Did Josephus say that Jesus was called Chrēstos?

[John2]

I think we have to assume that Josephus, who was resident in Judea, was better informed about events in Judea than Tacitus was. If he knew that the man put to death by the High Priest Ananus in Ant 20.200 was the brother of Jesus called Chrestos, it seems he would have to have known that the Christians were claiming Jesus was the Christ foretold in the Jewish scriptures.

I can take or leave the TF, but it does say that Jesus being called Christ, his crucifixion, being seen by his followers three days later and "ten thousand other wonderful things" about him were foretold by "the divine prophets."

He was [the] 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.

Jesus is also described as a "wise man" in the TF, the same word Josephus used in his previous book to describe Jews who believed that "one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth."

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.

Didn't Jesus and his followers likewise believe that "about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth" and that it was predicted in the OT? And weren't they likewise "deceived in their determination"? While I'm inclined to think the TF has been tampered with, even as it is, I think it fits what Josephus had said about the "ambiguous oracle."

[Peter Kirby]

Didn't Jesus and his followers likewise believe that "about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth" and that it was predicted in the OT? And weren't they likewise "deceived in their determination"? While I'm inclined to think the TF has been tampered with, even as it is, I think it fits what Josephus had said about the "ambiguous oracle."

I'm not sure I'm understanding correctly the intent of the point you're making. I will suggest something, for you to help correct it.

Here's my guess: Josephus doesn't actually avoid entirely the subject of ambiguous oracles about a future king (can we say that much at least?) that were misinterpreted by Jews. Josephus broaches it briefly, to say that these Jews were mistaken because they did not interpret Vespasian as the fulfillment of this ambiguous oracle. The followers of Jesus were, at least originally, among those Jews with this "misunderstanding," thinking there would be a future king from the Jews. Christians had their misunderstanding corrected on their own; they no longer viewed the ambiguous oracles as predicting a future king from their people. At that point, Christians were not necessarily a topic to be avoided by Josephus because Christians didn't believe in a coming king from among the Jews, which is to say, they didn't have the mistaken understanding of the ambiguous oracle. Instead, while they didn't necessarily support the view of Josephus, they were in a sense kindred spirits by rejecting the king-of-the-Jews interpretation. You consider that the TF was tampered with, but even with what remains, the death of Jesus-called-the-Christ there implicitly proved he was no king-of-the-Jews. A king is not crucified. Therefore, since his followers loved him after his crucifixion, they loved someone other than a claimant to be king. In short, since none of this involves a claimant to be a king in any way, the Christians didn't cross the line where Josephus would have felt the need to be afraid to mention them.

There's a ton of speculation above, and I'm not myself proposing any of it, there's a possibility that nobody is proposing some of it (or any of it), depending on whether John2 allows that any of this correctly speculates about what he has in mind.

I will make a separate post on a thought that occurs to me writing the above.

[Peter Kirby]

What occurs to me is this:

What exactly is the "Christos" argument here?

I always assumed that the "Christos" argument was about Josephus trying to stay in the good graces of his patrons and non-Jewish readership. The idea is that Josephus had a deliberate strategy of denying, distorting, downplaying, and most importantly demurring from discussion of the Jewish anticipation of a king from their people. Because the common title (in Greek) of a king from their people was "Christ," Josephus also avoided saying that Jewish people rightly believed in a "Christ," and Josephus avoids describing anyone of their people as a claimant to being "Christ." The singular and only reason for this is to avoid associating Judaism and right-thinking Jews with the expectation of a prophesied king from their people.

The icing on the cake is saying that Vespasian is a foretold king. Or, I would suggest, the foretold king. By being a Jew himself who assigns a non-Jewish person as the fulfillment of the ambiguous oracle about a future king, Josephus embodies the neutering and domestication of Judaism as a safe and docile religion that does not need to concern the Romans at all.

Is this your "Christos" argument, Ken? Because it was mine. I'm not really sure what yours is.

When I read:

the difficulties of the reading Christos

I don't know what difficulties you're referring to. The discussion that follows does not convince me that your understanding of those difficulties matches mine.

If it helps, you can refer me to some earlier discussion you've written about those difficulties, to help me narrow it down a little, if that is just as clear and saves time over writing a new post about it. Or you could describe its outline for me, at least.

[Ken Olson]

I think we have to assume that Josephus, who was resident in Judea, was better informed about events in Judea than Tacitus was. If he knew that the man put to death by the High Priest Ananus in Ant 20.200 was the brother of Jesus called Chrestos, it seems he would have to have known that the Christians were claiming Jesus was the Christ foretold in the Jewish scriptures.

I can take or leave the TF, but it does say that Jesus being called Christ, his crucifixion, being seen by his followers three days later and "ten thousand other wonderful things" about him were foretold by "the divine prophets."

The TF says any number of things that Josephus the non-Christian Jew is unlikely to have said, which is why I consider it inauthentic. But in this post I was taking up Peter Kirby's challenge to examine what the consequences would be if Josephus wrote chrestos (good, useful) rather than Christos ('anointed') in the James passage in Ant. 20.200. My point was that I don't think it would make a great deal of difference, because Josephus would almost certainly have known that chrestos was a misnomer for Christos.

I wasn't re-opening the question of the authenticity of the TF, which is what you seem to want to do. Yes, the TF does say that Jesus was the Christ (not 'called') who did things that were foretold by the divine prophets. These are reasons to think Josephus the non-Christian Jew did not write it.

