Here is the third appearance of 'Josephus' in one of the surviving narratives:
They indeed paid the punishments of their crimes, who after they had crucified Jesus the judge of divine matters, afterwards even persecuted his disciples. However a great part of the Jews, and very many of the gentiles believed in him, since they were attracted by his moral precepts, by works beyond human capability flowing forth. For whom not even his death put an end to their faith and gratitude, on the contrary it increased their devotion. And so they brought in murderous bands and conducted the originator of life to Pilatus to be killed, they began to press the reluctant judge. In which however Pilatus is not absolved, but the madness of the Jews is piled up, because he was not obliged to judge, whom not at all guilty he had arrested, nor to double the sacrilege to this murder, that by those he should be killed who had offered himself to redeem and heal them. About which the Jews themselves bear witness, Josephus a writer of histories saying, that there was in that time a wise man, if it is proper however, he said, to call a man the creator of marvelous works, who appeared living to his disciples after three days of his death in accordance with the writings of the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him from which began the community of Christians and penetrated into every tribe of men nor has any nation of the Roman world remained, which was left without worship of him. If the Jews don't believe us, they should believe their own people. Josephus said this, whom they themselves think very great, but it is so that he was in his own self who spoke the truth otherwise in mind, so that he did not believe his own words. But he spoke because of loyalty to history, because he thought it a sin to deceive, he did not believe because of stubbornness of heart and the intention of treachery. He does not however prejudge the truth because he did not believe but he added more to his testimony, because although disbelieving and unwilling he did not refuse. In which the eternal power of Jesus Christ shone bright because even the leaders of the synagogue confessed him to be god whom they had seized for death. And truly as god speaking without limitation of persons or any fear of death he announced also the future destruction of the temple. But the damage of the temple did not move them, but because they were chastized by him in scandal and sacrilege, from this their wrath flared up that they should kill him, whom no ages had held. For while others had earned by praying to do what they did, he had it in his power that he could order all things what he wished to be done. John the Baptist a holy man, who never placed the truth of salvation in second place, had been killed before the death of Jesus. Finally to all things which he taught to be full of righteousness, with which he invited the Jews to the worship of god, he had instituted baptism for the sake of purification of mind and body. For whom freedom was the cause of his death, because he was unable, the law having violated of the right of fraternal marriage, to endure the wife abducted from a brother by Herod. For when this same Herod was travelling to Rome, having entered the house of his brother for the purpose of lodging, the wife to whom was Herodias the daughter of Aristobolus, the sister of king Agrippa, unmindful of nature he dared to solicit her, that the brother having been left behind she should marry him, when he had returned from the city of Rome, with the consent of the woman an agreement of lewdness having been entered into information of which thing came to the daughter of king Areta still remaining in marriage of Herod. She indignant at her rival insinuated to her returning husband that he should go to the town Macherunta which was in the boundaries of king Petreus and Herod. He who suspected nothing, at the same time because he had impaired the whole state around the same, by which he could more easily keep the faith of the agreement to Herodias if he should get rid of his wife, agreed to her diversion. But she when he came near to her father's kingdom revealed the things learned to her father Areta, who by an ambush attacked and completely destroyed in a battle the entire force of Herod, the betrayal having been made through those, who from the people of Philippus the tetrarch had associated themselves to Herod. Whence Herod took the quarrel to Caesar, but the vengeance ordered by Caesar the anger of god took away, for in the very preparation of war the death of Caesar was announced. And we discover this assessed by the Jews and believed, the author Josephus a suitable witness against himself, that not by the treachery of men but by the arousing of god Herod lost his army and indeed rightly on account of the vengeance of John the Baptist a just man who had said to him: it is not permitted you to have that wife. But we construe this thusly as if in their own people the Jews preserved their lawful rights, among whom the power of the high priest had perished and the avarice of those killed and the arrogance of the powerful, who thought the right to do what they wished was permitted to them. For from the beginning Aaron was the chief priest, who transmitted to his sons by the will of god and a lawful anointing the prerogative of the priesthood, by whom by the order of succession are constituted those exercising the chief command of the priesthood. Whence by the custom of our fathers it became valid for no one to become the foremost of the priests, unless he was from the blood of Aaron, to whom the first law of this method of the priesthood was entrusted. It is not permitted to succeed to a man of another descent even if a king. Finally Ozias, because he seized the office of the priesthood, overspread with leprosy ejected from the temple, he spent the rest of his life without authority. And without doubt he was a good king, but it was not permitted to him to usurp the office of religion.[Hegesippus 2.12]
This is one of the most important references in the series because of its connection with the whole Testimonium Flavianum which is cited here almost exactly as many scholars have supposed it might have appeared in the 'original Josephus.'
