Was Josephus a Christian?

[Secret Alias]

Do we live on different planets? Are you really telling me that the idea that

1. Christians preserved the manuscripts of Josephus
2. Christians liked Jesus
3. Christians were always looking for witnesses to Jesus's greatness
4. To make them like Josephus more they added references to Jesus

What part of this seems "a little far fetched" as a possible explanation for the TF's placement in Josephus.

[John2]

The idea that in 80 CE a Jewish turncoat decided to advocate the divine sanctioning of the Flavian dynasty isn't hard to believe.
The idea that this turncoat, while advocating for the Flavians, decided to openly contradict his widely read lauding of the divine sanctioning of the Flavian dynasty with a statement about this "nobody" Jesus whose religion only had an impact on the world in the late second century is much harder to believe.

But Paul says Jesus was preached throughout the world by his time (50's CE?) in Rom. 1:8. And the last emperor Josephus mentions is Domitian, who had persecuted people in the Flavian family who are claimed by both Christians and Jews (Flavius Clemens and Flavia Domitilla). So It doesn't seem at all implausible if the same thing had happened to Josephus for writing about Jesus, since the last we hear from him is during this time.

[John2]

What gives you the impression that Paul was "the leading authority" in early Christianity?

What gives most people the idea that standing in front of a moving car is hazardous?

Was he a leading authority? Sure. But the leading authority? No, because that is contradicted by what Paul and Acts say.

[John2]

Do we live on different planets? Are you really telling me that the idea that

1. Christians preserved the manuscripts of Josephus
2. Christians liked Jesus
3. Christians were always looking for witnesses to Jesus's greatness
4. To make them like Josephus more they added references to Jesus

What part of this seems "a little far fetched" as a possible explanation for the TF's placement in Josephus.

Maybe not for Ken (or you, for all I know), but for me the James passage is genuine, and if you allow that, it follows that Josephus "must have" said something about Jesus previously (as commonly thought), whether the TF or something else. It would be nice to let go of the TF and the James passage like Ken, but I can't let go of the latter or the idea that it implies some kind of previous reference to Jesus.

[Ken Olson]

Right ... the coming of the Messiah was extremely important for two lines and completely ignored in the rest of the 30 books of Josephus - except for a brief mention of Jesus as an identifier for his brother in Ant 20.200.

It is the mismatch between those two lines and the rest of the 30 books Josephus wrote that would lead a reasonable person to suspect that Ant. 18.63-64 are a foreign body in Josephus.

But the same applies to what he says about Vespasian being a world ruler (in my view "the Messiah"). Jewish history (since Jews would henceforth be led by this "governor of the habitable earth," however you interpret it) culminated with Vespasian?

When you say 'the same applies to what he says about Vespasian' it is difficult to see what you imagine the common property shared by Jesus in Ant. 18.63-64 and Vespasian in Jewish War 6.5.4 to be. Let's look at the Vespasian passage:

But now what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle, that was also found in their sacred writings; how “About that time one, from their country, should become governor of the habitable earth.” The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular: and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian: who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate: although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure; and some of them they utterly despised: until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city, and their own destruction.

We do not need to doubt that the Jews who took the oracle found in their sacred writings to refer to themselves had in mind a Messianic and probably eschatological reading of some passage in the scriptures of Israel. But we don't need to accept that Josephus accepted that Vespasian was the Messiah. Vespasian did indeed become the governor of the habitable world - which Josephus interprets as being proclaimed emperor while in Judea. He's put a very different spin on it and has technically not agreed that Vespasian was the Messiah (a word that is applied only to Jesus in the Antiquities, in Ant. 18.63-64 and 20.200).

This is a bit of Flavian propaganda. It was useful in Vespasian's bid for the throne to claim that the prophecies of the Jews foretold his rise and that the Jewish general Josephus had said so. Josephus, who was Vespasian's prisoner, acquiesced in this, probably out of self-interest. All he says, really, is that the Jewish scriptures predicted that Vespasian would be proclaimed emperor of Rome on Jewish soil. It does not commit him to believing or even saying that Vespasian was the Messiah foretold by God through the prophets.

There is a great deal more context for understanding this passage in its context in the Josephan work in which it is found than there is for the TF. Vespasian is mentioned repeatedly in the Jewish War, as is his son Titus, he put down the Jewish revolt and was proclaimed emperor. It's not as though Josephus did not mention any of these things elsewhere. Also, Josephus was a captured enemy general with an uncertain future and had good reason to cultivate good relations with the Flavians. The passage just is not as out of the blue and unrelated to other material in the work in which it is found as the TF is.

Best,

Ken

[John2]

Good food for thought, Ken. Thanks.

[Peter Kirby]

That's interesting but doesn't change my view that Josephus (or any Jew) could have believed that Jesus was the Messiah while identifying as Jewish. I don't think the TF is genuine though, but even if it was, I don't buy the "a Jew couldn't have written it" argument.

