando, (Why) Was Jesus the Galilean Crucified Alone? Solving a False Conundrum, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Vol.36, No.2 (2013), p.130

[4] Brandon, S. F. G., Jesus and the Zealots, A study of the political factor in primitive Christianity, (Manchester Press 1967), p.1.

[5] Ehrman, Bart, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, (Harper, 2005), p.133-139.

[6] Price, R. M., NUMBERED AMONG THE TRANSGRESSORS, in the following link:

https://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_numbered_trans.htm

[7] Aslan, Reza, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, (Random House, 2013), p.97.

[8] Borg, Marcus J. and Crossan, John Dominic, The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach about Jesus’s Final Days in Jerusalem (SPCK Publishing; 1st Edition,2008), p.64

[*] Chilton, Bruce, Rabbi Jesus, ch.9.

[9] Lang, Greame, Oppression and Revolt in Ancient Palestine: The Evidence in Jewish Literature from the Prophets to Josephus, Sociological Analysis, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Winter, Oxford, 1989), pp. 325-342, first quote at 327, second quote at 329.

[10] Domeris, W., Meek or oppressed? Reading Matthew 5:5 in context, Acta theol. vol.36 suppl.23 Bloemfontein 2016

[11] Horsley, Richard A. and Hanson, John S., Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs, Popular Movements in the time of Jesus, (Winston Press, 1985), p.50

[12] Crossan, John Dominic, The Greatest Prayer, Rediscovering the Revolutionary Message of the Lord’s Prayer, (Harper, 2010), p.4.

[13] Harnack, Adolf, Militia Christi, (English Translation, Fortress Press 1981), p.28-29.

[14] Dykstra, Tom, Mark Canonizer of Paul, (Ocabs Press 2012), p.117.

[15] Crossan, John Dominic, The Historical Jesus: the Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1992), pp. 118 ff

[16] Crossan, John Dominic, God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now. (HarperCollins, 2008), p.218

[17] ibid, p.79ff.

[18] MSS support for this variant reading are v16 ιησουν βαραββαν Θ f1 700* l844, Sinaitic Syriac v17 ιησουν τον βαραββαν f1, Sinaitic Syriac ιησουν βαραββαν Θ 700* l844

[19]Winter, Paul, On the Trial of Jesus, (Walter De Gruyter 1974), p.138, fn16.

[20] ibid, p.137.

[21] Merritt, Robert, Jesus Barabbas and the Paschal Pardon, JBL 104 (1985), 57-68.

[22] Torrents, José Montserrat, Jesús, El Galileo Armado, (edaf 2011), ch 7.

[23] Carmichael, Joel, The Birth of Christianity: Reality and Myth, (Hippocrene Books, 1989), p.189.

[24] Tabor, James, The forgotten brother of Jesus Part 2:

The Forgotten Brother of Jesus (Part 2)

[25] Borg, Marcus J. and Crossan, John Dominic, The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach about Jesus’s Final Days in Jerusalem (SPCK Publishing; 1st Edition,2008), p.126

[26] Weeden, T.J., Mark: Traditions in conflict. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), p.50-1.

[27] Kelber, W.H., The kingdom in Mark: A new place and a new time, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), p.64.

[28] Bockmuehl, Markus, Simon Peter’s Names in Jewish Sources, journal of jewish studies, vol. lV, no. 1, spring 2004, p.65.

[29] Alsonso, Javier, El contexto judío de la pasión, essay in La Verdadera Historia De La Pasión, Según la investigación y el estudio histórico, Piñero, Antonio, and Segura, Eugenio Gómez, Ed. (Edaf, 2011), p.89.

BACK TO HOMEPAGE

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

PART 13 of my Historical Jesus series

St. John Chrysostom [c347-407 CE], when composing his Homilies on St. John, (Homily13) appears to have had a manuscript of Josephus that attributed the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple to the death of John the Baptist.[1]

Pseudo Hegessipus rewrote Josephus in Latin to a “Christian” perspective as he claims that Josephus was too Jewish and failed to see the real cause of the destruction of Jerusalem was down to the death of Jesus. 

Origen stated that Josephus attributed the fall to James the Just in Against Celsus.

“So great a reputation among the people for Righteousness did this James enjoy, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in Twenty Books, when wishing to show the cause what the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the Temple was razed to the ground, said that these things happened to them in accordance with the Wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called the Christ.” (Contra Celsium 1.47)

Eusebius has the same argument but recalls that he saw it in War:

“And these things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, for the Jews put him to death, not withstanding his preeminent Righteousness.” (EH2.23.20). [2].

Jerome follows on this argument:

“This same Josephus records the tradition that this James was of such great Holiness and repute among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death.”

(Vir ill 2)[Lives of illustrious men]

So you see that Jesus was not alone in the tradition that the fall of Jerusalem happened because a righteous man was slain. Even with the Christian traditions we have three separate candidates that this was attributed to, James the Just, John the Baptist and Jesus.

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

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

Josephus himself attributes the fall of Jerusalem to the fourth revolutionary philosophy. At another stage in Ant15.267 he says that Herod bringing in Greek customs undermining Jewish ones was another cause for the destruction of Jerusalem. Then we have this interesting passage from War 4.5.2  § 318

“I should not be wrong in saying that the capture of the city began with the death of Ananus; and that the overthrow of the walls and the downfall of the Jewish state dated from the day on which the Jews beheld their high priest, the captain of their salvation, butchered in the heart of Jerusalem.

A man on every ground revered and of the highest integrity, Ananus, with all the distinction of his birth, his rank and the honours to which he had attained, had delighted to treat the very humblest as his equals. Unique in his love of liberty and an enthusiast for democracy, he on all occasions put the public welfare above his private interests. To maintain peace was his supreme object”

John Malalas a chronicler in the ninth century Chronography saw the destruction due to the crucifixion of Jesus:

Jewish priests heard a human voice speaking from the inmost altar which is called the holy of holies: “Let us depart hence.” This voice was heard crying three times, that the priests shall become the sacrifice, And from that [time] the destruction of the Judeans began, just as Josephus the philosopher of the Hebrews wrote down these things, having said this also, that from when the Judeans crucified Jesus, (John Malalas, Chronography 10.247)

Anyway going back to Origen, (whom Malalas may have used as a source) Origen just made up like other Church fathers a reason for the fall of Jerusalem to the execution of a righteous man ( in Origens case it was James).

Here in his Commentary on Matthew you can see Origen performing his own exegesis Origen like other church fathers and used his own exegesis on the James passage to attribute this as the reason for the fall of Jerusalem:

“Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James” (Comm. Matt. 10.17)

(I have two options what could have happened as Origen recalls things from memory and doesn’t even remember where he read these items. Option A Origen could have mistaken this James passage that was not really about James the Just, just picked out ‘James son of Joseph’ as explained here, Option B, he could have seen this passage in Hegesippus, Acts of the Church, ie picked out earlier passages and then said that is the reason Jerusalem eventually fell.

This is all better explained as some great disaster happened because something bad was done to some great man. Different Church fathers picked out different passages, then moved forward to the Temple destruction.

—————————————————

Footnotes

[1] Frank Zindler, The Jesus the Jews never knew, Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the Quest of the Historical Jesus in Jewish Sources, 45-48;

To quote Zindler:

It is in Homily 13, on the subject of John the Baptist, that we last hear of Josephus from St. John Chrysostom:

What then is it which is set before us to-day? “John [the Baptist] are witness of Him, and cried, saying, This was He of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.” The Evangelist is very full in making fre­quent mention of John, and often bearing about his testimony. And this he does not without a reason, but very wisely; for all the Jews held the man in great admiration, (even Josephus imputes the war to his death; and shows, that, on his account, what once was the mother city is now no city at all, and continues the words of his encomium to great length) and therefore desiring by his means to make the Jews ashamed, he continually reminds them ofthe testimony ofthe forerunner.