Andrew Criddle has written about this already in a number of places. Here is what I dug up today on the web:
Pseudo-Hegesippus is of interest in providing (in book 2 chapter 12) a version of the Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus’ account of Christ) which is unlikely to be directly or indirectly influenced by Eusebius:
About which the Jews themselves bear witness, Josephus a writer of histories saying, that there was in that time a wise man, if it is proper however, he said, to call a man the creator of marvelous works, who appeared living to his disciples after three days of his death in accordance with the writings of the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him. from which began the community of Christians and penetrated into every tribe of men nor has any nation of the Roman world remained, which was left without worship of him. If the Jews don't believe us, they should believe their own people. Josephus said this, whom they themselves think very great, but it is so that he was in his own self who spoke the truth otherwise in mind, so that he did not believe his own words. But he spoke because of loyalty to history, because he thought it a sin to deceive, he did not believe because of stubbornness of heart and the intention of treachery. He does not however prejudge the truth because he did not believe but he added more to his testimony, because although disbelieving and unwilling he did not refuse.
Now I want everyone to know that I still have inner doubts about the idea that the historical Josephus ever referenced Jesus. I am sure there are many people here do too. Nevertheless, what the evidence must guide our research and the fact that 'second century Josephus' knows a version of the Testimonium Flavianum which appears in our received text of Jewish Antiquities is a far bitterer pill for those arguing that the received texts of the Josephan corpus come directly from a 'first century Josephus.'
I get the feeling that some people are having difficulty with this matryoshka doll concept I am presenting. So let me try and spell it out again.
The question here is whether the common ancestor to Jewish War and Hegesippus represents 'first century Josephus' speaking or Clement of Alexandria's 'Josephus the Jew' who wrote in the tenth year of the reign of Antoninus Pius (i.e. 147 CE). I think the evidence weighs especially heavily in favor of the latter proposition and that Eusebius or some fourth century figure not only transformed the Testimonium Flavianum but also systematically removed the original narrator - 'second century Josephus' - thereby strengthening the value and the credibility of the narrative.
The reason for this is that Origen - whose claims about 'Josephus' undoubtedly the same 'Josephus' known through a common manuscript shared with Clement - specifically states that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ" [Comm. Matt. 10.17] Moreover Criddle points us to another argument that strengthens this suggestion:
Quote:
| I came across an interesting argument by William Whiston in his Dissertation The Testimonies of Josephus…Vindicated (Dissertation 1 in the Appendix to the unabridged Whiston edition of Josephus.) It argues from Origen’s Commentary on Matthew that Origen was aware of the phrase if it be lawful to call him a man The relevant passage is Book 10 chapter 17 of Origen’s Commentary on Matthew. Origen is commenting on Matthew 13 54-56 Jesus teaches in the Synagogue at Nazareth so that they were astonished and said “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works ? Is not this the carpenter’s son ? Is not his mother called Mary ? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas ? And are not all his sisters with us ? Where then did this man get all this ?” Origen discusses Jesus’ family and in the process quotes Josephus on James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ adding that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ. Origen then goes on to say And perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning him that Jesus was not a man but something diviner. Whiston argues that this idea of Jesus being something diviner than a man so resembles the phrase in the the TF as to suggest that Origen, having just previously referred to Josephus on James and Jesus, has it in mind. I would add that there is nothing in the pericope from Matthew to suggest the inference Origen draws. English translations may obscure this by saying Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works ? but there is nothing in the Greek here specifically corresponding to man in the English translation. |
So let us concede the possibility that Origen does know a form of the Testimonium Flavianum. The two elements just mentioned fit perfectly within the context of the surviving material in Hegesippus which as I have noted are in turn undoubtedly more purely connected with Clement's second century 'Josephus the Jew' writing in 147 CE than our existing Josephan corpus which was clearly edited by Eusebius or someone like Eusebius living in the fourth century.
