I continually hear people suggest that the Testimonium Flavianum, that is Josephus’ testimony about Jesus, is only accepted by evangelicals. Even to suggest that Josephus had a core statement later augmented by Christians is an evangelical mistake at best or deception at worst. Is that true?
I think it is fair to say that Bart Ehrman is not an evangelical Christian. I think it would be even fair to say that Ehrman has an anti-Christian bias. What does Ehrman have to say about Josephus?
“It is certainly worth knowing that the most prominent Jewish historian of the first century knew at least something about Jesus—specifically that he was a teacher who allegedly did wonderful deeds, had a large following, and was condemned to be crucified by Pontius Pilate. This account confirms some of the most important aspects of Jesus’ life and death as recounted in the Gospels.” (Jesus Interrupted, p. 150)
Here is the Testimonium, and the sections in square brackets are the Christian additions. Notice how much we still have.
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one should call him a man, for] he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. [He was the Messiah.] And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. [For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him.] And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out. (Antiquities 18.3.3)
Interesting. Interesting, indeed.
Whether one agrees with Ehrman or not, the context for this excerpt is necessary to avoid misrepresentation of an author’s view:
Jesus Interrupted, p. 150 (full page):
…The other reference is more extensive, but it is also problematic.
In it Josephus seems to confess that he himself is a Christian, but we
know from his other works that he was not (he wrote an autobiography, among other things). Scholars have long known that Josephus’s
writings were not copied by Jews throughout the Middle Ages, since
he was (probably rightly) considered a traitor to the Jewish cause in
the disastrous war with Rome in which Jerusalem was destroyed in
70 CE. His writings were copied instead by Christians. And at the
point where Josephus discusses Jesus, it appears that a Christian
scribe made a few choice insertions, in order to clarify who Jesus
really was. I have placed the sections possibly inserted by the scribe
in brackets:
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one
should call him a man, for] he was a doer of startling deeds, a
teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he
gained a following both among many Jews and among many
of Greek origin. [He was the Messiah.] And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us,
condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. [For he appeared to them on the
third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken
of these and countless other wondrous things about him.] And
up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him,
has not died out. ( Antiquities 18.3.3)
It is certainly worth knowing that the most prominent Jewish
historian of the fi rst century knew at least something about Jesus—
specifically that he was a teacher who allegedly did wonderful deeds,
had a large following, and was condemned to be crucified by Pontius
Pilate. This account confirms some of the most important aspects
of Jesus’ life and death as recounted in the Gospels. But it doesn’t
indicate exactly what he did or said, or what circumstances led to his
accusation and death, even if you include the bracketed comments.
Thanks for typing that all out for me. Good job! I will actually add his reconstructed version into the post. Readers of this blog will know that I do not argue for the Christianized version of the passage. I do not think that Josephus thought Jesus was the Christ. I believe Josephus wrote something and then some well meaning Christian expanded the passage, causing us tremendous grief ever since.
Antiquities was written about 94 CE, after all the gospels (except possibly John) were written. So what Josephus wrote was what “Christians” believed. He was born in 37 CE, and did not have any first hand knowledge about Jesus.
The reason why Josephus is so prominent in many apologetics’ minds is the utter lack of ANY secular direct evidence about Jesus.
To be honest, I was addressing a specific charge: that there are no first century witness of Jesus outside of the Bible. The truth is that there is. Now you are free to reject Josephus if you want, but the evidence is there that he mentioned Jesus.
As for Josephus being too late, take a look at historical writings about other ancient figures. In classical studies, they would love to have evidence that is only sixty years after the person being described. Take a look at Alexander the Great and find out when our earliest accounts of him are.
Absolutely, Stephen. The earliest manuscript evidence we have for Jesus’ existence dates to within 10s of years of His death. Further, the evidence for Christ trounces the evidence we have (for example) Caesar, Plato and Homer. Evidence for Caesar dates back to 1000 years after his death. For Plato the evidence dates to as ’early’ as 1300 years after his death. For Homer’s Iliad the evidence dates back to 500 years after his death. Do the so-called critics question their existence? Do they apply the same level of irrational scepticism to these other, less-documented historical figures?