Now there is no extant manuscript of Josephus in which the Jewish revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem are described as the consequence of executing the Baptist.

Chrysostom also somewhere else attributes the fall of Jerusalem to Jesus in another Homily:

Chrysostom first refers to Josephus in Homily 76 of his Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew. Preaching on the text of Matthew 24:16-18 (“Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains,” etc.), supposedly dealing with the coming de­ struction of Jerusalem, Chrysostom refers his audience to Josephus’ description of the siege of Jerusalem and tells them that Jerusalem was destroyed because of the crucifixion ofJesus:

And let not any man suppose this [the horror of the coming destruction] to have been spoken hyperbolically; but let him study the writings of Josephus, and learn the truth of the say­ ings. For neither can any one say, that the man being a believer, in order to establish Christ’s words, hath exaggerated the tragical history. For indeed he was both a Jew, and a determined Jew, and very zealous, and among them that lived after Christ’s coming.

What then saith this man? That those terrors surpases all tragedy, and that no such had ever overtaken the nation. For so great was the famine, that the very mothers fought about the devouring of their children, and that there were wars about this; and he saith that many when they were dead had their bellies ripped up.

I should therefore be glad to inquire of the Jews. Whence came there thus upon them wrath from God intolerable, and more sore than all that had befallen aforetime, not in Judrea only, but in any part of the world? Is it not quite clear, that it was for the deed of the cross, and for this rejection?

[2] Eusebius in another part of his Church History asserts that the fall of Jerusalem came about because of Christ’s crucifixion but was delayed 40 years due to James and the apostles (HE 3.7.7–9).

BACK TO HOMEPAGE

Historical Jesus

The rebel Jesus is no longer my position, after more research my current position is that Jesus was a Sign Prophet. I will leave this blog here as an interesting probing into the historical Jesus.

Paul’s epistles are seriously neglected in the rebellion paradigm. Eisler traced rebellion in Josephus, [1] which is great because as Robert Miller said, the background of the gospels is that of Josephus. [2] Brandon noticed the editors of the gospels did not whitewash the gospels completely in their bid to sanitize Jesus and left clues of rebellion and rebellious sayings. [3] (See part 5) I have also blogged about hints of rebellion all over the patristics, especially the church fathers countering accusations from anti Christian polemicists. (See part 3).

What’s wrong with all the above is that no serious study has been done on the epistles. I am about to correct that. My main argument is that Paul is working off the old messianic language and transforming it. It is this old language that ties the epistles to the rebels! Paul is two stages removed from Jesus, (stage one, original Aramaic, stage two Hellenistic diaspora), his missionaries were with people who did not need to fight for their land, so that obviously would change things.

THE DAVIDIC MESSIAH

Paul says that Jesus was born “from the line of David” (Rom 1:3). [4] This is repeated later in Romans as the “root of Jesse” [David’s father]:

And again, Isaiah says, “The Root of Jesse, will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; in him the Gentiles will hope.”(Rom 15:12)

And Romans 9:5 sees a human Jesus as the Christ being descended from patriarchs and fits in with being descended from David

To them belong the fathers, and from their race, according to the flesh is the Christ, God who is over all, blessed forever. Amen. (Roman 9:5)

As a side note in the following link here shows how difficult it is to translate Rom. 9:5 due to lack of punctuation:

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/14262/does-romans-95-assert-the-deity-of-christ

To apocalyptic Jews of the time the messiah was going to be of “the seed of David” i.e. somebody descended from the line of David. All messianic movements claimed their line from King David. This was all over Jewish literature as seen from Jeremiah:

“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.” (Jeremiah 23:5)

Like other apocalyptic Jews, early Christians thought that Jesus was the messiah that came from the branch of David. Jews went to these two verses in the Hebrew Scriptures to say that the messiah would come from the branch of David:

“bless the house of your servant, that it may be in your presence forever—since you, Lord God, have promised, and by your blessing the house of your servant shall be blessed forever.” (2 Samuel 7:29)

“For this is what the Lord says: ‘David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of Israel..” (Jeremiah 33:17).

The Messiah is generally understood to be a person who, at the end of history (eschatological) or the present world order, will bring salvation to Israel. There were many different types of “expectant” messiahs: (1) King, the rebels in Josephus tried to emulate these, (2) Priest, a closed class so not everybody could claim this or prophet). All “realized” messiahs were human figures. Paul calls Jesus messiah 270 times in the epistles. Why Paul thinks Jesus is a “realized” messiah is the fact he thinks the new age has started. (A realised messiah will usher in the new age, establish a new kingdom of god right here on earth. As Jesus is the ‘first fruits’ of this new age, he would be classed as a recently deceased historical figure and a realized messiah).

Dale Allison shows a wealth of literature on this:

As for Second Temple Jewish texts in which a divinely appointed human being rules as the eschatological king, they are just as numerous. Indeed, we have here an embarrassment of riches, for every passage that awaits a Davidic Messiah is expecting the eschatological advent of a royal human figure. 4Q174 1:11–13 cites 2 Sam 7:11–14, which is about King David’s heir, and applies it to the “Shoot of David,” who will arrive “at the end of days.” CD-A 7:15–21 interprets Num 24:17 (“A star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel”) with reference to “the prince of the congregation,” an eschatological figure for the Qumran sectarians. 4Q252 5:1–4, in interpreting Gen 49:10 (“The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and the obedience of the peoples is his”), looks forward to the “Messiah of righteousness, the Shoot of David,” who has “the covenant of kingship.” Psalms of Solomon 17:32 foretells the coming of “the Lord Messiah,” who will be “a righteous king.” And so it goes. Jesus’ Jewish world was quite familiar with the idea of a human being serving as eschatological king and/or judge.

Dale Allison, Constructing Jesus, p.252-3

In the Talmud, the rabbis had it as a given statement:

“Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Go to a place called Ein Tav and sanctify the New Moon there, and send me a sign that you have sanctified it. The sign is: David, king of Israel, lives and endures.” (b.Talmud Rosh Hashanah 25a);

According to Eusebius, Emperor Domitian was hunting down the grandchildren of Jude, a brother of Jesus as they claimed to be descendants of David. (Eusebius,EH 3.19; 3.20.1-6). Eusebius using Hegesippus as a source tells that these descendants were now moved away from any political threat saying that Christ and his kingdom wasn’t an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, and thus Domitian let them go.

