Newbold College
Department of Theological Studies

EVALUATION OF TESTIMONIUM
FLAVIANUM

Assignment

Presented in the

 Fulfilment of the Requirements

 of the Course BDBS 210 Studies of the Gospels

By

 Allan Falk

November 2005

ASSIGNMENT

How to evaluate the Testimonium Flavianum?

INTRODUCTION

The fact that the Roman or Jewish records only have one or two accounts supporting the historicity of Jesus Christ makes them very interesting. In this paper I will try to give a brief history of the most important account, Testimonium Flavianum found in Antiquitates Judaicae book eighteen chapter three, best preserved for us in Codex Palatinus and Codex Ambrosianus.[1] After that I will try to describe part of the discussion fore and against its authenticity. Doing this I will introduce the opinion of some scholars. Finally I will give my own evaluation.

 THE AUTHOR

The author Flavius Josephus was born in Jerusalem A. D. 37 and given the name Josephus ben Mattathias. He was out of priestly family and joined the Pharisees at the age of nineteen. Under the revolt in 64 he became commander-in-chief in Galilee, and was later captured by Vespasian, who restored him to liberty in A. D. 69 giving him his own name Flavianus. After that he was with Titus under the destruction of the Holy City probably acting as a translator. Back in Rome he devoted himself to the writing of the famous works, the “Jewish War” and the “Jewish Antiquities”. He ended his life under the reign of Trajan around 101. During his life he adopted to a culture mixed in between Jewish and pagan.[2]

 HISTORY OF THE TESTIMONIUM

Here I will only present the events, which have value for the evaluation made in this paper.   In A. D. 93 the Jewish Antiquities was published in Rome.[3]

        Origen living from c. 230 to 250 cited the less important mention of Jesus in Book 20, but not the Testimonium in Book 18. According to Origen, Josephus did not believe in Jesus.[4]

        Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Cæserea living from c. 260 to 341[5] quoted the testimonium as we know it today.

        In the 10th century Bishop Agapius of Hierapolis[6] quoted a version of the Testimonium with less Christian elements. This document was not known before 1971.[7]

        In the 16th century Hubert van Giffen was the first Christian scholar to declare the Testimonium a forgery.[8]

        In 1737 Whiston William published his translation of the works of Josephus, and argued for the authenticity of the Testimonium.[9]

        From the 18th century and onwards the discussion have continued, the majority of scholars arguing that the text we know today can not be fully authentic.

        In brief it can be said, that from the time Eusebius wrote the Historia ecclesiastica and until Baronius wrote the Annales Ecclesiatici, there was not doubt about the authenticity of the Testimonium. As late as the 17th century some theologians still believed that Josephus was divinely inspired.[10]

    TRANSLATION

The translation of the Testimonium here presented, is done by the author of this paper, and should only be taken as a humble attempt by a theology student.

“And it happened at this time Jesus a wise man, if (we) ought to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of men receiving truth (with) pleasure, and indeed many Jews, and also many of the Greek (drew) towards (him); This (man) was Christ. And (when) the first men among us pointed him out to a cross condemned by Pilate (it) did not stop the first followers. For having appeared to them (the) third day again living (as) the divine prophets (had) spoken of and an innumerable host of wonderful things. And to now the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not been extinct.”[11]

 FOR AND AGAINST

The main arguments for authenticity are as follows:[12]

1)      The Testimonium is in all known manuscripts.

2)      It is quoted in full by Eusebius.

3)      The more accepted reference in Book 20 suggests that Jesus should have been mentioned earlier in the Antiquities.

4)      The vocabulary and style resembles Josephus work in general.

5)      Only that one passage in the Antiquities has been questioned, therefore the burden of proof rests on the sceptics.

I will only mention one of the arguments against the Testimonium here, because several of them will be mentioned in more detail in the next sections. However the main argument is that, the Testimonium has a Christian content which could not have been written by a Jewish writer, and therefore it might be an interpolation.

