ARGUMENTS FOR AUTHENTICITY
1: The vocabulary found in the Testimonium is
consistent with the vocabulary used in other
passages in Antiquities. The phrase Now about this
time is used at the beginning of this passage as well
dozens of other passages. It's also doubtful a
Christian forger would have referred to Jesus as
simply a wise man but then go on to assert claims
of His divinity. Yet, Josephus uses this word to refer
to many other notable (and purely human) figures.
Josephus also uses the description of Jesus'
miracles as wonderful [astonishing, surprising]
works. Lastly, Josephus refers to Christianity as a
tribe- just like he does many other times in
reference to both major and minor sects.
2: Once the disputed words (printed in regular font
in the above passage) are removed, Josephus'
though process flows just as well. This lends
credence to the possibility the passage wasn't
wholly interpolated but perhaps altered. When we
omit the disputed words, the passage seems
consistent with what an orthodox Jew would say
concerning Jesus:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise 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. And when Pilate, at the suggestion
of the principal men among us, had condemned him
to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not
forsake him. And the tribes of Christians so named
from him are not extinct at this day."
3: Greek and Arabic translations of the
Testimonium contain disclaimers preceding the
suspicious declarations such as "Jesus who was
believed to be the Christ" and "It has been
reported that He appeared to them alive again on
the third day." If anything, this could lead to the
speculation that Christian authors did not add to the
text but edited it by deleting the disclaimers!
4: The earliest versions of Antiquities contain the
passage as it is presented above. Objection: The
earliest surviving copy dates from 10th century
A.D. (plenty of time from the publication of
Antiquities to alter or interpolate the passage).
Answer: This is true. We do not have an extant
copy of Antiquities dating from before 10th century
A.D. What we do have however, is several citations
of this passage by other authors prior to the 10th
century).
5: Many defenders of the Testimonium's
authenticity speculate that if it had been wholly
interpolated by a Christian, they most likely would
have inserted the passage next to the John the
Baptist references. Though I understand their
reasoning, I feel this argument is based on
conjecture instead of evidence. The alleged
Christian forger could have had just as much
reason to insert this passage next to the John
passage, the Pilate passage, or the James passage.
1: The vocabulary found in the Testimonium is
consistent with the vocabulary used in other
passages in Antiquities. The phrase Now about this
time is used at the beginning of this passage as well
dozens of other passages. It's also doubtful a
Christian forger would have referred to Jesus as
simply a wise man but then go on to assert claims
of His divinity. Yet, Josephus uses this word to refer
to many other notable (and purely human) figures.
Josephus also uses the description of Jesus'
miracles as wonderful [astonishing, surprising]
works. Lastly, Josephus refers to Christianity as a
tribe- just like he does many other times in
reference to both major and minor sects.
2: Once the disputed words (printed in regular font
in the above passage) are removed, Josephus'
though process flows just as well. This lends
credence to the possibility the passage wasn't
wholly interpolated but perhaps altered. When we
omit the disputed words, the passage seems
consistent with what an orthodox Jew would say
concerning Jesus:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise 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. And when Pilate, at the suggestion
of the principal men among us, had condemned him
to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not
forsake him. And the tribes of Christians so named
from him are not extinct at this day."
3: Greek and Arabic translations of the
Testimonium contain disclaimers preceding the
suspicious declarations such as "Jesus who was
believed to be the Christ" and "It has been
reported that He appeared to them alive again on
the third day." If anything, this could lead to the
speculation that Christian authors did not add to the
text but edited it by deleting the disclaimers!
4: The earliest versions of Antiquities contain the
passage as it is presented above. Objection: The
earliest surviving copy dates from 10th century
A.D. (plenty of time from the publication of
Antiquities to alter or interpolate the passage).
Answer: This is true. We do not have an extant
copy of Antiquities dating from before 10th century
A.D. What we do have however, is several citations
of this passage by other authors prior to the 10th
century).
5: Many defenders of the Testimonium's
authenticity speculate that if it had been wholly
interpolated by a Christian, they most likely would
have inserted the passage next to the John the
Baptist references. Though I understand their
reasoning, I feel this argument is based on
conjecture instead of evidence. The alleged
Christian forger could have had just as much
reason to insert this passage next to the John
passage, the Pilate passage, or the James passage.
 |
 |
| _________________________________________________________________________________ |
ARGUMENTS AGAINST AUTHENTICITY
1: This passage seems to interrupt the continuity of
Josephus' thought process in the previous and
subsequent verses. Answer: Interruptions are
frequently found in Josephus' works since he
composed his histories during different sittings.