This is a major development when you really think of it. All that Whiston's argument does is lead to yet another confirmation that the Alexandrian tradition had a text which was intimately related to the fourth century 'Hegesippus' manuscript. Indeed let's look again at what 'second century Josephus' does with the testimony he has in front of him from 'first century Josephus.' He writes that:
that there was in that time a wise man, if it is proper however, he said, to call a man the creator of marvelous works, who appeared living to his disciples after three days of his death in accordance with the writings of the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him from which began the community of Christians and penetrated into every tribe of men nor has any nation of the Roman world remained, which was left without worship of him. If the Jews don't believe us, they should believe their own people. Josephus said this, whom they themselves think very great, but it is so that he was in his own self who spoke the truth otherwise in mind, so that he did not believe his own words. But he spoke because of loyalty to history, because he thought it a sin to deceive, he did not believe because of stubbornness of heart and the intention of treachery. He does not however prejudge the truth because he did not believe but he added more to his testimony, because although disbelieving and unwilling he did not refuse.
Some obvious things which might have escaped most people's eyes (heavy as they are with inherited prejudices) is that 'second century Josephus' does not report that 'first century Josephus' specifically identifies this figure as 'Jesus.' He is just 'a wise man' who had 'disciples' and who 'appeared living' after 'three days of his death' and whose miracles represent the beginning of 'the community of Christians.' I won't distract readers with my own theories but the gospels do specifically mention 'disciples of John' who in the Marcionite recension at least do not seem to belong to our familiar 'John the Baptist.' It is worth noting that Origen and many other fathers point to a subtext involving John the disciple. The multiplication of loaves miracle especially references a youth who seems to be involved in the working of the miracle. The Coptic tradition seems equally convinced that Mark who is called John is hidden throughout the narrative bolstered by the idea behind the Muratorian canon's claim that Mark was present at all the things he reported. The Coptic tradition thinks strangely that Mark was also present at miracles reported in other gospels. One can also see that the disciples didn't recognize the resurrected figure until he demonstrates 'the marks of Christ' on his body.
In any event, I don't want to get too distracted so for the present moment we need only note that our received texts of Josephus are further removed from the original version of the Testimonium Flavianum than our copies of the Hegesippus. The Hegesippus knows the original reading known to Origen - i.e. a reference which (a) does not identify Jesus as the Christ but which (b) has an ambiguous reference to a wise man who had disciples, did miracles and ultimately showed himself living after three days of death.
How can people continue to laugh at the Hegesippus?
One more thing, which may be of interest. Second century Josephus clearly did not have Jewish Antiquities and yet he cites this variant Testimonium Flavianum which resembles the form most scholars think is original Josephus. Second century Josephus thinks the Testimonium appeared in first century Josephus's lost original narrative of his role in the Jewish War. It was removed from our 'corrected' fourth century version of Jewish War which has since become our accepted text. This demonstrates above all else that Jewish Antiquities served as a 'junk yard' for problematic passages in the original Jewish War even those with connection to Christianity - such as references to 'John the Baptist' (Jewish Antiquities Book 18) and 'James the brother of Jesus (Jewish Antiquities Book 20) - once again confirming the original hypothesis that our Jewish War was purified of Christian references rather than representing any thing resembling the original edition of 'first century Josephus.'
The proposed order of development again of the Jewish War material:
1. lost Aramaic manuscript of first century Josephus's Jewish War
2. lost second century manuscript of second century Josephus's reworking of that text with a Christian spin.
3. Pseudo-Hegesippus which is a version of (2) albeit corrected to some extent
4. the received text of Jewish War which represents a wholesale neutering of anything related to Christianity AND the presence of 'second century Josephus' from (2).