 EISLER’S HOSTILITY HYPOTESIS

In brief Eisler suggests that Josephus has originally written something which was hostile towards Jesus, and therefore the Christians preserving the writings deleted some of the original text. Based on that, he has suggested the following reconstruction:

        “Now about this time arose an occasion for new disturbances, a certain Jesus, a wizard
        of a man, if indeed he may be called a man, who was the most monstrous of men,
        whom his disciples call a son of God, as having done wonders such as no man has ever
        done....   He was in fact a teacher of astonishing tricks to such men as accept the
        abnormal with delight.... And he seduced many Jews and many also of the Greek
        nation, and was regarded by them as the Messiah.... And when, on the indictment of
        the principal men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to the cross, still those who
        before had admired him did not cease to rave. For it seemed to them that having been
        dead for three days, he had appeared to them alive again, as the divinely-inspired
        prophets had foretold -- these and ten thousand other wonderful things -- concerning
        him. And even now the race of those who are called 'Messianists' after him is not
        extinct.”[13]

The italicised passages are words Eisler suggests might have been deleted.

 AGAPIUS VERSION

In 1971 S. Pines made public an Arabic version of the Testimonium written by bishop Agapius of Hierapolis in the 10th century.[14] It read like this:    “At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”[15]

 This version differed from the traditional text as follows:

1)      It is not hinting to Jesus divinity or messiah ship.

2)      Jesus resurrection is referred to as a report not a fact.

3)      Jesus miracles are not mentioned.

4)      The Jewish are not involved in condemning or killing Jesus.

After the appearance of this text two major solutions have been suggested, one that this is the authentic form of the Testimonium, two that this is the result of a three cornered contest concerning the truth.[16] In other words this version might have been formed this way because of an Islamic context.[17]

MEIER’S RECONSTRUCTION

The position of John P. Meier is that the Testimonium has a core substance which is written by Josephus. One of his arguments is, that the short mention of Jesus in Book 20, suggests that Jesus has been introduced before in the Antiquities. Secondly he believes that three Christian flavoured sentences have been interpolated. His argument is that the text flows even better when they are removed, and the core text has the style of Josephus. And more important the text appearing after the removal fits in the mouth of a Jew. The text would read like this:

        "At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, 
         a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following
         both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because
        of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross,
        those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very
        day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."[18]

Looking at the three sentences Meier suspect to be interpolated, it is seen that they have some Christian substance, they read like this:

1)      if indeed one should call him a man. (Maybe a Christian explaining that Jesus was more
         than a wise man)

2)      He was the Messiah. (A Christian profession of faith)

3)      For he appeared to them on thee third day, living again, just as the divine prophets
        had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things; about him.
        (Also a Christian profession of faith)

 T HE TESTIMONIUM AND LUKE

In 1995 it was discovered that there was a great similarity between the Testimonium and the “Emmaus” narrative in Luk 24. 19 and onwards. The suggestion is that both Luk and Josephus used the same source. Apart from the fact that the two passages have a similar content, it is interesting that Luke does not have the first two “interpolations”. This might help to identify the original text. Let us compare the three passages from Luk, the Testimonium and the Arabic Version, concerning the three suspected interpolations.[19]

 Interpolation

Looking at this comparison, there seems to be some indication suggesting that there might have been a common source for all three writings. It is also possible to identify at least two possible interpolations.

DID EUSEBIUS WRITE IT?

K. A. Olson proposes that the entire Testimonium was originally written by Eusebius. Later it was simply taken by Christian scribes from the Historia ecclesiastica and put into Josephus writings. Let me summarise some of his reasons:[20]

1) Eusebius is the first one to cite the Testimonium, which he does first in the
   Demonstratio, then in the Historia ecclesiastica and finally in Theophania.

2) It was not cited for at least a hundred years after Eusebius.

3) The Arabic version is probably taken from a Syriac version of the Theophania.

4) It can explain way Jesus is mentioned before John the Baptist in the writings of
   Josephus.

5) The style of writing is more Eusebius that Josephus.

 THE AUTHORS IMPRESSION

 When I read through the entire chapter three in Book 20 of the Jewish Antiquities, I realised that the first and the last narrative both dealt with major clashes between the Roman authority and the Jewish. My questions were:

1) What are the testimony about Jesus and the story about Pauline doing in between?
2) Are there any connection between Jesus virgin birth and Pauline’s night with the god in
    the Temple?
3) Were Josephus trying to ridicule the Christians? As C. Pharr suggests.[21]

 CONCLUSION

Having been through all these arguments regarding the Testimonium, I sense that it is difficult or impossible to know the entire truth concerning the passage concerned. I also realise that my evaluation will be added to a host of evaluations already done, and therefore not be of great value. However my evaluation concludes the following: 1) Josephus have probably not written the passage exactly the way we know it today. There have most probably been inserted something by later Christians. 2) The similarity between Luke and the Testimonium supports Josephus as the writer, because Eusebius would as a Christian not have written something that close to Luke.