“If Christian tradition handed down in the fourth century by Eusebius can be trusted, the Roman search for Jewish revolutionaries from the time of Vespasian until Trajan affected also the family of Jesus, suspected of propagating hopes for the return of the Messiah…… were put on a political blacklist under Domitian, and Symeon son of Clopas, the cousin of Jesus and the successor of James the brother of the Lord as bishop of Jerusalem, suffered a martyr’s death under Trajan in the first decade of the second century CE.” [5] (Eusebius, EH 3.32) “After Jesus’ execution, the movement was still persecuted. Jesus’ movement remained a political threat in the eyes of the Romans. There is no reason to assume that the Romans stopped viewing the movement as a threat to their rule in the midst of a highly volatile region, merely because its leader had been killed.” [6]

As Candida Moss noted, “If we give any credence to the apocryphal acts and believe that the apostles attracted large crowds, then we have to concede that the apostles might have been viewed as revolutionaries. If they were arrested, then the charges levied against them may have been insurgency or inciting unrest among the people. As the death of Jesus shows, Romans had no problems executing people who caused trouble or could potentially start a rebellion. They were taking elementary precautions.” [7]

Not a specific movement in the eyes of the Romans were persecuted, it was all combined with other rebellious groups into one general movement that were persecuted because in Romans eyes they were all Messianists. (See Part 8)

In the Dead Sea Scrolls we also see a set of apocalyptic Jews who wanted the restoration of the Davidic line. In 4Q174 Col. I lines 10-13 we have a Midrash on 2 Samuel 7:10-14 (and the use of Exodus 15:17-18, Amos 9:11) for the restoration of David’s house (dynasty). The branch of David is going to rise as somebody in Zion (Jerusalem) as an interpreter of the law. This branch is going to be the righteous messiah:

“10 [And] Yahweh has [de]clared to you that he will build you a house (2 Sam 7:11c). I will raise up your seed after you (2 Sam 7:12). I will establish the throne of his kingdom 11 f[orever] (2 Sam 7:13). I wi[ll be] a father to me and he shall be a son to me (2 Sam 7:14). He is the branch of David who will arise with the interpreter of the Law, who 12 [ ] in Zi[on in the la]st days according as it is written: “I will raise up the tent of 13 David that has falle[n] (Amos 9:11), who will arise to save Israel.” (4Q174 I 10-13).

The Psalms of Solomon contain some references to Pompey who conquered Jerusalem in 63 BCE, and show hope for a Davidic end time messiah, very similar to that of Paul. [8] People were fairly disappointed with the two Hasmonean brothers fighting each other and loosing the kingdom to Pompey. “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.” (Matthew 12:25). Some guy decided to write the Psalms of Solomon to show a real Davidic messiah king, unlike the Hasmoneans who were not Davidic kings. The only difference of that Davidic messiah described in the Psalms of Solomon and Jesus as described by Paul is that Jesus is not an expectant figure but a figure that has already been realized. According to Paul Jesus is the ‘first fruits’ (realized messiah) as I discuss later, in the meantime it is worth reproducing the extract of the psalms here:

“See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David, to rule over Israel, your servant, in the time which you chose, oh God, Undergird him with the strength to destroy the unrighteous rulers, to cleanse Jerusalem from gentiles who trample her to destruction; …….And he will bring together a holy people whom he will lead in righteousness. And he will judge the tribes of the people that have been made holy by the Lord their God. He will not permit unrighteousness to pause among them any longer, and any man who knows wickedness will not live with them. For he will know them that they are all children of their God. He will distribute them in their tribes upon the land; the sojourner and the foreigner will no longer dwell beside them. He will judge peoples and nations in the wisdom of his righteousness. …… And he will be a righteous king over them, taught by God. There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days, for all [will be] holy, and their king [will be] the Lord Messiah.

Psalms of Solomon 17:21-32

Lord Messiah, christos kurios is the same phrase Paul uses for Jesus. Paul also developed the theme of people being right with God, to Paul if the gentiles have faith without keeping the law, through God’s grace they will automatically be “righteoused”. (Cf Genesis 15:6). Hebrew root צדקים , tzedek, in the biblical sense this meant right covenant relationships, that is with others and God. E P Sanders has said that English word righteous for the Greek word dikaiosis does not quiet capture the meaning, therefore he used the word ‘righteoused’:

“We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For he who has died is righteoused from sin. (Rom. 6: 6–7)” [9]

Paul has a “continu­ing recognition of God as ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Rom. 15.6; 2 Cor. 1.3; 11.31; Col. 1.3; Eph. 1.3, 17).” [10] As Paula Fredriksen notes when the messiah mythology was being applied to Jesus:

“Paul, as others before him, refers this honorific Christos to Jesus. In texts roughly contemporary with his letters, Christos most commonly stands for an End-time Davidic warrior and ruler. Traditions visible both in Paul’s letters and in the later gospels also present Jesus as such a redemptive End-time figure: returning with angels, coming on clouds of glory to gather his elect, bringing in the Kingdom with power.” [11]

Frank Moore Cross [12] believes the doctrine of the two messiahs found at Qumran (the Damascus Document, the Rule, the War Scroll, the Testamonia (4Q175) and the Testaments of twelve patriarchs all show the doctrine of the two messiahs), has its roots in the restoration of a diarchy, that of a perfect King and a perfect High Priest, who shall take office standing by the side of the Lord of the whole earth. (Zechariah 4:14). People had hoped that these would come about at the end of days. This is known as an eschatological concept coming from the Greek ἔσχατος eschatos meaning “last” and -logy meaning “the study of”. These eschatological Jews hoped to establish a new kingdom right here on earth in the last days.

The Jews believed in a physical resurrection (Ezekiel 37:1-6), so these people could live in this restored kingdom. It was Paul that tried to transform these Jewish concepts so that the kingdom was now “in the air” (1 Thess. 4:16) and resurrection was spiritual (1 Cor. 15). Pauls transforms the Jewish concept of messiah into a mystery type saviour fighting cosmic forces. He minimizes the political aspects of the messianic movement, as Paula Fredriksen says:

“Thus Paul radically redefines the concept of redemption as he does the concepts of Kingdom and Christ: through the original political vocabulary of liberation, he praises a reality that is utterly spiritual.” [13]

           With the Jewish concept of resurrection Paul promised the Corinthians all new bodies, (1 Cor. 15) these were spiritual bodies but not immaterial, they were made of the same finer material that spirits were made of. These new bodies were for a kingdom of god, this entailed basic outlines of Jewish concepts with the added conviction that Jesus was coming back. 

         Niko Huttumen puts it very nicely describing this earlier stratum that Paul is working off:

“While Paul seems to have a tendency of seeing eschatology as something that will be realized spiritually in heaven and individually in the future, the other dimensions are still visible. Revolutionary or even anarchic dynamite can be felt, for example, in the claim that Christ will give the kingdom to God after destroying “every ruler and every authority and power” [14]

As Huttumen says, Paul was using the old restorative language (i. e. get Israel back) and spiritualizing it. What he does not get well across is that Paul expected this kingdom of god right here on earth. Paul did not teach about the afterlife to newly converts, as his congregation in Thessalonica did not know what happened to dead people “in Christ”.

“Apparently, since Paul has left Thessalonica, some members of the community have died. Those still living seem to have taken this as a surprise, and they are worried that their dead loved ones have therefore missed out on the “festivities” Paul has promised after the coming of Jesus on the clouds. In other words, Paul had apparently told them nothing about any afterlife experience or future benefits to be expected for those who die before the coming of Jesus. Now Paul explains that the dead will not miss out on future salvation. In fact, he says that they will precede the living in meeting Jesus. [15]

“For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words” (Thess. 4:16–18).

Regarding the passages about being buried with Christ and resurrected with him, it was about living a new life on earth, not about heaven. 

“For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his” (Romans 6:5-6; cf 2 Cor. 4:10).

In fact evidence of a spirit possession cult that go well with the passages above:

Jesus shares the power of god. In 1 cor. 15:45 Jesus has become life giving spirit. Only God can give life in the biblical tradition. So after his death Jesus has entered into a new form of existence 

Jesus is the source of the Holy Spirit which all followers can enter into. So Jesus is the source of this new life. Paul promised all new bodies to his converts. (1 Cor. 15:42-44)

Paul’s joining the Jesus movement (Gal 1:16) was that God revealed his Son IN Paul. The spirit of the Son entered Paul. Similarly the spirit of the Son enters Christians generally and they become Sons of God. (Gal. 3:16) This is, obviously, a spirit possession cult, maybe not obvious to all. Modern translators try to say god revealed his son to Paul as in a vision but this is not what the Greek says.