He was [the] 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.

Jesus is also described as a "wise man" in the TF, the same word Josephus used in his previous book to describe Jews who believed that "one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth."

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.

The TF contains the words wise man (as two words) and the passage quoted contains the word wisemen (as one word). So what?

Didn't Jesus and his followers likewise believe that "about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth" and that it was predicted in the OT? And weren't they likewise "deceived in their determination"? While I'm inclined to think the TF has been tampered with, even as it is, I think it fits what Josephus had said about the "ambiguous oracle."

Yes, Christians might well have believed that the ambiguous oracle applied to Jesus. But Josephus didn't, so what?

Best,

Ken

[lclapshaw]

Here is a photoplate of the page containing the Testimonium Flavianum from Codex Ambrosianus 370. You can see the nomen sacrum Chi Sigma with overline near the end of the first line after the break (the eighth line overall). The image is from Robert Eisler's book The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist (1931) between pages 58 and 59. I have posted the image on this forum previously, though I think I misidentified it as Niese's manuscript M rather than A.

https://digitallibrary.unicatt.it/vener ... 82800acbda

I don't know of anyplace where an image of a manuscript containing Ant. 20.200 is published (not counting where the manuscripts are themselves online, of course).

Best,

Ken

What I find interesting about the image you posted is that, while the NS XC is being used, the word Christians is written out in full below. I can't seem to locate Iesuos however as the script is difficult for me to follow. Is it written out in full or is the NS being used?

Thanks

Lane

[maryhelena]

Ken Olson

The TF says any number of things that Josephus the non-Christian Jew is unlikely to have said, which is why I consider it inauthentic.

Ken, have you ever given thought to the idea that Josephus was involved in early Christian origins. After all it's generally assumed that the gospel writers were Jews. Josephus a secret Jewish Christian ? If he was -
then would not a whole different approach be necessary towards the Josephan writings ?

Just throwing this question out there. My primary interest, once I had decided that the gospel Jesus was not a historical figure - was to go after Josephus, to put him, as it were, in the dock. That investigation is still in progress so I won't be posting on it at the moment. Just interested if you have ever given thought to the idea that Josephus could have been a secret Jewish Christian.

[Ken Olson]

Here is a photoplate of the page containing the Testimonium Flavianum from Codex Ambrosianus 370. You can see the nomen sacrum Chi Sigma with overline near the end of the first line after the break (the eighth line overall). The image is from Robert Eisler's book The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist (1931) between pages 58 and 59. I have posted the image on this forum previously, though I think I misidentified it as Niese's manuscript M rather than A.

https://digitallibrary.unicatt.it/vener ... 82800acbda

I don't know of anyplace where an image of a manuscript containing Ant. 20.200 is published (not counting where the manuscripts are themselves online, of course).

Best,

Ken

What I find interesting about the image you posted is that, while the NS XC is being used, the word Christians is written out in full below. I can't seem to locate Iesuos however as the script is difficult for me to follow. Is it written out in full or is the NS being used?

Thanks

Lane

It's written out in full at the very beginning of the fifth line from the top: Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ are the first three words.

Best,

Ken

[rgprice]

What I do find interesting actually is the fact that the nomina sacrum for Christ is used but not for Jesus. Christians used nomina sarca for both.

If Christ is written using nomina sarca, then why isn't Jesus? I've long dismissed efforts to write a sanitized version of this passage, stating that Josephus wrote something and that later Christians then embellished it. But I can see how the use of nomina sacra for Christ and not Jesus could support such a position.

Here is a reconstruction proposal by Dunn that leaves out Chrsit:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

But the problem here is that "Christians" is still in. To me, any proposal for a "sanitized" version of the passage has to leave out Christ, and if you do then you also need to leave out Christians. Christ is the term that explains why they are called Christians. Furthermore, it seem evident that the term Christians is late, as it doesn't even appear in most NT literature.

So we take that out:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

But what about this, "those that loved him at the first did not forsake him". Nope, sounds far too much like something based on the Gospel stories.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

But now the preceding sentence doesn't make sense.

And we also have the opening of the statement. Again, when we compare this Jesus to the Jesus of the Pauline letters, we have a stark contrast. The Jesus of the Pauline letters, and even the letter of James, First Clement, and the letters of Barnabas, is not a doer of startling deeds or a teacher of men. That Jesus comes only from the Gospels.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

We're left with garbage, and no reason for Josephus to have even written about this guy.

But still, why is Christ written XY, but Jesus is not ΙΥ?

[Ken Olson]

New data, courtesy of Martijn Linssen, who found Ant. 20.200 on page 349v (v=verso, or the reverse side) of manuscript A (p. 684 of the digital library online version):

https://digitallibrary.unicatt.it/vener ... 82800acbda

F128 sup. Ant. 20.200.png (1.13 MiB) Viewed 360 times

In the fourth and fifth lines of the screenshot you can see:

τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰά
κωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ

the brother (of) Jesus the (one) called Christ, Ja
cob (the) name (to) him

So in the earliest known manuscript of Ant. 20.200, the name Jesus and the title Christ are written out in full - there are no nomina sacra used.

Best,

Ken

[rgprice]

So in the earliest known manuscript of Ant. 20.200, the name Jesus and the title Christ are written out in full - there are no nomina sacra used.

That was a fun goose chase

I still wonder why then later scribes decided to use nomina sacra for Christ but not Jesus?