        Having realised that we will not have absolute certainty about the historicity of Jesus, I am reminded of Jesus word to Thomas. "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."[22]

Bibliography                                                                                                                                      

Bammel, Ernst, A New variant Form of the Testimonium flavianum,
        In Expository Times Feb 1974, pp. 145-147.

Bell, Albert A., Josephus the Satirist? in Jewish Quarterly Review ns 67 no 1 JI 1976, pp. 16-22.

Catholich Encyclopedia, (http://www.newadvent.org).

Early Christian Writings, (htpp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html).

Eisler, Robert, trans. by Krappe, Alexander H., The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist,        (http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/eisler.htm).

Goldberg, G. J., Josephus’ Account of Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum,        (http://homepages.which.net/~radical.faith/background/josephusonjesus.htm).

Humm, Alan, Josephus on Jesus,  
        (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html).

Josephus Mail and FAQ, (http://members.aol.com/F1Josephus2/MailAndFAQ.htm).

Meier, John P., The testimonium: evidence for Jesus outside the Bible
In Bible Review June 1991, pp. 20-25, 45.

Olson K. A., Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum,
in Catholic Biblical Quarterly Apr 1999, pp. 305-322.

The Works of Josephus, trans. by Whiston, William, (Philadelphia: David McKay).

Wallace-Hadrill, D. S., Eusebius of Caesarea and the Testimonium Flavianum,
In Jurnal of ecclesiastical History Oct 1974, pp. 353-362.

[1] Josephus Mail and FAQ, (http://members.aol.com/F1Josephus2/MailAndFAQ.htm).

[2] Catholich Encyclopedia, (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm).

[3] Goldberg, G. J., Josephus’ Account of Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum,

        (http://homepages.which.net/~radical.faith/background/josephusonjesus.htm) p. 2.

[4] Goldberg, G. J., Josephus’ Account of Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum, p. 3.

[5] Catholich Encyclopedia, (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm).

[6] Bammel, Ernst, A New variant Form of the Testimonium flavianum,

        In Expository Times Feb 1974, p. 145.

[7] Goldberg, G. J., Josephus’ Account of Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum, p. 3.

[8] Eisler, Robert, trans. by Krappe, Alexander H., The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist,

        (http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/eisler.htm) p. 4.

[9] Goldberg, G. J., Josephus’ Account of Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum, p. 3.

[10] Eisler, Robert, trans. by Krappe, Alexander H., The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist, pp. 2-3.

[11] (Translated from the Greek, or "vulgate, “  text by John P. Meier)

 "At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned hint to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on thee third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things; about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."

(Translated from the original Greek by William Whiston)

“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 tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

[12] Goldberg, G. J., Josephus’ Account of Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum, p. 2.

[13] Eisler, Robert, trans. by Krappe, Alexander H., The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist, p. 6.

[14] Bammel, Ernst, A New variant Form of the Testimonium flavianum,
In Expository Times Feb 1974, p. 145.

[15] Bammel, Ernst, A New variant Form of the Testimonium flavianum,
In Expository Times Feb 1974, p. 145.

[16] Christendom, Judaism and Islam.

[17] Bammel, Ernst, A New variant Form of the Testimonium flavianum,
In Expository Times Feb 1974, p.147.

[18] Meier, John P., The testimonium: evidence for Jesus outside the Bible,
In Bible Review June 1991, p. 23.

[19] Goldberg, G. J., Josephus’ Account of Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum, p. 5.

[20] Olson K. A., Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum,

         in Catholic Biblical Quarterly Apr 1999, pp. 305-322.

[21] Bell, Albert A., Josephus the Satirist? in Jewish Quarterly Review ns 67 no 1 JI 1976, pp. 16-22.

[22] John 20. 29

Del siden