But if Josephus can talk about his belief in Vespasian as the Messiah in a few lines and otherwise talks extensively about Moses and the Torah and identifies as being Jewish, why couldn't the same be the case if he later believed that Jesus was the Messiah?

2) I do not think Josephus did think Vespasian was the Messiah. He does not use the word of Vespasian, he's just willing to allow that the rise of Vespasian to be emperor of Rome (and thus ruler of the known world) was somehow foretold by the (unspecified) Jewish Scriptures.

Latin spelling VESPASIANUS
Straight swap of standard Latin to Hebrew = ואספאסיאנוס https://books.google.com/books?id=KSsoA ... &q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=jp8GA ... AXoECAUQAg

ו (Vav) = 6
א (Alef) = 1
ס (Samekh) = 60
פ (Pe) = 80
א (Alef) = 1
ס (Samekh) = 60
י (Yod) = 10
א (Alef) = 1
נ (Nun) = 50
ו (Vav) = 6
ס (Samekh) = 60

Adding these up: 6 + 1 + 60 + 80 + 1 + 60 + 10 + 1 + 50 + 6 + 60 = 335

The prophecy Josephus used to identify the Vespasian as world ruler = שלה = 335

More of a "messianic" argument than Jesus ever had. The argument WAS made in 69 - 70 CE. Pretty sure of that.

While I can't debate that Ken Olson writes very accurately, I am unconvinced of the significance of the points that (a) He does not use the word of Vespasian or (b) he's willing to allow that the rise of Vespasian to be emperor of Rome (and thus ruler of the known world) was somehow foretold by the (unspecified) Jewish Scriptures. I do agree that the absence of the word and the absence of specificity does give more space to doubt and to be vague. If he were on trial on this subject, the defense could get him off on "reasonable doubt." Other than that, I've never quite been able to convince myself to agree here on substance rather than just formally. I can't shake the feeling that what we are doing here is just getting a defendant off on a technicality.

On the other hand, using only the word "Messiah" itself is troublesome. It's quite possible to identify a reference to a "Messiah" specifically with those who would have said either "Messiah" or "Christos" of the reference, say if (hypothetically) pressed. And there is nothing magic about using these words, or not using these words, that requires someone to produce them if they have one set of associations in mind, or not to produce them if they have another set of associations in mind. For every conceivable person who has a certain set of associations in mind and who would use the word Messiah/Christos, there is another conceivable person who has that set of associations and mind and doesn't (and vice-versa). While it is possible to build up a sense of correlations and to try to infer one way or another for those who don't actually have it written in their extant text, these inferences can range from seeming very weak to seeming quite strong.

And just as using the word or not isn't magic, it's not the only word that may be of interest. Consider for example that SA wrote a whole post here about the use of the word Shilo and accordingly put the word "messianic" in scare-quotes.

So this discussion quickly involves people talking past each other if we're not clear about what kind of meaning we are giving to the term "messianic" and "the Messiah." There is a tendency in scholarship to use "messianic" as an umbrella term, divorced of any expectation that every perceived "messianic" expectation was written by someone who would have had in mind the word "Messiah" or "Christos." This is basically an outsider definition of what qualifies as "messianic," using our constructed categories in a schematic way, albeit attempting to connect them to the concepts of the past (just not necessarily in the language that they were using). Those using an outsider definition would not even be claiming that what they are describing as "messianic" came from someone who would have used the word "Messiah," although they could make that argument in addition.

Given that an outsider definition approach can expand the set of people who qualify as providing a "messianic" reference (and also occasionally contract it for those who use the word "Christ" in name only), it matters very much to our communication to attempt to be clear what we're talking about. It seems plausible to me, for example, that SA is using an outsider definition approach in his post above (are you, Stephan?). It's not clear at all to me what everyone else means.

It's not yet clear to me what Ken Olson means when he writes "I do not think Josephus did think Vespasian was the Messiah." If you want to clarify, Ken, I will ask you not to use a definition that I might supply. I would rather hear yours.

There's also one thing that seems clearly missing (to me) from the discussion between John2 and others so far, and that's about taking this paragraph about Vespasian as representing the "beliefs" of Josephus. It's the utterances of Josephus, and of course it's not unusual to go from what a writer says to what they believe, but it's also not a given. In this case, there may be several complicating factors that make it less certain to go from what Josephus says to what he believes. Even if he believes it, the same complicating factors can affect how we interpret what he means by it. I think the discussion should be taking this into consideration (and I would not be surprised if Ken already has).

[GakuseiDon]

Keep in mind that:

1. For Josephus, God had abandoned Jerusalem and the Temple because of the wickedness of high priests and robbers, killing people even in the Temple.

2. Josephus records a story where God seems to have literally abandoned the Temple. According to Josephus: "Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence."

