narnia4 wrote:John Dominic Crossan isn't necessarily loved by conservative Christians, but he had this to say- "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."
I am not sure that Crossan’s conclusion can be drawn from what he wrote as evidence. As already stated there is considerable debate about any references to Jesus Christ in Josephus.
The chief evidence for the Testimonium Flavianum being in the original text of Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews is that it is in lots of the copies we have of it. However this not very strong evidence because as there are three families of text of Acts of the Apostles and one family (Western) is likely to go back to one version that has 10% more than the version generally accepted as original it is possible that all our copies of Testimonium Flavianum go back to the one which was accepted by Christians who were the people making copies of it. It is quoted in various forms none of which are accepted as the most likely original form. Scholars therefore try to make out that what Josephus did write about Jesus and which parts were either added or changed by Christian copyists.
The case against includes the following. A Christian writing in the fifth century lists contents of this work and it does not include this topic and this is strong evidence that earlier versions didn’t have it. The Testimonium Flavianum is not in line with the other topics that surround it and which are clearly meant to be a unified whole about upheavals of Jewish rebels and trouble makers. The next section does not refer to this one but refers to the previous one with, “another outrage”. The early Christian writers do not refer to it. Origen (c 230 AD) refers to Josephus on John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus while not referring to this. I believe this is strong evidence that this didn’t exist at that time.
It is only after Eusebius that the Testimonium Flavianum is quoted and it follows the thinking of Eusebius while not being in line with Josephus’ thinking. We also have the evidence of the Slavonic Josephus where Christians have added other sections about Jesus. It has been said that the Testimonium Flavianum follows the wording and ideas in Luke 24:19-27, but I have found few identical words but the Greek phrasing of “the third day” only exists here and in Luke 24:21.
Antiquities 18.3.3. “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 amongst 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 to this day.”
Those who say that there was an original reference to Jesus that has been added to by Christians remove, “if it be lawful to call him a man”, “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 “He was the Christ”. They say it works in this form, but I am not convinced it is smooth any more.
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise 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. and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.”
The phrase “Now there was about this time” is one used frequently by Josephus to start a section. The phrase “a wise man” is used by Josephus regarding Solomon and Daniel and the phrase “wonderful work” is used about the miracles of Elisha. However these phrases are also used by Eusebius.
Josephus is unlikely to use the term, “the principal men amongst us” he would disassociate himself and other Jews by using either “the principal men of Jerusalem” or “the principal men of the city”
Eusebuis often used the argument that because Christians still existed that meant that their faith was true. Also Josephus does not use the term “Gentiles” but by Eusebuis’ time there was a belief that Jesus had gentile followers.
Christians believed that they formed a tribe and it was applied to Christians by Justin Martyr. Josephus’ use of the word tribe is used to describe an ethnic group – Jews, Taurians and Parthians.
If Josephus had had a section on Jesus who was crucified by the Roman governor Pilate then he would have drawn Jesus in a bad light as he does everyone else who rebelled against Roman authority and who were executed by the Romans but here he says good things.
So if I remove even more I am only left with,
“Now there was about this time Jesus. He drew over to him many of the Jews, and Pilate, had condemned him to the cross.”
This is such a short section as to be highly unlikely to go back to Josephus.
The other reference to Jesus is the one concerning James who was stoned to death. It seems to have been quoted by Origen (c 230 AD) and this is strong evidence that this was included in the original Antiquities.
Antiquities 18.3.3. “AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.”
It has been suggested that Christians have added, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,” to “someone named James, and some others”. The Greek for “who was called Christ,” is λεγόμενος Χριστός which is from Mt 1:16 “one named Christ”. Therefore the original could have been just “the brother of Jesus someone named James”. Hegesippus, the 2nd-century Church historian has a story about the death of James and this is placed before the fall of Jerusalem and involved him being stoned. Therefore Christians could have just believed that this James because he was the brother of a man called Jesus had to be the same one as referred to in Christian tradition as the brother of the Lord and so add the Matthean phrase “who was called Christ”. There are about 5 James referred to by Josephus and about 15 people called Jesus. It is possible that this James was the brother of Jesus the son of Damneus who succeeded Ananus as high priest.
However there is another place where Josephus identifies a person as a brother of another person, but doesn’t say who this person is – “After this Caesar sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to be procurator of Galilee, and Samaria, and Perea, and removed Agrippa from Chalcis unto a greater kingdom;” which means it is possible that the original was “the brother of Jesus someone named James”.
It has been argued that Tacitus might be repeating what was generally know about the founder of Christianity from what Christians said rather than independent Roman records. It is argued that Tacitus is not quoting from the Roman records because he called Pilate a Procurator (who didn’t govern provinces until after 44 AD) and not Prefect. All that can be stated is that assuming as most people do that the passage was written by Tacitus that by about 116 AD it was generally accepted that Christians believed Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate and that the 64 AD fire of Rome was blamed on the Christians and Tacitus was not disputing that the Christ was crucified by Pilate.
Pliny the Younger says in his letter (and I will assume that it was written between 100 and 117 AD) that he executed some Christians and tortured two Christian slaves and Christians told him about what they did and that they had a “depraved, excessive superstition”.
Suetonius appears to have written about 121 AD and he was a friend of Tacitus. He wrote that during the reign of Claudius 41-54 AD “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Claudius) expelled them from Rome" (On the Life of the Caesars - Clau., xxv). It should be noted that Chrestus was a common name, particularly for slaves, meaning good or useful and this passage may not refer to Christ. Acts 18:2 agrees that all the Jews were ordered by Claudius to leave Rome.
Suetonius also wrote, “Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.” (On the Life of the Caesars - Nero, xvi).This happens before the fire of Rome, which Suetonius also records but doesn’t state any Christians were either blamed or executed. Therefore an appeal to the evidence of Suetonius for Jesus is mistaken, all that can be confidently stated in that before 64 AD there were Christians and they were punished in some way by Nero and during the reign of Claudius Jews were expelled from Rome either because of the trouble aroused by their leader Chrestus or Christ.