“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).

In that verse above there are references to Jesus’ kingdom’ basileian (βασιλείαν), which indicates that he was somehow considered a king [16]. (A ‘King Messiah’ as opposed to a ‘Priest Messiah’).

CRUCIFIXION

Jesus proclaiming the kingdom of God (See Part 15) explains why he ended up on a cross as Paul states he had been crucified. 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. 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. [17] 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.” [18] 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. [19]

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.” [20]

With 1 Thess. 2:14-16 out of the way the mythicist paradigm is now free to say about 1 Corinthians 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.

Bermejo-Rubio using scholarship from Kuhn showed that Roman law restricted this type of execution to seditionists (see, e.g., Dig. 48, 19, 28 § 15; Dig. 48, 19, 38 §§ 1-2). Their supporters were subjected to identical punishment as seen from Julius Paulus a Roman Jurist under Severus in case reports (i.e. Imperiales sententiae, Decreta 5, 3, 4). [21] Jesus was condemned to aggravated death. If we look at [Roman Law] by which this type of death was inflicted on individuals of pilgrim and humble status, we will see that only two of them can be taken into consideration: popular uprising and crime of lese-majesty.”[22] In an excellent paper by Bermejo-Rubio, showed those crucified with Jesus would have been executed for sedition and were probably followers (which makes historical sense), he stated: “when the Romans controlled Judaea from 63 BCE until the Jewish War, they only crucified seditionists or those thought to be sympathetic to them.” [23]

The reason Paul downplayed the political “dynamite” language was out of fear as seen from Antonio Piñeros comment in light of Paul’s former persecution of this movement.

“Paul feared the new political consequences of the emergence of a new sect that continued to proclaim that Jesus was the Lord, the Messiah, who was going to establish a kingdom despite having died on a cross. The announced messiah was a seditious threat against the Empire, as it’s kind of death implied! And this proclamation was both religious and political: the Romans could harden their repression against the Jewish people in the face of the exaltation of a messianic king, even if he had already died.” [24]

       There is a pattern of messianic types being made a King, (a priestly messiah would be out of the question for any peasant charismatic Jew as you had to come from the line of Levi and achieve high priest status such as Onias III who was also known as a messiah). It was much easier for a peasant rebel to achieve the status of a “king messiah”.

       Before the first century CE, Priesthood became restrictive to the tribe of Levi. We can track the shift in Numbers:

“I have taken the Levites from among the Israelites in place of the first male offspring of every Israelite woman. The Levites are mine,” (Numbers 3:12).

In Leviticus we have God speaking through Moses, letting it be known that the priestly class was then restricted further within this group, namely the descendants of Aaron, Moses’ brother. (Lev 16). [25]

Many of the messianic rebels throughout Josephus’ works were declared a king. Judas the zealot, son of Ezekiel (Ant 17.10.5), Simon of Peraea, a slave of Herod the Great (Ant 17.10.6) and Athronges the shepherd (Ant 17.10.7 ) were all supported by multitudes, both Simon and Anthronges were declared King at a drop of a hat, by their rebel followers, just like it was suggested that Jesus was ‘King of the Jews’. (No royal blood necessary, but as King David has so many sons it is at least possible). The ‘Egyptian’ (War 2.13.5) may have called himself “king Messiah”, because Josephus uses the Greek verb tyrannein (τυραννεῖν “to be sole ruler”). Many others such as Simon Ben Giora, John of Gischala and Menehan were all declared King in Josephus. Bar Kokbha referred to himself as Prince in actual letters discovered near Qumran.

As Matthew V Novenson notes:

“John Barclay comments on the Antiquities and Against Apion, “These works show us a Diaspora Jew making a supreme—and in fact the last extant—effort to interpret Judaism for non-Jews in the Graeco- Roman world.” This is the most compelling explanation for why Josephus calls the Jewish insurgents “diadem-wearers” and not “messiahs.” It is not, as de Jonge and Rajak suggest, that they were not messiahs. In all likelihood, at least some of them were, as Josephus implies in the passage about the “ambiguous oracle” that drove them to war. [War 6.5.4- the same passage that applied this same oracle to Vespasian]. Nor is it the case that, as Momigliano suggests, Josephus was blithely unaware of Jewish messianism; here again, Josephus gives us reason to think that he does know something about it. [Examples given in footnote 131 by Novenson: War 6.312–13; Ant. 10.210; Ant. 17.43–45] Nor, finally, contra Feldman, does Josephus avoid the word “messiah” because he fears that using it would make him sound anti-Roman. On the contrary, Josephus presents himself as a reporter, not a partisan to the revolt, and he makes the insurgents’ anti-Romanness more clear, not less so, by rendering it in a Roman idiom. The explanation, rather, is that Josephus is constrained by literary convention, by his own chosen project of cultural translation from a Jewish idiom to a Roman one. He calls the insurgents “diadem-wearers” for the same reason that he calls the Pharisees “Stoics”: because that is the term by which his audience will understand what he means. [26]

        As shown from book 17 and 18 of Josephus Antiquities it was extremely dangerous for messianic types to gather a crowd. They usually got easily squashed by the Romans. Jesus was no exception, the Romans crucified Jesus for being ‘King of the Jews’. To be accused of being a King meant you were an insurrectionist. (Mark 15:2 “Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate. “You have said so,” Jesus replied).

In Judaism the title messiah has royal connotations. There are some instances in the psalms and prophets in the LXX that express messianic beliefs and “the strongest claims for the status of the King as God or son of god are found in the royal psalms, especially psalms 2,45, 72, 89 [LXX 88:27] and 110[LXX 109]” [27]

       Burton Mack sees the term “handed over” παρεδίδετο in first Corinthians as a militaristic term, (many modern translations wrongly translate this as ‘betrayed’, when in fact it really means ‘handed over’):

“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over (παρεδίδετο), took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood;  do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor. 11:23-25).

As Mack says, “In this case the mythic features are that Jesus himself explained the symbols and that it happened “on the night he was handed over.” Handed over was a term taken from the history of warfare and used in martyrologies to indicate the shift in power that set the situation up for a martyrdom. It did not need any narrative elaboration.” [28] To explain the etymology of the term παρεδίδετο and see it is used for “deliver over” and for a militaristic “surrender”, you have to get to the heart of the term which is to “give over something that you posses (even yourself) against your will. (against = παρά, give = δίδω).

       You can cross reference this with Mark 1:14

“Now after John *was arrested*…”

“μετὰ δὲ τὸ *παραδοθῆναι* τὸν Ἰωάννην…” (Mark 1:14).

παραδοθῆναι is the aorist passive infinitive of παραδίδωμι (“to hand over” – here translated as “to be arrested”). The definite article (τό) makes the verb function like a noun phrase – i.e. “(after) John’s arrest”. παρεδίδετο as found in 1 Cor. 11:23 is the imperfect indicative passive of the same verb παραδίωμι.

