Christ Myth Theory - Context - Argument From Silence - Josephus

Josephus

Louis Feldman argues that the writings of the 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Josephus (37 – c.100) contain two references to Jesus. One of them, Josephus' allusion in The Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94) to the death of James, describes James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ", provides alleged attestation independent of the early Christian community; however several scholars have pointed out the end of the passage seems to identify this Jesus as the son of Damneus and that he was made high priest. It has also been pointed out this account dates the event to c.64 CE while the accounts regarding the death of James given by Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Early Christian tradition all date the event to c70 CE.

Two manuscripts located in the Bibliothèque nationale de France by John of Damascus entitled "On the Orthodox Faith" contain references to Josephus describing the appearance of Jesus: "...since also Josephus the Jew, as some say... records in the same way that the Lord appeared with joined eyebrows, beautiful eyes, a long aspect, both humped over and well grown."; this passage is no longer included in current translations of John of Damascus. Andrew of Crete added that Josephus "also describes the appearance of the Mother of God", showing that Christian interpolations existed within the manuscripts of Josephus prior to the eleventh century.

During the seventeenth century it was "alleged that Thomas Gale of Cambridge had large Greek fragments of Josephus not in the textus receptus: we do not know what became of them, and we are left to wonder whether their suppression was not deliberate."

The fuller reference to Jesus contained in our existing manuscripts, the famous and disputed passage known as the Testimonium Flavianum, considered by many specialists to contain later interpolations, is nevertheless believed by some scholars to preserve an original comment regarding Jesus as well, although there has been no consensus on which portions of it have been altered, or to what degree, with different scholars presenting their own independent versions of the Testimonium.

John Remsburg in his 1909 book The Christ presents many notable scholars of his day such as Rev. Dr. Giles, Rev. S. Baring-Gould, Dr. Chalmers, Dean Milman, Canon Farrar, Theodor Keim, Adolph Hausrath, Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, and Alexander Campbell, who rejected the Testimonium Flavianum in whole or in part. Of the phrase "who was called the Christ" he says: "(n)early all the authorities that I have quoted reject it" and claims "(t)o identify the James of Josephus with James the Just, the brother of Jesus, is to reject the accepted history of the primitive church which declares that James the Just died in 69 A.D., seven years after the James of Josephus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrin." Remsburg then states "The fact that the early fathers, who were acquainted with Josephus, and who would have hailed with joy even this evidence of Christ's existence, do not cite it, while Origen expressly declares that Josephus has not mentioned Christ, is conclusive proof that it did not exist until the middle of the third century or later."

Similarly in The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (1912) Arthur Drews stated: "(i)n the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius (about 300 A.D., Ecclesiast. Hist., 1, 11). Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus" as proof that both the "who was called Christ" phrase and the Testimonium Flavianum were interpolations.

Several scholars have pointed out that even if the "who was called Christ" phrase was genuine there are still many interpretations that make it useless as evidence. Drews in The Witness to the Historicity of Jesus says "brother" could have just mean the James referred to here belonged to a sect that venerated a Messiah called Jesus. Similarly Mason in Josephus and the New Testament admits that Christ simply means "wetted" or anointed, and this was the practice by which kings and high priests of Israel were installed (per Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1), and this could have simply been a nickname rather than a title. Logically this means that the "who was called Christ" could refer to Jesus son of Damneus and have no connection to the Jesus of the Bible.

G. A. Wells has noted that the Testimonium was unknown to Origen, stating "Origen could not have known it because in his polemic against Celsus he professes admiration for Josephus 'although he did not believe in Jesus as Christ', whereas in the interpolated passage Josephus is made expressly to say of Jesus 'he was the Christ'." Wells further observed that "Origen's comments on Josephus' mention of James do not square with the passage on James from the Antiquities of the Jews," adding "the passage about James that is in the extant manuscripts of Josephus does not link his murder with the siege of Jerusalem."

Contemporary Biblical scholars like John P. Meier argue part of the reason why the passages about Christianity in Josephus are authentic is because they exist in all relevant manuscripts – Clare K. Rothschild (Associate Professor of Theology at Lewis University) has censured this argument on the basis that "the earliest manuscript dates from the eleventh century", the Ambrosianus 370 (F 128) being the earliest; preserved in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan. Clare Rothschild has also cited the account by J. Spencer Kennard, who wrote "that Thomas Gale of Cambridge had large Greek fragments of Josephus not in the textus receptus: we do not know what became of them, and we are left to wonder whether their suppression was not deliberate."