Earl Doherty:
Moreover, the entire Jewish tradition of messianic expectation is a subject Josephus seems to avoid, for he nowhere else describes it, not even in connection with the rebellious groups and agitators in the period prior to the Jewish War. (His one clear reference to the messianic "oracles" of the Jews, the object of whom he claims was Vespasian [Jewish War 6.5.4], is in a different book, and is dealt with in very cursory fashion.) This silence and apparent reluctance would seem to preclude the likelihood that Josephus would introduce the subject at all, especially as a simple aside, in connection with Jesus.
Moreover, the entire Jewish tradition of messianic expectation is a subject Josephus seems to avoid, for he nowhere else describes it, not even in connection with the rebellious groups and agitators in the period prior to the Jewish War. (His one clear reference to the messianic "oracles" of the Jews, the object of whom he claims was Vespasian [Jewish War 6.5.4], is in a different book, and is dealt with in very cursory fashion.) This silence and apparent reluctance would seem to preclude the likelihood that Josephus would introduce the subject at all, especially as a simple aside, in connection with Jesus.
Steve Mason:
First, the word "Christ" (Greek christos) would have special meaning only for a Jewish audience. In Greek it means simply "wetted" or "anointed." Within the Jewish world, this was an extremely significant term because anointing was the means by which the kings and high priests of Israel had been installed. The pouring of oil over their heads represented their assumption of God-given authority (Exod 29:9; 1 Sam 10:1). The same Hebrew word for "anointed" was mashiach, which we know usually as the noun Messiah, "the anointed [one]." Although used in the OT of reigning kings and high priests, many Jews of Jesus' day looked forward to an end-time prophet, priest, king, or someone else who would be duly anointed.
But for someone who did not know the Jewish tradition, the adjective "wetted" would sound most peculiar. Why would Josephus say that this man Jesus was "the Wetted"? We can see the puzzlement of Greek-speaking readers over this term in their descriptions of Christianity: Jesus' name is sometimes altered to "Chrestus" (Suetonius, Claudius 25.4), a common slave name that would make better sense, and the Christians are sometimes called "Chrestians."
First, the word "Christ" (Greek christos) would have special meaning only for a Jewish audience. In Greek it means simply "wetted" or "anointed." Within the Jewish world, this was an extremely significant term because anointing was the means by which the kings and high priests of Israel had been installed. The pouring of oil over their heads represented their assumption of God-given authority (Exod 29:9; 1 Sam 10:1). The same Hebrew word for "anointed" was mashiach, which we know usually as the noun Messiah, "the anointed [one]." Although used in the OT of reigning kings and high priests, many Jews of Jesus' day looked forward to an end-time prophet, priest, king, or someone else who would be duly anointed.
But for someone who did not know the Jewish tradition, the adjective "wetted" would sound most peculiar. Why would Josephus say that this man Jesus was "the Wetted"? We can see the puzzlement of Greek-speaking readers over this term in their descriptions of Christianity: Jesus' name is sometimes altered to "Chrestus" (Suetonius, Claudius 25.4), a common slave name that would make better sense, and the Christians are sometimes called "Chrestians."
Then just the other day Ken Olson drops this fact on us all:
Have I been thinking about this wrong the whole time?
I get it. If you're reading this, you probably think both references are spurious (as I also have maintained for the last ten years and even now). So put your "counterfactual" hat on (a slight misnomer but what I mean is: just assume for now that it's true, but otherwise everything else is as you'd expect). We need to understand what we're talking about, even if (and especially if) we're arguing against it.
So, for the sake of argument, assume this: Josephus wrote the Ant. 20.200 reference.
(And maybe more, if you think that's implied... remember, it's "counterfactual" time, so you have to follow through on what you think is most likely if Josephus wrote the Ant. 20.200 reference. What's most likely in that case, well that's up for you to decide.)
We have a lot of people (myself included) who have a problem with Josephus writing "Christos." Since you're here, you probably have a passing familiarity with the debates over the text of Josephus, so you probably know that. Josephus doesn't use the word anywhere else, he shied away from the topic (except briefly for Vespasian), etc. This is one of the biggest arguments for interpolation.
So, what if... what if he didn't? What if the reference is authentic, and he didn't use the word "Christos" (iota)? What if he wrote "Chrestos" (eta)?
After all, if we subscribe to this argument for interpolation (as I do), it would also seem to tip the scales in favor of this conclusion: If Josephus refered to Jesus the one called x-----u in Ant. 20.200, it's more likely that Josephus wrote, Jesus, the one called Chrestos.
That's just on the basis of Josephus avoiding this term and avoiding messianism as a topic.
But wait, there's more. If you're following the accumulation of data, there's a lot more than Steve Mason's one very questionable reference to support the idea that non-Xians were calling them Chrestians (followers of Chrestos / Chrestus). We've been documenting this on this forum, abundantly. No matter how you slice that data, you have to agree that Tertullian and Lactantius are telling us that the non-Xians are calling them Chrestian. You have to know that documentary papyri from non-Xians, from the mid third century, confirm that.
That's two (count 'em: two) strong arguments in favor of the idea that the reference would make more sense -- if coming from Josephus -- as Chrestos. The first argument (from Doherty) is that Josephus avoids the subject and also avoids the term Christ entirely. The second argument (from Mason) is that Christos, whether a term or a name, would not make sense to Greek ears, making it strange to drop it without skipping a beat.
Then you combine that with the fact that non-Xians called them Chrestos followers anyway ... and that the manuscripts are no real help here. I'm surprised I haven't considered it before.
So, I ask you: if he wrote it, did Josephus say that Jesus was called Chrestos?