Christianity was born out of the messianic fervour that existed before the Roman Jewish war. The apocalyptic worldview was all part of this messianic fervour, a sense of urgency that god’s kingdom was at hand. (Romans 13:11-12). As John J Collins notes in a forward he wrote for Anathea E. Portier-Young’s book that “ Scholars have long recognized that apocalyptic literature originated as resistance literature,”. [29] It was Ernst Käsmann that made the famous statement: “apocalyptic was the mother of all Christian theology” [30] Paula Fredriksen sees the language of the early Christian writers had its provenance in Jewish restoration theology. i. e. “Restoration theology is the anticipation of the redemption of Israel and the world at the establishment of God’s Kingdom.” [31] Apocalyptic Jews were even more dangerous than just disgruntled peasants. They thought the end of the world was approaching, they also thought that they could abandon their way of life and become revolutionaries. As Porter-Young stated “The apocalyptic worldview envisioned a radical relocation of power and in this way redefined the possible and the real, thus clarifying the context for action and empowering the work of resistance.” [32] This egged on many piecemeal revolutionaries to initiate a revolt against Roman maladministration, even with little prospect of success.

The apocalyptic eschatology in Paul’s epistles “shows traces of the warlike messiah transferred to Jesus, and in the ethical admonitions images of war are found from the start” [33] Apocalypticism was always mixed up with military action expecting God’s intervention.

Even as this movement moved away from its rebellious past, many of the military metaphors are retained in the epistles and Pastorials. Examples such as found in1 Thess 5:8; 2 Cor. 6:7; [Rom. 6:23 has wages, ὀψώνια = opsōnia which is a military wage]) Many of the images have their origins in the prophets, sayings that had driven on previous messianic movements in their wars with Rome, now Paul had spiritualised them to battling their demons. [34]

“Those who died as insurrectionists against the system of this age and refused to be ‘conformed to this world’ (Rom. 12:2) are now the resurrected” [35] It was resurrection that secured Paul’s authority and somehow (in his own head at least) put him above those super apostles and put his particular ‘gospel’ (or good news doctrine) ahead of that belonging to the Jesus movements. [36] Paul’s message of resurrection had transformed the failure of Jesus’s life and failure in an ignominious revolt that would disqualify Jesus from being a messiah.

Hoffman has recognised that Christianity was born out of controversy and that Paul’s preaching “centering on the humiliation and execution of a little-known Galilean rabbi, was either insanity or mere nonsense (I Cor. 1.23).” [37]

“but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,” (1 Cor. 1:23).

        The failed promised intervention of God has now in fact been initiated by Jesus’ resurrection, turning his failure in life to a success by Paul’s interpretation. Bart Ehrman has shown how Paul transformed Jesus from being a failed militaristic messiah to being a savior messiah. This is more in line with the savior deities of the Greco Roman world and similar to the mystery religion cults. Pauls thinking was like that of Computer technicians using “reverse engineering” in order to tap into their competitors knowledge:

“Paul started with the “fact” that Jesus was alive again. Since Paul also knew that Jesus had died by crucifixion, his reappearance meant that he had experienced a resurrection. God performed a miracle by raising Jesus from the dead. If God raised Jesus from the dead, that would mean that Jesus really was the one who stood under God’s special favor, the one chosen by God. But if he was in God’s special favor, why would God let him be executed?…… Paul drew what for him was the natural conclusion: Jesus must not have died for anything he himself had done wrong, since God favored him. He was not being cursed for his own deeds. He must have been cursed for the deeds of others.” [38]

Dale Allison using Robert Jewett’s scholarship shows three different stages of the Jesus movement as it transformed from followers of a militaristic Davidic type messiah to a salvation mystery type messiah. This is shown in a critical study of Rom. 1:3-4, this is worth quoting in full as it shows each of these stages encapsulated in a pre Pauline tradition:

“The earliest form, on his analysis, contained or consisted of: “who was of the seed of David [and] appointed Son of God by resurrection of the dead.” This line, Jewett thinks, originated in the “Aramaic-speaking early church.” Its Sitz im Leben was celebration of the eucharist. Its sponsors understood “Son of David” to be a royal messianic title, and they held an adoptionistic christology like that in Acts 2:36 and 13:33, a christology derived from an application of Ps. 2:7 (“You are my Son, today I have begotten you”) to Jesus’ resurrection. 

At a secondary stage, Hellenistic Christians shaped the confession by adding the dichotomy between flesh and spirit. This devalued Jesus’ Davidic origin and diminished the importance of the historical, bodily Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3; 15:44-46). 

Finally, Paul formulated the present opening (“concerning his Son”), inserted “in power,” qualified “spirit” by “holiness,” and composed the ending (“Jesus Christ our Lord”). Through these alterations, the apostle aimed to block adoptionistic ideas and to oppose a possible libertine reading of the dualistic, Hellenistic add-on.” [39]

Paula Fredriksen simply notes “that in these Hellenistic Christian documents we begin to encounter the literary vestiges of the older, Aramaic, apocalyptic tradition.” [40]

I would have to add a preliminary stage to Robert Jewetts three stages. This preliminary stage involves Jesus adoption before his resurrection or execution. He was anointed like the Psalm Jewett cited (Psalm 2 and also Psalm 72). He was king and the king was the Son of God – it was a royal title. When Jesus got crucified the belief in him as “son of god” as a royal title must have evaporated, like so many before and after him the spell of being a messiah where god did not intervene got shattered. This was rectified with his believed resurrection and only then did this belief get reinstated.

Dr R M Price has often said when you peel away all the layers, you are left with nothing of the historical Jesus, but this is only because too many layers are peeled away. (The third quest rightfully put back the Jewish layer by Geza Vermes [41] James Crossley has launched the Next Quest, recognizing that Jesus was not the man to single-handedly changed history but to study him through social history, anthropology, comparisons etc). [42] K L Noll recognised this, (peeling away too many layers) when commenting on J J Collins who wrote “How Jesus came to be identified as the Davidic messiah remains one of the great puzzles of early Christianity” [43] Noll said, this is only a mystery if you favour a peaceful Jesus and peel away his violent layer. “….the Jerusalem pillars preached a Jesus who claimed to be a son of David and expected to wage holy war on behalf of the Jewish god in the near eschatological future (in other words, a Davidic messiah similar to those in Ps. 2, the Qumran texts or Psalms of Solomon). The proclamation of the cross fits very nicely with this hypothetical ‘Gospel according to the Jerusalem Pillars’, for any Roman governor would have viewed this type of Jesus as a foolish but potentially dangerous criminal, and the pillars would have used the story of the resurrection to affirm how wrong that Roman governor had been (1 Cor. 1:20–25)” [44]

Dale Allison cannot figure out who the 500 were that Jesus appeared to in his ressurection appearances, ἔπειτα ὤφθη… πεντακοσιίοις ἀδελφοῖς, after that he appeared to…five hundred brothers (1 Cor. 15:6). But then he gives us a hint of who they might be but as a Christian scholar cannot conceive of it: “with reference to the five hundred, speaks of “brothers” (ἀδελφοί), not “brothers and sisters” (ἀδελφοί καὶ ἀδελφαί),” [45] I bet that these were the remnants of the group that had revolted in Jerusalem. Dr Price had thought this part as interpolated as the gospels do not report such an incident. I would say that the suppression of this had more to do with the gospels trying to suppress the movements disastrous past, (a fiasco at the Temple and suppression of the group by authorities), a movement trying to survive persecution in the aftermath of the Roman Jewish war. “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.” [46]

    In the 40’s and 50’s there was a fierce nationalistic zealot swing that would ultimately lead to the Roman Jewish War 66-70. This lead to the agitators that Paul complained about in his letter to the Galatians, for circumcision as part of a stricter observance of the Torah. The background to the Jerusalem Assembly who kept checking up on Paul and their reason for being stricter on Pauls missionary is explained by Robert Jewett:

“The background of the missionary movement which touched Galatia may be found in the troubled political situation in Judea and Galilee during the period from the late forties until the outbreak of the Jewish War in A.D. 66. It was during this period that the Zealot campaign to undermine Roman control through terror tactics was increasingly effective. During the procuratorship of Ventidius Cumanus (A.D. 48-52), the resistance movement felt strong enough to rob an official Roman courier on the main highway from Jerusalem to Caesarea (Josephus, Ant. xx, 113) and shortly afterwards to arouse the whole countryside into a revenge attack against Samaria which could only be put down by use of most of Cumanus’ forces (Ant. xx, 118). The frequency of such incidents reported by Josephus makes plain that for practical purposes the countryside was in the control of the Zealot underground movement by the late forties. This meant that persons in the villages of Judea or Galilee who maintained close relationships with Gentiles or who did not zealously seek the purity of Israel were in mortal danger.” [47]

           The Pastorials show a need to move away from any rebellious past, they say the rebellious sons or sons of disobedience, υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας are controlled by the demon in the sky. It is no surprise that this past is spiritualized to mean those moving away from god will bring the wrath of god.