Furthermore, Josephus was known to use the
assistance of scribes during his writings which could
easily resolve this issue.
2: The passage contains proclamations an orthodox
Jew would not make such as Jesus being the Christ.
Answer: In other translations (Greek and Arabic)
the suspicious statements contain disclaimers such
as "Jesus who was believed to be the Christ" and
"It has been reported..." This presents the theory
Josephus was recording the beliefs regarding Jesus
and not necessarily his personal opinion (as a
responsible historian should do).
3: Early Christian authors like Origen and Justin
Martyr do not mention this passage in their writings.
Answer: I'm not sure what the motive is behind this
objection because Origen does reference the other
passage by Josephus yet critics claim the reference
is "too late" to be reliable! But, for argument's sake
if we assume this passage did exist in the form most
scholars believe it did, the early church fathers
might not have felt the need to refer to it. The
[original?] passage serves as evidence for the
historicity of Jesus- a topic not hotly debated at this
point as the burden of proof revolved around His
divinity. Objection: Origen attests to the historicity
of John the Baptist in his work Contra Celsus when it
wasn't even being debated. He could have cited this
passage too. Answer: In Origen's Contra Celsus the
divinity of Jesus was being debated- not his
existence. Though Josephus allegedly admits to
Jesus performing miracles, he does not state how. It
would have made no sense for Origen to cite the
Testimonium since it doesn't either dispute or
confirm Celsus' claims. Furthermore, even if the
original Antiquities still existed in Josephus' own
handwriting, critics would say he either drew his
information from Christian sources or was to late to
be considered reliable!
4: Josephus' Jewish Wars also contains this passage
so it must be a forgery. Answer: This is false- the
Testimonium is not found in the Jewish Wars. To the
contrary- Skeptics criticize that the Testimonium is
not found in The Wars but should have been!
5: Josephus should have written more regarding
Jesus if the passage was genuine. Answer: What
topic or how much an author writes about a topic is
their prerogative. Also, since Josephus believed
Jesus was just another messianic pretender and
false prophet, it would have made little sense for
Josephus to have written volumes concerning His
life and actions. It would be similar to a modern a
Christian author exhaustively recording the life of
Jim Jones or David Koresh. Josephus most likely
held Jesus in the same regard and felt he warranted
little mention.
1: This passage seems to interrupt the continuity of
Josephus' thought process in the previous and
subsequent verses. Answer: Interruptions are
frequently found in Josephus' works since he
composed his histories during different sittings.
Furthermore, Josephus was known to use the
assistance of scribes during his writings which could
easily resolve this issue.
2: The passage contains proclamations an orthodox
Jew would not make such as Jesus being the Christ.
Answer: In other translations (Greek and Arabic)
the suspicious statements contain disclaimers such
as "Jesus who was believed to be the Christ" and
"It has been reported..." This presents the theory
Josephus was recording the beliefs regarding Jesus
and not necessarily his personal opinion (as a
responsible historian should do).
3: Early Christian authors like Origen and Justin
Martyr do not mention this passage in their writings.
Answer: I'm not sure what the motive is behind this
objection because Origen does reference the other
passage by Josephus yet critics claim the reference
is "too late" to be reliable! But, for argument's sake
if we assume this passage did exist in the form most
scholars believe it did, the early church fathers
might not have felt the need to refer to it. The
[original?] passage serves as evidence for the
historicity of Jesus- a topic not hotly debated at this
point as the burden of proof revolved around His
divinity. Objection: Origen attests to the historicity
of John the Baptist in his work Contra Celsus when it
wasn't even being debated. He could have cited this
passage too. Answer: In Origen's Contra Celsus the
divinity of Jesus was being debated- not his
existence. Though Josephus allegedly admits to
Jesus performing miracles, he does not state how. It
would have made no sense for Origen to cite the
Testimonium since it doesn't either dispute or
confirm Celsus' claims. Furthermore, even if the
original Antiquities still existed in Josephus' own
handwriting, critics would say he either drew his
information from Christian sources or was to late to
be considered reliable!
