Who was Flavius Josephus?
Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian, born Joseph ben Mattathias in Jerusalem in 37 CE. He lived through the turbulent period of the First Jewish-Roman War (66-73 CE), initially fighting against the Romans but later defecting and becoming a Roman citizen. He adopted the name Flavius Josephus in honor of his patron, the Roman Emperor Vespasian. Josephus is known for his two main works: The Jewish War (written around 75 CE), which details the events of the war, and Antiquities of the Jews (written around 93-94 CE), which is a comprehensive history of the Jewish people from creation to his own time.
The Testimonium Flavianum: A Centerpiece of the Debate
The primary text cited in discussions about Josephus and Jesus is the Testimonium Flavianum (the “Testimony of Flavius”), found in Antiquities of the Jews (18.3.3). Here’s the passage in its commonly cited form:
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. For he appeared to them on the third day restored to life, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.”
This passage, if authentic, would be a powerful, even “shocking,” contemporary affirmation of Jesus’ life, miracles, messianic identity, crucifixion, resurrection, and the existence of the early Christian movement. However, the problem is that virtually no scholar today believes this passage is entirely genuine. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that it has been interpolated, or added to, by a Christian scribe at a later date.
Why the Testimonium Flavianum is Considered Forged or Amended:
Christian Language and Tone: The passage employs overtly Christian language, particularly the phrase “he was the Messiah,” which would be highly improbable for a Jew like Josephus who never accepted Jesus as such. Also, phrases such as “he appeared to them on the third day restored to life” are distinctly Christian resurrection language not consistent with a neutral historian. Josephus would likely have referred to a ‘restoration to life’ using different terminology, or perhaps even outright dismissed it.
Incongruity with Josephus’s Other Writings: Throughout Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus shows little or no interest in the figure of Jesus or the emerging Christian movement. This is particularly odd given that Jesus was, according to the Gospels, a figure causing considerable stir during the time that Josephus was writing. If the passage in 18.3.3 was truly written by Josephus, it would make his silence elsewhere all the more conspicuous. It seems far more likely that the passage was introduced to fill this apparent lacuna.
Lack of Reference in Early Christian Writings: Despite the Testimonium’s powerful declaration about Jesus, the early Church Fathers and Christian historians do not cite it for centuries. The first documented citation is by Eusebius of Caesarea in the 4th century. Had the passage been present in the original copies of the Antiquities, it is extremely unlikely that it would have been absent from early Christian defenses of the faith.
Textual Variations: There are minor textual variations in different manuscripts of Antiquities, further suggesting that the passage has undergone alteration and modification. This is often the case with passages introduced to existing texts by scribes later on.
Josephus’s Purpose: Josephus was writing for a primarily Roman audience to showcase the history and culture of the Jewish people. His tone in Antiquities is very different from the overtly religious language of the Testimonium. It’s unlikely that such a blatant declaration of Christian faith would align with the purpose or the overall tone of the work.
The Probable History of the Testimonium Flavianum:
The generally accepted hypothesis is that the original Testimonium was likely a much shorter, less explicitly Christian mention of Jesus that was later embellished by a Christian scribe. A possible, reconstructed, original version of the Testimonium, devoid of its Christian additions might read:
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. He was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease.”
This truncated version is less overtly Christian and is more congruent with Josephus’ style and purpose in Antiquities. A later scribe would have embellished it, in order to create the full passage as we know it.
The “Shocking Letter” – Not a Letter at All
It is crucial to note that there is no evidence that Josephus ever wrote a letter specifically describing Jesus. The Testimonium is found within his larger historical work, Antiquities of the Jews, not in a separate letter or other document. The language of a “shocking letter” is a misrepresentation that has arisen from the desire to emphasize the significance of the passage. The existence of a separate, detailed letter penned by Josephus would, of course, be groundbreaking, but no credible historical source claims it exists.
Another, Potentially More Authentic, Reference to Jesus:
There is another passage in Antiquities of the Jews that mentions Jesus (20.9.1). This passage refers to the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” This passage is generally considered authentic, due to:
Its Incidental Nature: Unlike the Testimonium, this mention of Jesus is brief and incidental, occurring in the context of a discussion about James. This makes it less likely to be an interpolation, as the mention is not there to make a specific religious point.
Lack of Christian Language: The passage does not employ any overtly Christian language. Josephus simply refers to James as the brother of “Jesus, who was called Christ.”
Consistency with Historical Context: The existence of James as a leader of the early church in Jerusalem is well-attested to by other historical sources.
This second mention, while not as sensational, is more likely to be a genuine reference by Josephus and it is a valuable piece of external evidence concerning the existence of Jesus.
Why is the Testimonium Still a Source of Debate?
The Testimonium Flavianum continues to be debated because of:
Its Appeal to Believers: The idea that a contemporary, non-Christian historian like Josephus would affirm Jesus in such a powerful way is very appealing to some believers who desire external, non-biblical evidence for Jesus’ divinity.
Misinformation: Many online sources, especially those with a strong evangelical or apologetic bias, continue to propagate the myth of a genuine, unadulterated Testimonium.
The Lack of Complete Proof: While most scholars agree on the interpolation theory, the exact nature of the original text remains a matter of debate, meaning absolute certainty is impossible.
Conclusion
The notion of a “shocking letter” from Flavius Josephus perfectly describing Jesus is a misrepresentation. There is no such letter. The primary passage in question, the Testimonium Flavianum, is almost universally agreed by scholars to be at least partly, if not entirely, an interpolation by a later Christian scribe. While Josephus does make a passing, and more likely authentic, mention of Jesus in relation to his brother James, it is important to critically examine such texts, rather than simply accept claims without scrutiny.
The story of the Testimonium Flavianum underscores the importance of critical analysis, source evaluation, and an understanding of how texts evolve over time. It serves as a stark reminder that historical evidence is complex and that claims should always be scrutinized against the available evidence. While the Testimonium may not provide the unequivocal historical confirmation of Jesus that some might desire, it remains a significant, albeit problematic, piece in the larger puzzle of early Christianity. Understanding the complexities and debates around this passage are fundamental for any serious study of historical Christology and the history of the early Church.