“in which you formally walked in the course of this world according to the prince of power of the air, the spirit who is now at work in the sons of the disobedient/ rebellious.” (Ephesians 2:2, cf Ephesians 5:6; Col. 3:6)

Gerd Ludemann sums this up lovely:

“According to I Thess. 4:13-17, the Second Coming of Jesus will occur in the immediate future; according to 2 Thessalonians, the day of the Lord is not immediately imminent, for the rebellion must come first, and the man of lawlessness must be revealed, “the son of lawlessness who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming that he himself Is God” (2 Thess. 2:3c-4, Ludemann’s own translation). [48]

————————————————————

[1] Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist, English Translation, (LINCOLN MACVEAGH, 1932).

[2] Fergus Millar, “Reflections on the Trial of Jesus”, Tribute to Geza Verme, Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History. Eds.: Philip R. Davies, Richard T. White. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), p.357

[3] Brandon, S. F. G., Jesus and the Zealots, A study of the political factor in primitive Christianity, (Manchester Press 1967)

[4] Some claim that this section is interpolated but as Tim O’ Neil’s blog shows all the arguments against interpolation: https://historyforatheists.com/2020/05/jesus-mythicism-6-pauls-davidic-jesus-in-romans-13/

[5] Vermes, Geza, Searching for the Real Jesus: Jesus, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Religious Themes, (SCM Press, 2009), p.17.

[6] Voskuilen, Thijs, Operation Messiah: Did Christianity Start as a Roman Psychological Counterinsurgeny, Small Wars & Insurgencies, (Routledge, 2005) 16/2, 196. [online paper].

[7] Moss, Candida, The Myth of Persecution, (HarperOne, 2014), ch.4

[8] Fredriksen, Paula, Paul, The Pagans Apostle, (Yale, 2017), p.134.

[9] Sanders, E. P., Paul, A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford, 1991), ch. 6

[10] Dunn, James, D. G., The Partings of the ways, Between Christianity and Judaism and their significance for the character of Christianity, 2nd Ed. (SCM Press, 2006), p.xxvi.

[11] Fredriksen, Paula, Paul, The Pagans Apostle, (Yale, 2017), p.135.

[12] Cross, Frank Moore, “Notes on the doctrine of the two Messiahs at Qumran and the extracanonical Daniel Apocalypse (4Q246)”, essay contained in: Current Research and Technological Developments on Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume 20, edited by Parry & Ricks. (Brill, 1995).

[13] Fredriksen, Paula, From Jesus to Christ, The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus, 2nd Ed. (Yale, 2000), p.173

[14] Huttumen, Niko, Early Christians Adapting to the Roman Empire: Mutual Recognition (Brill, 2020), p.102.

[15] Martin, Dale, New Testament History & Literature (Yale, 2012), p.211.

[16] Bermejo Rubio, Fernando, La invención de Jesús de Nazaret, (Siglo XXI de España Editores, S. A., 2018), ch 1.

[17] Carrier, Richard C., “Pauline Interpolations.” In Hitler Homer Bible Christ, The historical papers of Richard Carrier 1995-2013 (Philosopher Press, 2014), pp. 203-11

[18] Jewett, Robert, The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Foundations and Facets), (Fortress Press 1986), p.37.

[19] Jewett, Robert, The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation, New Testament Studies, 1971, Vol. 17/02, p.205, fn. 5.

[20] 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.

[21] Bermejo-Rubio, cit op. Fn.19: Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang 1982 ‘Die Kreuzesstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit. Ihre Wirklichkeit und Wertung in der Umwelt des Urchristentums’, ANRW 25.1, p.724.

[22] Torrents, José Montserrat, Jesús, El Galileo Armado, (edaf 2011), ch 7.

[23] Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando, (Why) Was Jesus the Galilean Crucified Alone? Solving a False Conundrum, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Vol.36, No.2 (2013), p.130

[24] Piñero, Antonio, Guía para entender a Pablo de Tarso: Una interpretación del pensamiento paulino [Guide to Paul of Tarsus:An interpretation of Pauline thought], (Trotta, 2015), p.40.

[25] Levine, Amy-Jill and Brettler, Marc Zvi, The Bible With and Without Jesus, How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently, (HarperOne: 2020), ch5.

[26] Novenson, Matthew V., The Grammar of Messianism: An Ancient Jewish Political Idiom and Its Users, (Oxford, 2017), p.147-8.

[27] Collins, John J. and Collins, Adela Yarbro, King and Messiah as Son of God. Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2008), p.56

[28] Mack, Burton L., Who Wrote the New Testament?, (HarperCollims, 1996), pp.91ff

[29] Portier-Young, Anathea E., Apocalypse against Empire, Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011), Forward (by J J Collins).

[30] Käsemann, Ernst, “The Beginnings of Christian Theology,” in New Testament Questions of Today, trans. W. J. Montague (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), pp.82–107, quote at 102.

[31] Fredriksen, Paula, From Jesus to Christ, The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus, 2nd Ed. (Yale, 2000), p.18 and fn.1.

[32] Portier-Young, Anathea E., Apocalypse against Empire, Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011), p.4.

[33] Harnack, Adolf, Militia Christi, (English Translation, Fortress Press 1981), p.32

[34] ibid, p.35f

[35] Segundo, Juan Luis, Jesus of Nazareth yesterday and today, vol. II, The historical Jesus of the Synoptics (English Translation) (Orbis books, 1985) p.5.

[36] Markus, Vincent, Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity and the making of the New Testament, (Ashgate, 2011), p.27.

[37] R. Joseph Hoffmann, Celsus On The True Doctrine, A discourse against Christians, (Oxford, 1987), p.5.

[38] Ehrman, Bart, The Triumph of Christianity, How a forbidden religion swept the world, (Simon & Schuster, 2018), ch 2.

[39] Allison, Dale C., Jr., The Resurrection of Jesus, Apologetics, Criticism, History, (Bloomsberry, 2021), p.32

Here he is using the scholarship of Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), pp.103–8.

[40] Fredriksen, Paula, From Jesus to Christ, The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus, 2nd Ed. (Yale, 2000), p.19

[41] Vermes, Geza, Jesus the Jew, A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels, (Fortress, 1973).

[42] Crossley, James, The Next Quest for the Historical Jesus, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, (2021) 19(3), 261-264.

[43] Collins, J. J., ‘What Was Distinctive about Messianic Expectation at Qumran?,’ in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. II. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran Community (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006), pp.71–92, quote at 85.