4: Josephus' Jewish Wars also contains this passage
so it must be a forgery. Answer: This is false- the
Testimonium is not found in the Jewish Wars. To the
contrary- Skeptics criticize that the Testimonium is
not found in The Wars but should have been!
5: Josephus should have written more regarding
Jesus if the passage was genuine. Answer: What
topic or how much an author writes about a topic is
their prerogative. Also, since Josephus believed
Jesus was just another messianic pretender and
false prophet, it would have made little sense for
Josephus to have written volumes concerning His
life and actions. It would be similar to a modern a
Christian author exhaustively recording the life of
Jim Jones or David Koresh. Josephus most likely
held Jesus in the same regard and felt he warranted
little mention.
After weighing the evidence for myself, I personally agree with the consensus of scholars that Josephus did make
some mention of Jesus in this passage but that the text was later altered. Because opinions differ so greatly, I
will leave the final conclusion up to the reader. For a more in-depth discussion on this topic, I suggest reading
this non-biased article which details both sides of the on-going debate (although this author believes the passage
was wholly interpolated).
We'll now examine the second passage given to us by Josephus. Fortunately, it is not surrounded in as much
controversy!
"So [Ananus] assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ,
whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered
them over to be stoned." Antiquities XX 9:1
Skeptic Interjection: Is it possible this passage was interpolated by early Christians?
Answer: It must be noted that no copy of Antiquities has ever surfaced without the above text quoted as it is
above. Critics are suspicious of the so-called Christ statement yet this reference (rather than the Christ) shows
Josephus was not condoning the belief but simply documenting it. Also, this passage concerns the actions of
the priest Ananus- Jesus and James were not even the primary focus of this verse! Lastly, this passage is cited in
other early works which attests to its authenticity.
Even if we dismiss the disputed words in Josephus' Testimonium, we still see he testifies to a number of things in
the above two passages:
- Jesus lived in the first century
- He performed wonderful works (miracles)
- Some believed Jesus to be the Christ
- He was a teacher
- He had many followers
- He was tried by Pilate
- He was crucified
- He was the founder of Christianity
- James was the brother of Jesus
THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD The Babylonian Talmud is an ancient record of Jewish history, laws, and rabbinic
teachings compiled throughout the centuries. Though it does not accept the divinity of Jesus, it confirms the belief
He was hanged (an idiom for crucifixion) on the eve of the Passover.
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu (Jesus) [Some texts: Yeshu/Jesus the Nazarene] was hanged [crucified].
Forty days before the execution, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has
practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come
forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of
the Passover."
Skeptic Interjection: How can we know the Talmud is documenting Jesus' existence and not only stating the
rumor surrounding a myth?
Answer: In the above excerpt the Talmud mentions Jesus' ability to perform miracles but tries to dismiss it as
sorcery. If the writers were simply refuting myth, they would most likely have dismissed the tale as a rumor- not
assign alternative theories to defend their position.
Skeptic Interjection: How can we know this passage is a reference to Jesus and not another individual with the
name Yeshu?
Answer: Though it is possible this passage could refer to another individual, we know Jesus was killed during the
Passover, we know He was crucified (a Jewish idiom for hanged), we know He was accused of practicing sorcery
by the pharisees (for His miracles), and He was ultimately arrested for the sin of blasphemy (enticing Israel to
apostasy). Furthermore, there are other translations which read Yeshu the Nazarene which give us even more
reason to believe this passage pertains to Jesus. On the other hand, a very thorough article which debates the
Talmudic passages believed to refer to Jesus may be read here.
FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS (37 - 100 A.D.) Josephus was a first century pharisee and historian of both priestly and
royal ancestry who provided important insight into first-century Judaism. Josephus was born only three years
after the crucifixion of Jesus, making him a credible witness to the historicity of Jesus.
"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 the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men
among 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 tribes of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."
Antiquities XVIII, 3:2
Skeptic Interjection: Could this passage have been altered or interpolated by early Christian authors?
Answer: Some think this passage is a complete interpolation while some believe the passage is authentic.
However, the general consensus among scholars is that Josephus most likely made some sort of mention to
Jesus but that the original text became distorted over time. Because this passage is a source of great debate, we
will touch on a few of the arguments presented by both sides:
| _________________________________________________________________________________ |
 |  |  |  |  |
| Bookmark Us (Ctrl + d) |