3. Cyrus the Great, "God's Anointed", had been appointed by God to rule kingdoms:

Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

Cyrus was also going to build the Temple:

Ezr 1:2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

I suspect Josephus felt, or perhaps connived, to have Vespasian become another Cyrus: ruler of all the kingdoms of the earth and rebuilder of the Temple.

As for Josephus being a Christian: by 70 CE the first Christians had been getting old, and perhaps expectations of an early return were starting to dim, with eyes turning towards Rome. For both Christians and Jews God's favoring of the Romans would have obvious. Vespasian and Titus might have been considered a necessary step before a Davidic messiah appeared. All very speculative! I think it more likely that Josephus wasn't a Christian.

[maryhelena]

Keep in mind that:

1. For Josephus, God had abandoned Jerusalem and the Temple because of the wickedness of high priests and robbers, killing people even in the Temple.

2. Josephus records a story where God seems to have literally abandoned the Temple. According to Josephus: "Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence."

3. Cyrus the Great, "God's Anointed", had been appointed by God to rule kingdoms:

Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

Cyrus was also going to build the Temple:

Ezr 1:2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

I suspect Josephus felt, or perhaps connived, to have Vespasian become another Cyrus: ruler of all the kingdoms of the earth and rebuilder of the Temple.

As for Josephus being a Christian: by 70 CE the first Christians had been getting old, and perhaps expectations of an early return were starting to dim, with eyes turning towards Rome. For both Christians and Jews God's favoring of the Romans would have obvious. Vespasian and Titus might have been a considered a necessary step before a Davidic messiah appeared. All very speculative! I think it more likely that Josephus wasn't a Christian.

Good point about Cyrus being an 'anointed' one'.

Made me think about Josephus prediction about Vespasian:

War Book 3.9. When Josephus heard him give those orders, he said, that he had somewhat in his mind that he would willingly say to himself alone. When therefore they were all ordered to withdraw, excepting Titus and two of their friends, he said, “Thou, O Vespasian, thinkest no more than that thou hast taken Josephus himself captive; but I come to thee as a messenger of greater tidings; for had not I been sent by God to thee, I knew what was the law of the Jews in this case, (8) and how it becomes generals to die. Dost thou send me to Nero? For why? Are Nero’s successors till they come to thee still alive? Thou, O Vespasian, art Cæsar, and emperor, thou, and this thy son. Bind me now still faster, and keep me for thyself, for thou, O Cæsar, are not only lord over me, but over the land and the sea, and all mankind; and certainly I deserve to be kept in closer custody than I now am in, in order to be punished, if I rashly affirm any thing of God.” When he had said this, Vespasian at present did not believe him, but supposed that Josephus said this, as a cunning trick, in order to his own preservation; but in a little time he was convinced, and believed what he said to be true, God himself erecting his expectations, so as to think of obtaining the empire, and by other signs foreshewing his advancement. He also found Josephus to have spoken truth on other occasions; for one of those friends that were present at that secret conference, said to Josephus, “I cannot but wonder how thou couledst not foretel to the people of Jotapata, that they should be taken, nor couldest foretel this captivity which hath happened to thyself, unless what thou now sayest be a vain thing, in order to avoid the rage that is risen against thyself.” To which Josephus replied, “I did foretel to the people of Jotapata that they would be taken on the forty-seventh day, and that I should be caught alive by the Romans.” Now when Vespasian had inquired of the captives privately about these predictions, he found them to be true, and then he began to believe those that concerned himself. Yet did he not set Josephus at liberty from his bands, but bestowed on him suits of clothes, and other precious gifts; he treated him also in a very obliging manner, and continued so to do, Titus still joining his interest in the honours that were done him.”

[maryhelena]

As for the TF....

Wikipedia


....a minority of scholars have put forward arguments to the effect that the entire Testimonium is a Christian interpolation. For example, Kenneth Olson has argued that the entire Testimonium must have been forged by Eusebius himself, basing his argument on textual similarities between the Testimonium and Eusebius' writings in the Demonstrations of the Gospels.

----
Both Carleton Paget and Alice Whealey had already responded to Olson's argument, rejecting its arguments and conclusion.

----
Steve Mason has argued for partial authenticity for the "Testimonium" because no other parts of any of the works of Josephus have been contested to have had scribal tempering, Christian copyists were usually conservative when transmitting texts in general, and seeing that the works of Philo were unaltered by Christian scribes through the centuries strongly support that it is very unlikely that the passage was invented out of thin air by a Christian scribe. Philo often wrote in a way that was favorable to Christian ideas and yet no Christian scribes took advantage of that to insert Jesus or Christian beliefs into Philo's text.[85]

Josephan scholar Dr. Steve Mason: Josephus on Jesus & the Testimonium Flavianum.

The debate over the Josephan TF is not over....

All a whole cloth Eusebius TF interpolation into Antiquities (for heavens sake into a context of 19 ce...) serves only to run from facing Josephus head on....Did Josephus become a Christian ? As I said in an earlier post - that question can't be answered without first defining what a Christian is.