[44] Noll, K. L., “Investigating earliest Christianity without Jesus”, in T. L. Thompson and T. S. Verenna, Ed., ‘Is this not the Carpenter?’, The question of the historicity of the figure of Jesus., (Equinox, 2012) p.252, footnote 62

[45] Allison, ibid, p.74

[46] Allison, ibid, p.51

[47] Jewett, Robert, The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation, New Testament Studies / Volume 17 / Issue 02 / January 1971, p. 204

[48] Gerd Lüdemann, Paul: The Founder of Christianity, (Prometheus Books, 2002), Ch. 1.

BACK TO HOMEPAGE 

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

PART 12 of my Historical Jesus series

“Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: from the day the Temple was destroyed, the sages began to be like scribes, scribes like synagogue-attendants, synagogue-attendants like common people, and the common people became more and more debased. And nobody seeks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. In the footsteps of the messiah insolence (hutzpah) will increase and the cost of living will go up greatly; the vine will yield its fruit, but wine will be expensive; the government will turn to heresy, and there will be no one to rebuke; the meeting-place [of scholars] will be used for licentiousness; the Galilee will be destroyed, the Gablan will be desolated, and the dwellers on the frontier will go about [begging] from place to place without anyone to take pity on them; the wisdom of the learned will rot, fearers of sin will be despised, and the truth will be lacking; youths will put old men to shame, the old will stand up in the presence of the young, “For son spurns father, daughter rises up against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law a man’s own household are his enemies” (Micah 7:6). The face of the generation will be like the face of a dog, a son will not feel ashamed before his father. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven.” ~ Mishnah soter 9.5

The Mishnah preserves the fact that much of the blame for their dire circumstances comes from all the messianic figures who tried to strike a blow against oppression. In the footsteps of the messiah came suffering. In the immediate aftermath of the great revolt, (Roman Jewish war of 66-70 CE) messiahs were seen for bringing on trouble instead of being revered. This is also preserved in Josephus’ works who refuses to give the title messiah to any of these rebels who had been declared a king (and thus a king messiah). Instead Josephus alludes to that title for Vespasian. As stated in part 1 of my series of blogs on the historical Jesus, Josephus preferred to apply that title to Vespasian in his Roman propaganda, citing the Balaam prophecy (War 6.312-313). In part 2 of my blog series I gave a very important quote from Novenson who said “Josephus calls the Jewish insurgents “diadem-wearers” and not “messiahs.” Novonson said Josephus was not trying to hide the word but rendered it in a Roman idiom, actually highlighting these figures in a bad light. [1] Jesus being one of those messianic figures would have been described in a similar manner, I see no reason why Jesus would be the exception. Over the course of my other 3 parts in this series I see Jesus as the same as all the other Davidic militaristic messiahs and do not see why we should accept an exception in this matter either. It is the gospels that added the later pacific layer on top of Jesus. I have also shown in part one why it is extremely unlikely Josephus a Jew would have used the title messiah for Jesus which does not fit in with how he described all the other messianic figures. This also applies to the James passage found in Antiquities 20.9.1. I have already argued in part 1, that Josephus did not mention Christ in the Testimonium Flavianum, and here in this fourth part I will argue that he did not mention Christ in the James passage either.

NPL Allen [2] in his paper goes one step further than Richard Carriers’ [3] claim that the James passage in “Antiquities of the Jews” (AJ) contains an interlinear scribal error. Allen instead claims it was an actual Christian interpolation. I do think it was an inter linear scribal error just like Carrier suggested but I do not agree with the Jesus ben Damneus hypothesis. Josephus would never have introduced Ben Damneus twice (he is introduced at the end of Ant 20.9.1) as Carrier suggests. On Carriers’ hypothesis he would be introduced twice. The first time where Carrier speculated that it should read “James the brother of Jesus Ben Damneus.” The second time at the end of the passage. It also violates Josephus’ naming conventions. When Josephus references people to be a relation to siblings, it is because their parents are unknown or they had different parents. For example:

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

So the Damneus idea is stretched.

I have a new theory how this came about.

Let us examine the line found in Ant 20.9.1:

AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1

If instead of the following line: “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” the original James passage had the following:

“James, son of Joseph”

Why didn’t Josephus say this which is the proper Jewish form of address? Actually at the start of 20.9.1 there is a high priest Joseph mentioned who was deprived of his position by Agrippa, perhaps it was originally written >>James, son of Joseph<<.

(“But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood”~ Ant20.9.1).

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

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

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

This is significant that if the passage was on about a different James other than the James who is a brother to Jesus- this other James would have been a son of a high priest, this would fit the passage Ant. 20.9.1 as this passage is about rival high priests! That’s just from examining passages before and after 20.9.1, It’s a passage about high priest rivalry – James Jesus’ brother would not have been involved, Jesus or James were no way near this class of people but “James son of high Priest Joseph” would. The “accusation against them as breakers of the law” would not apply to Torah strict James or Jesus, but it could apply to this other James.

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

“the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” to describe James is seen in three passages taken from Origen’s writings:.:

1. COM, X, 17 / 5268: “James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ”;

2. Cels, I, 47: “James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ”; and

3. Cels, II, 13: “James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ”.

Origen mentions Josephus’ reference to James on four occasions: twice in his COM, X, 17 / 5268 – 5269, once in Cels. I, 47 and again in his Cels. II, 1

I will reproduce some of Origen’s Commentary on Matthew 10.17

“Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great:” (Comm. Matt. 10.17)

As seen below, “called Christ” has gospel tradition and seen from the quote, Origen discusses a passage instead of quoting it. The phrase “James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ” is pulled from gospel tradition. In the very next line then Origen writes “though he did not accept Jesus as Christ” so we can see “called Christ” was not pulled from the James passage. Same is going on with Contra Celsum 2.13 where Origen writes, “Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ.” We know “James the Just” is not quoting the passage and neither is “who was called Christ.”

This makes much more sense than Carriers explanation and it fits as there is a high priest named Joseph deposed at the start of the passage. It makes for a very intriguing high priest rivalry where Ananus the Elder had dominated the high priesthood for most of the preceding decades, with eight high priests all coming from his family. It was Ananus II that had James executed. The Romans did not consider it illegal as they only removed Ananus from office, it was the fact he convicted James in the absence of a Roman official, an interregnum of procurators had existed and therefore the Great Sanhedrin had overstepped its authority and had upset the Romans.

A very good reason for suspecting that the James passage (or at least the words “who was called Christ”) was not original to Josephus was the fact that Josephus did not like to use the term ‘Christ’ in relation to Jesus.

You can see this by two comments from Origen.

CONTRA CELSUM 1.47 ( Origen)

“Now this writer [i.e. Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ….”

COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW X.17 (Origen)

“And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.”

CALLED CHRIST HAS GOSPEL TRADITION:

The participial phrase “(who is/who was) called Christ” (c.f. Antiquities, 20.9.1.200) does not actually include the verb “to be”. This is simply added into the English translation.

This is literally what it says in Greek:

“…and *having brought* before them (the council) the brother of Jesus, who *being called Christ*, *James – his name*…”

The participial phrase indeed matches the gospels. There is NO implication of PAST TENSE in «Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ». And there’s no way to rephrase it to imply a present tense more explicitly.

Since, in the context of the current form of the text, Jesus is assumed to have died previously, it is totally appropriate to translate it in English as “…was called…”. The Greek phrasing should be totally non-controversial.

The same expression “called Christ” is both John 4:25 and Matthew 1:16: “of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” The phrase is found in a similar form in Matthew two more times, then in 27:17 and 27:22; and the author of the Gospel of Matthew has Pilate both times designating Jesus as that “Jesus who is called Christ”. The manner of letting a non-Christian witness identify Jesus as the one who was “called Christ” can accordingly be traced back to the Gospels. This would reasonably imply that it would not have felt unnatural for a Christian person with knowledge of the Gospel accounts to designate Jesus as the one called Christ, if he later found that Josephus ought to have mentioned Jesus.

