Was Josephus a Christian?

[StephenGoranson]

Was Josephus a Christian?
My guess, probably not.
But how genuine, either, was his Pharisee-belonging (in Vita) claim?
I suggest that the possibility that he mentioned Christians, whatever he thought about them--he probably knew some by Antiquities-time--he did not not think it risky to mention them.
Since the ones he knew were not violent.

[John2]

Was Josephus a Christian?
My guess, probably not.
But how genuine, either, was his Pharisee-belonging (in Vita) claim?
I suggest that the possibility that he mentioned Christians, whatever he thought about them--he probably knew some by Antiquities-time--he did not not think it risky to mention them.
Since the ones he knew were not violent.

Well, but Josephus had tried out all the sects, last of all the Fourth Philosophy (as a moderate and general), after he had chosen to be a Pharisee in his youth. And while I don't think Josephus was a Christian, I think Christians were a faction of the Fourth Philosophy, and in that respect I view Josephus and Christians as being sympatico. They were both, in their respective ways, expecting a "governor of the habitable earth" to arise "about that time" like he says of other Fourth Philosophers.

I don't know if Josephus "believed" that Vespasian was "the Messiah," but "governor of the habitable earth" in the "sacred writings" arising "about that time" sounds like "the Messiah" to me. And since the verse ben Zakkai applied to Vespasian was seen as messianic by other Jews by his time, I figure the same goes for whatever prophecy Josephus had in mind. And I think it's a safe bet that Josephus and ben Zakkai were aware of these messianic interpretations.

The messianic interpretation of Is. 10:34 in the DSS is the oldest of the interpretations, after all, pre-dating the preservation (if that's what it is) of ben Zakkai's interpretation however many centuries later in the Babylonia Talmud. So even if Josephus and ben Zakkai didn't believe/think/mean to say that Vespasian was "the Messiah," surely they knew the verses that they applied to him were "messianic," and if not that, then other Jews of their time would have surely seen them that way.

But in addition to that, I don't think it's at all outside the realm of possibility that Josephus knew some Christians (at least post-70 CE, but perhaps even before), since I think his patron Epaphroditus could have been Paul's follower of the same name (and that he could have written Luke/Acts, since those writings know and emulate Josephus). So that would be at least one Christian (and a very influential one at that).

[GakuseiDon]

And while I don't think Josephus was a Christian, I think Christians were a faction of the Fourth Philosophy, and in that respect I view Josephus and Christians as being sympatico. They were both, in their respective ways, expecting a "governor of the habitable earth" to arise "about that time" like he says of other Fourth Philosophers.

Perhaps Josephus was in fact talking about Christians in particular there? If he knew of James being the brother of someone called "Christ", and they were active in Temple circles in Josephus's time, then that might be his source.

I don't know if Josephus "believed" that Vespasian was "the Messiah," but "governor of the habitable earth" in the "sacred writings" arising "about that time" sounds like "the Messiah" to me.

FWIW, I disagree that it sounds like "the Messiah". There already was "a governor of the habitable earth" called Nero, and before that Claudius, Caligula, Tiberius and Augustus. After more than 50 years, I think Josephus would have been comfortable with the idea of a non-Messianic governor of the world.

[Peter Kirby]

FWIW, I disagree that it sounds like "the Messiah".

I tend to think it is incorrect to say that "Josephus clearly says that he believed Vespasian was the Messiah." But it's also not very meaningful to parse it out, say it's incorrect, and leave it at that.

But what do you think about what Ken wrote and and about what I wrote here?

This seems to me to attempt to acknowledge the shape of the matter most candidly, without falling into the sterile debates of "did Josephus believe that Vespasian was the Messiah, or not?" (blah blah blah) which lead to so much hand-wringing and nit-picking.

The propaganda of the new imperial regime of the Flavian dynasty is absolutely key to understanding here.

Was Josephus in the business of controverting this propaganda or supporting it? The answer is abvious.

Otherwise all you have is arguing about how many angels / messiahs fit on the head of a pin / text.

Did this Roman propaganda co-opt and reinterpret the Judean propaganda that they would get a prophesied king? Obvious again.

And does the term "Messiah" not come up in reference to the Judean propaganda of the First Jewish Revolt? (Real question, maybe ya'll have some amazing theory that the word is of a later origin than 70 CE or something.)

This whole "Josephus believed this..." and "Josephus believed that..." crap is brainrot. Follow the propaganda.

In the case of Josephus, I do not think he was the person who originally formulated the report about ambiguous oracle which foretold the accession of Vespasian (or Vespasian and Titus). I think that was a bit of Flavian propaganda written by a Roman, which probably circulated at the time Vespasian launched his bid for the throne. The Roman author probably knew about Jewish messianic expectations second hand and was likely not basing it on the exegesis of any particular biblical passage(s).

This is also the impression that I get.

I wouldn't know how close our opinions were just from the limited yes/no question of whether to use "messianic" regarding what Josephus says about Vespasian.

I agree that Josephus need not genuinely consider Vespasian to be the Messiah and that Josephus may have had his own private interpretations of how Vespasian was prophesied.

At the same time, Josephus was obliged to give respect to the Flavian propaganda that Vespasian fulfilled the oracles otherwise interpreted as messianic, and indeed this is what the passage from Josephus that we've been discussing is about.

To quote it again here:

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.

The reference to "an ambiguous oracle" and how "many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination" supports the reading that Josephus here is referring to something that controverts the messianic interpretations that were employed during the war.

