Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:40, 28 February 2004

In A.D. 93, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus published his work Antiquities of the Jews. The extant copies of this work, which all derive from Christian sources, even the recently-recovered Arabic version, contain two passages about Jesus Christ. The long one has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum. If genuine, it is the earliest record of Jesus in Jewish sources, and as such is sometimes cited as independent evidence for the historical existence of Jesus.

The passage is Book 18, Chapter 3, Item 3 of Antiquities of the Jews. In the translation of William Whiston it reads:

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, 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. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Our surviving sources for this passage are Greek manuscripts, the oldest of which dates from the 9th century. However there are citations in other writers of antiquity.

The first to cite this passage of Antiquities was Eusebius, writing in about A.D. 324, who quotes the passage in essentially the same form. So it is clear that this passage existed in manuscripts of the Antiquities of the Jews at that time.

However, it is significant that Origen, writing in about A.D. 240, fails to mention it, even though he does mention the less significant reference to Jesus as brother of James that occurs later in Antiquities of the Jews. This has given rise to the suggestion that the Testimonium Flavianum did not exist in the earliest copies, or did not exist in that form.

Those historians disposed to reject the passage suggest that passage 3.2 runs directly into passage 3.4, and that the thread of continuity is interrupted by this passage. The passage 3.3 also is supposed to fails a standard test for authenticity, in that it contains vocabulary not otherwise used by Josephus, according to the Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, edited by K. H. Rengstorf, 2002. Consequently these historians dismiss the Testimonium as an interpolation. It is also argued, somewhat simplistically, that 'He was Christ.' can only be read as a profession of faith. If so, this could not be right, as Josephus was not a Christian.

Most writers, however, observe that these objections are not conclusive. The ragged structure of Antiquities involves frequent disruptions to the narrative, not least because it was mainly composed by a number of scribal assistants. Linguistic analysis has not proven conclusive, when compared with other passages in Josephus which likewise exhibit unusual features. The supposed confession of Josephus relies on the standard text. But a recent study by Alice Whealey has demonstrated that a variant Greek text of this sentence existed in the 5th century -- 'He was believed to be the Christ'. The standard text then has simply become corrupt, by the loss of the main verb and a subsequent scribal 'correction' of the prolative infinitive. In any event, the audience for the work was Roman, and the Romans always referred to Jesus as 'Christus' or 'Chrestus', which would make this merely an identification. Finally, it has been pointed out that every line of the passage can be objected to, or supported, by one argument or another.

As long ago as Archbishop Ussher, the Testimonium Flavianum was treated with suspicion. A century ago, it was generally believed by scholars to be an interpolation. However, over the last century, the consensus of scholars has moved, not least under the influence of manuscript discoveries.

In 1971, Professor Shlomo Pines published a translation of a different version of this passage, quoted in an Arabic manuscript of the tenth century. The manuscript in question was written by Agapius, a tenth century Christian Arab and bishop of Hierapolis. Shlomo Pines' translation reads:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

Pines suggests that this may be a more accurate record of what Josephus wrote, lacking as it does the parts which have often been considered to have been added by Christian copyists. Pines' theory has not been widely accepted, however.

Pines also refers to the Syriac version cited by Michael the Syrian in his World Chronicle. It was left to Alice Whealey to point out that Michael's text in fact was identical with that of Jerome at the most contentious point ('He was the Christ' becoming 'He was believed to be the Christ'), establishing the existence of a variant, since Latin and Syriac writers did not read each others works in late antiquity.

The consensus in 2004 is that the passage is mainly genuine, but has suffered corruption, whether deliberate or accidental. However a significant number of scholars consider it genuine, on the grounds that all of the passages supposed to be corrupt are upheld by other writers; a significant number of scholars likewise consider the passage interpolated, on the ground that all the passages upheld are likewise demolished by other writers.

There is a further passage in the Antiquities of the Jews which Origen did notice in the 3rd century; it refers to a James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ". This passage has been generally considered authentic.

References

• Shlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications, (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971)
• Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times,Peter Lang Publishing (2003). How the TF has been seen down the centuries.
• James Carleton Paget, Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity, Journal of Theological Studies 52.2 (2001) pp. 539-624. A monster review of all the theories, all the scholars and all the evidence.

External links

• Book 18, Chapter 3 of Antiquities of the Jews
• Scholarship on the Testimonium Flavianum down the centuries. A paper by Dr. Alice Whealey presented at 2000 SBL Josephus Seminar: expanded into a book subsequently
• Manuscripts
• The Mystery of the Testimonium Flavianum
• Josephus' Testimony to Jesus
• Historicity Of Jesus FAQ
• Josephus Unbound by Earl Doherty
• Collection of resources on Josephus