“Called Christ” are the EXACT SAME phrase in different grammatical cases (nominative for ‘subject’, accusative for ‘direct object’ and genitive for ‘possessive’).

So what we observe in the English translations is a juxtaposition of the tense forms of “to be”, where past tense (“was”) is appropriate for Josephus and Origen (narrating events after Jesus’ death); while present tense (“is”) is appropriate for the Gospels (narrating events during Jesus’ life). English translators are forced to make a choice, while the Greek authors were not bound by such rules.

Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ (genitive).

(Iêsou tou legomenou Christou)

Jesus who (was) called Christ

(Antiquities of the Jews 20:200).

Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός (nominative)

(Iêsous ho legomenos Christos)

Jesus, who (is) called Christ (Matt 1:16).

ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός (nominative)

(ho legomenos Christos)

he] who ( is)called Christ (John 4:25).

Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν (accusative)

(Iêsoun ton legomenon Christon)

Jesus who (is) called Christ (Matt 27:17).

Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν (accusative)

(Iêsoun ton legomenon Christon)

with Jesus who (is) called Christ (Matt 27:22).

The only other early author (apart from the disputed Josephus) to mention James before the close of the second century C.E. is Hegesippus (cf. Fragments from the Acts of the Church; Concerning the Martyrdom of James, the Brother of the Lord, from Book 5), who as early as c. 165 – 175 C.E. tells his reader in great detail that James (as brother of the Lord) was hurled from the top of the Temple and then because he survived this attempt on his life he was then summarily stoned to death. Hegesippus also tells us that this happened immediately before the destruction of the Temple by Vespasian and as such it would point to a date of c. 68 – 70 C.E.

If this account is in any way accurate it means that the JP is in direct contradiction to both the date as well as the manner and circumstances of James’ death (The JP states that James was stoned along with “others” after due trial and sentencing by a high priest).

As Eisenman pointed out in his book James, the brother of Jesus, the issue is further compounded by the fact that, by the fourth and fifth centuries it was more normal for the mainstream church to defer from referring to Jesus as having flesh and blood brothers. In this regard, it will be recalled that in his DVI, 2 Jerome (c. 347 – 420 C.E.) maintains that James was Jesus’ cousin and the biological son of Mary of Cleophas. Jerome stresses that James was not the son of Joseph by another wife.

Although, in his Contra Celsum. II, 22, Origen makes it clear that he thinks that the death of Jesus was the ultimate cause for the destruction of the Temple, he repeatedly makes mention of Josephus’ reference to James in his many writings. He records Josephus as blaming the death of James for the destruction of Jerusalem and as has been clearly shown, Origen recurrently employs the almost identical phraseology as found in the JP today.

So to sum up, Josephus never introduced a figure twice in one passage. I have suggested a much better hypothesis where there was a high priest Joseph at the start of the passage. Ant 20.9.1 is about high priest rivalry and the stoning of this James in the interregnum of governors. If the passage originally read “James son of Joseph ” that would have given any scribe a hard-on and made him write in the interlinear column —- the brother of Jesus. It would have made all those commenting on it think it was a passage about James, when really this particular James may have had nothing at all to do with Christianity in the first place.

JOHN THE BAPTIST PASSAGE

Out of all the Bandits, messiahs and prophets dealt with by Josephus in the lead up to the Roman Jewish War 66-70CE, there are two exceptions to the rule of a negative portrayal. That is Jesus and John the Baptist.

I suspect it was not just the TF that was changed. The same would have happened to the Baptist passage. We all know how Josephus felt about messianic figures and he usually described them in a negative way. I will give one speculative example to show how easily this could be done.

Here’s an extract from the Baptist passage:

And when the others banded together for they were highly delighted (ήσθησαν) to listen to his words-Herod feared that the powerful influence which he exercised over men’s minds might lead to some act of revolt ; (Ant18.5.2)

ἥσθησαν ‘they were glad’ may have been a correction for ἤρθησαν ‘aroused’ to revolt.

By cleverly changing one letter ρ -> σ, would have toned down the whole passage, hiding the real reason Herod had the Baptist executed, mainly because he roused the crowd to sedition. It changed it from a political calling by the Baptist. It makes John as naive (αγαθός, agathós) and Herod Antipas as arbitrary. [4]

The following on baptism was meddled with:

“For in exactly this way one receiving the baptism appeared to him not to be obtaining a payment for their sinful deeds, but for purification of the body, inasmuch as the soul was already completely purified by righteousness.” [5]

This also agrees with Eusebius History (E. H. 1.11.5)

“for baptism would appear acceptable unto Him when they employed it, not for the remission of certain sins, but for the purification of the body, as the soul had been already purified in righteousness.”

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”. 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 we have a more primitive version: “John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins” as reported in Cels 1.47.

Acts 19:4 has “Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance.” which has the same meaning as what the John the Baptist passage in Josephus at the time of Origen and preserved in Rufinus. The Slavonic probably has the original reading, where Baptising did none of that stuff- “except to immerse them in Jordan’s stream, and dismiss them”.

       In the DSS community rule we have an example where Jews were ambiguous on baptism and if it did atone for sins in the ritual baths. (1QS 3:6–12, 1QS 4:20-22, Cf 4Q414 and 4Q512 which discuss the purification, repentance and atonement in more detail). Elsewhere in Life 11, Josephus says of Bannus “washing with cold water day and night frequently for sanctification, and I became his zealot.” 

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.

Rivka Nir abstract in her paper actually backs this up, “[the] text describes John’s baptism and its distinguishing characteristics as well as the similarities it shares with immersions common amid early Christian or Jewish-Christian sects. Of particular importance to uncovering the theological identity of this baptism is its description as an external physical purification, whose efficacy is preconditioned by inner spiritual purification. This essay shows that baptism of this nature did not exist amid mainstream Jewish circles of the Second Temple period. Such baptism appeared and developed within sectarian groups on the margins of Judaism, as at Qumran. It was then carried on and practised by early Christian or Jewish-Christian groups in the first centuries ce.” Despite Nir’s arguments for full interpolation the evidence only shows the passage meddled with. [7]

Both executions are very different, Johns on a whim of a single Jewish ruler for fear of fuelling revolutionary instincts, where Josephus is very critical of Antipas action, saying that God destroyed his army because of it. Even in the spruced up version of the TF do we not find even a hint of criticism directed against Pilate. In the Baptist passage we do find sympathy for John. Jesus was crucified which carries a seditious overtone. All this points to the passage to being originally negative.

————————————————————-

Footnotes

[1] Novenson, Matthew V., The Grammar of Messianism: An Ancient Jewish Political Idiom and Its Users, (Oxford, 2017), p.147-8.

[2] NPL Allen, Clarifying the Scope of Pre-5th Century C.E. Christian Interpolation in Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaica (c. 94 C.E.),chapter 4, 291-328.

[3] Richard Carrier, “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200” in the Journal of Early Christian Studies (vol. 20, no. 4, Winter 2012), pp. 489-514.

[5] Richard Carrier, Mason on Josephus on James. Carrier discussed the Baptist passage on this blog: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/16715

[6] Paget, J. Carleton, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity,” Journal of Theological Studies 52, no. 2 (2001), p.550

[7] Rivka Nir, ‘Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist: A Christian Interpolation?’ JSHJ 10 (2012)

BACK TO HOMEPAGE

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