The reference that "the Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular" and "one, from their country" shows that this passage is about what we would call messianic expectations.

That this messianic expectation that ran high during the war is in mind here is further shown when "their madness" is proven from the destruction of Jerusalem.

Josephus said it did "elevate them in undertaking this war," again showing that messianic expectations are in view in this passage.

The reference to Vespasian being "appointed emperor in Judea" (note: in Judea, not a Judean/Jew, get it?) once again makes it plain to see what this is written about.

Something about the word messianic causes dissension however, possibly because some attempt to say 'Josephus believed....' But I wouldn't claim that Josephus genuinely believes, as I wrote above. Josephus may indeed have played up the consistency of his personal beliefs with what was the propaganda about Vespasian.

[Peter Kirby]

I mean, I understand why everyone's been going on like this in this thread, because we can all easily tell this argument leads to a conclusion that is wrong (i.e., Josephus could just write this one small passage on Vespasian in such a way, so he could just write one small passage on Jesus as the Christ, because either one would be a brief expression of "belief" that Vespasian / Jesus "was the Messiah"):

Did Josephus stop being Jewish because he believed that Vespasian was "the Messiah"? Of course not. And the same goes for belief in Jesus

And so maybe the secret is coming up with some hidden meaning of the passage that has nothing to do with a "Messiah."

There is no secret.

Roman emperors just loved collecting accolades and divine authority for their absolute rule over the world.

Vespasian went from subjugating Judea to becoming the head of a new dynasty.

The revolutionaries in Judea he suppressed were saying that they were promised the Messiah king.

Vespasian was like, "yeah, bitches. That's me." That's it. That's the story that Josephus is telling.

"Oh glorious emperor, yes, you are truly the one they hoped for, see you were proclaimed emperor in Judea." *wink wink*

[Peter Kirby]

This is no declaration of "belief" here like we understand it today, arguing creeds online with our religious freedoms and separation of church and state. This is the flattery of the courtier and the obligation of the subject. Sincerity may have been there, at least in part, but it was optional. A developed theology needn't be imagined.

The devotion involved was the imperial cult. Every loyal subject, apart from Jews who claimed a limited exemption, would not refuse to participate in the imperial cult's demands on worship.

But pretty much everyone was supposed to be in the imperial cult, if we can put it that way. And pretty much everyone paid heed to the propaganda.

The Christ cult was manifestly not similar. Being in it was not the background noise of one's life, as it was for those who paid heed to the imperial propaganda. For one thing, participants in the Christ cult were known to refuse to participate in imperial propaganda and honoring the gods and the emperor.

Imagine someone arguing something like this:

(1) Joseph is a 1950s era Soviet and at one point worked as an associate of Stalin.
(2) The Communist Party is a socialist party, and Joseph has only one passage in his texts saying he was in it.
(3) Therefore, Joseph could have been a member of the All-Russian Social-Christian Union for the Liberation of the People.

It's all loopy.

[GakuseiDon]

But what do you think about what Ken wrote and and about what I wrote here?

I agree with Ken's point earlier in this thread:

"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...

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."

My only quibble would be that I'd think it's possible that Josephus genuinely believed that Vespasian was the topic of prophecy. Previous conquerors of the Jewish nation had been worked into Scriptural 'prophecies' as acting as part of God's will, so I don't doubt the Romans were worked into them as well. But I can see the Flavian dynasty using it as propaganda.

[Peter Kirby]

But what do you think about what Ken wrote and and about what I wrote here?

I agree with Ken's point earlier in this thread:

"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...

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."

My only quibble would be that I'd think it's possible that Josephus genuinely believed that Vespasian was the topic of prophecy. Previous conquerors of the Jewish nation had been worked into Scriptural 'prophecies' as acting as part of God's will, so I don't doubt the Romans were worked into them as well. But I can see the Flavian dynasty using it as propaganda.

So what do you think about what I wrote?

[GakuseiDon]

So what do you think about what I wrote?

Looking over what you've written, I don't disagree with much of it, other than the idea of how much this was a part of Flavian propaganda (if I am reading your points correctly). So: yes, Josephus didn't see Vespasian as the Messiah; yes, the Jewish people of the time thought there was an oracle that a war Messiah was coming; yes, this was used by the Flavians as propaganda after the war; no, it wasn't a cynical attempt to subvert the Jewish nation to accept Roman rule (if that is what you are suggesting).

Tacitus writes in Histories Book 5 how the Jewish nation had been preparing for war even in time of peace. They seemed to believe that a war was inevitable, which arguably would have lead to beliefs about an imminent arrival of the Messiah:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... ories.html

[5.12] The temple resembled a citadel, and had its own walls, which were more laboriously constructed than the others. Even the colonnades with which it was surrounded formed an admirable outwork. It contained an inexhaustible spring; there were subterranean excavations in the hill, and tanks and cisterns for holding rain water. The founders of the state had foreseen that frequent wars would result from the singularity of its customs, and so had made every provision against the most protracted siege. After the capture of their city by Pompey, experience and apprehension taught them much. Availing themselves of the sordid policy of the Claudian era to purchase the right of fortification, they raised in time of peace such walls as were suited for war.

[Peter Kirby]

Looking over what you've written, I don't disagree with much of it, other than the idea of how much this was a part of Flavian propaganda (if I am reading your points correctly). So: yes, Josephus didn't see Vespasian as the Messiah;

What do you mean by that?

no, it wasn't a cynical attempt to subvert the Jewish nation to accept Roman rule (if that is what you are suggesting).

I didn't talk about this.