JOSEPHUS
COULD NOT DEFEND HIMSELF
Hugh
Christians
love to point out that Josephus, a Jew, wrote about Jesus, thereby validating
the historical existence of Jesus.
However,
the part in Flavius Josephus about Jesus was placed there much later, after
Josephus’ death, by Christians. The alleged Josephus' reference to Jesus in the
Testimonium Flavianum may
be translated from the Greek as follows:
"At this time there was Jesus, a
wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed
surprising works, (and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the
unusual. He stirred up both many Jews and many of Greeks. He was the Christ.
And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the
first-rate men among us, those who had been living (him from) the first did not
cease (to cause trouble), for he appeared to them on the third day, having life
again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous
things about him. And until now the tribe of Christians, so
named from him, is not (yet?) extinct." Flavius Josephus,
Antiquities of the Jews, Bk XVIII, Ch III, Sn 3
The knowledge here compresses the kerygma, the
earliest formulation of the Christian message by the author of the Gospel of
Mark and the apostle Paul. However, because it has an explicit acceptance of
Jesus as Messiah [Christ] and of his resurrection, almost all scholars believe
that this passage is a Christian interpolation AND thereby a forgery. There are some scholars who believe that
the core of it is original, and Christians added only the parts acknowledging
Jesus as Messiah and the reality of resurrection.
“Probably the most damning evidence against the Josephus passages is that the
two interpolated passages do not appear in Origen's
second-century version of Antiquities. Origin was locked in a fierce debate
with the Platonic philosopher Celsus over the merits
of Christianity in Origen Contra Celsum
(Origen against Celsus) and
although Origen quotes freely from Antiquities to
support Christianity, he never once used either of these passages instead
remarking that 'Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ.'" -
James Still, "Biblical and Extra-biblical Sources for Jesus"
"For
more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the
works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in
the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian,
Origen and Clement of Alexandria would have been
eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist.
Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly
affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first
appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian
of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was
its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the
faith, but who is known to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus
and several other writers, introduces this passage:" - Marshall J. Gauvin, "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?"
"Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may
be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of
Josephus the Jew for a further witness." - Eusebius, Evangelical
Demonstration, Book III., p.124
"Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage [Testimonium Flavianum]. It is
written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus.
Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor
importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong
argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing
to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows
that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it
room." Marshall J. Gauvin, "Did Jesus
Christ Really Live?"
After Josephus died, his writings were gone over by the early church with a
fine tooth and comb.
As
Eusebius was so famous of doing, there would be no doubt that any literature
that needed to be changed to justify the Church’s concept of Jesus would indeed
be changed, colored and flavored.
And
who were alive then that had knowledge of Josephus’ writings to challenge
Eusebius? Even Josephus couldn’t defend his own
writings.
So
using Josephus, to say anything about Jesus is scholarly absolutely not
valid.