Josephus on Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This article is part of the Jesus and history series of articles.

Jesus is mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century AD. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was at a minimum embellishment by early Christian scribes, if not a forgery. The other passage simply mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. Most scholars consider this passage genuine,[1] but its authenticity has been disputed by Emil Schürer as well by several recent popular writers.

Josephus' other major work, The Jewish War, makes no mention of Jesus.


[edit] Testimonium Flavianum

The following passage appears in the Greek version of Antiquities of the Jews 18.63-64, in the translation of William Whiston:

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 at this day.

As usual with ancient texts, the surviving sources for this passage are Greek manuscripts, all minuscules, the oldest of which dates from the 11th century.[2] It is possible that these all derive from a single exemplar written in uncial, as is the case with most other ancient Greek texts transmitted to the present in medieval copies, and have come down through the hands of the church. The text of Antiquities appears to have been transmitted in two halves — books 1–10 and books 11–20. But other ad hoc copies of this passage also exist.

The first to cite this passage of Antiquities was Eusebius, writing in about 324, who quotes the passage in essentially the same form. [3]

The topic of the Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion. Louis Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part".[4]

[edit] Arguments against authenticity

[edit] Origen

The Christian author Origen wrote around the year 240. His writings predate both the earliest known manuscripts of the Testimonium and the earliest quotations of the Testimonium by other writers. In his surviving works Origen fails to mention the Testimonium Flavianum, even though he was clearly familiar with the Antiquities of the Jews, since he mentions the reference by Josephus to Jesus as brother of James, which occurs later in Antiquities of the Jews (xx.9), and also other passages from Antiquities such as the passage about John the Baptist which occurs in the same chapter (xviii) as the Testimonium.[2] Furthermore, Origen states that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ" [5] "he did not accept Jesus as Christ" [6], but the Testimonium declares Jesus to be Christ. Thus it could be inferred that the version of Antiquities available to Origen did not mention Jesus at this point at all.

On the other hand, while the evidence from Origen suggests that Josephus did not read Testimonium in its current form, it also demonstrates, according to some scholars, that the version of the Antiquities known to Origen must have written something about Jesus, for otherwise Origen would have no reason to make the claim that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ." [7] It is possible, for example, that Origen read the original version of the Testimonium Flavianum, which textual evidence from Jerome and Michael the Syrian (see below) indicates was worded "he was believed to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." This original version was probably what Eusebius also had at his disposal. [8] Whealey has argued that the wording of Michael the Syrian's Testimonium in particular, which employs the word mistabra, meaning "was supposed," has a skeptical connotation, as evidenced in the Syriac New Testament where it is used to translate Greek enomizeto of Luke 3:23. She has argued that Origen's probable exposure to a reading like Greek enomizeto (corresponding to the Syriac mistabra) in the original version of the Testimonium would readily explain Origen's statement that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ.[9]

[edit] Early Christian writers other than Origen

The absence of clear references to the Testimonium is consistent throughout the work of the Christian writers and apologists of the years A.D. 100-300. [2] It is never clearly mentioned by any author of those two centuries, Christian or otherwise, although it is possible that Origen alludes to it indirectly (see above). This has been taken as proof that the text did not exist before that period. For example, it has been argued that since Justin the Philosopher makes no mention of the Testimonium in his efforts to persuade the rabbi Trypho in the Dialog With Trypho the Jew [10], the text must not have existed since it would have been an "extremely effective answer" [2] to Trypho. However, this argument is weak since there is no evidence that the real Justin Martyr had even read any of Josephus' works. Some older works mistakenly claim that Justin Martyr had read Josephus because a Pseudo-Justin text citing Josephus called 'Cohortatio ad Graecos,' was wrongly attributed to Justin Martyr. According to current scholarly consesus this work does not date before the mid-third century [11]. Also, this Pseudo-Justin text only alludes vaguely to the fact that Josephus wrote about Moses, and does not show any familiarity with Book 18 of 'Antiquities' where the Testimonium appears. Moreover, it has also been shown that no ante-Nicene Christian is known to have used Josephus' works in apologies directed at Jews, so that the argument that the Testimonium cannot have existed because otherwise it would have been used by Justin or others in anti-Jewish apologies is not convincing. The earliest undisputed citations of the Testimonium by known church fathers--that by Eusebius of Caesarea and that by Jerome--are not made in apologies directed at Jews like 'Dialog with Trypho.' The earliest use of the Testimonium for anti-Jewish disputation appears in an anonymous late fourth century Latin text, known conventionally as Pseudo-Hegesippus's 'De excidio Hierosolymitano.' [12].

Indeed, although some Christians before Origen had read parts of 'Jewish War' and 'Against Apion' it is not clear that any Christian before Origen had read 'Antiquities' at all [13], and none before Origen makes any clear reference to Book 18 of Antiquities, where the Testimonium appears. [14] Against this, Feldman had written that "no fewer than eleven church fathers prior to or contemporary with Eusebius cite various passages from Josephus (including the Antiquities) but not the Testimonium".[2] However, both Michael Hardwick and Alice Whealey have conducted a closer reading of ante-Nicene Christian texts that cite or have been assumed to cite 'Antiquities' than Feldman and other earlier scholars, and both conclude that some prior assumptions that 'Antiquities' is cited are mistaken or debatable. For example, it is has been shown by Michael Hardwick that Tertullian (ca. 193) had read Josephus' 'Against Apion' rather than 'Antiquities', as is sometimes assumed. Tertullian's reference to "antiqitatum Judaicarum" (Apol. 19) is not a reference to 'Antiquities,' but rather a reference to 'Against Apion,' which in ancient times was known as "The antiquity [i.e. ancient-ness] of the Jews." [15]

Hardwick has also argued that contrary to the assumption of some older scholars [16], not only is it not clear that Tertullian had ever read 'Antiquities' but it is not clear that any other writer of the Western church other than Tertullian was directly acquainted with any of Josephus' works at all. [17] Whealey expresses even more skepticism about Christians before Origen citing 'Antiquities' than Hardwick. For example, she argues that the authenticity of one catena fragment citing Book 2 of 'Antiquities' attributed to Irenaeus is debatable because catenae were often miscopied. In any case, as she has pointed out, even if the attribution to Irenaeus is accurate, it is clear that Irenaeus was unfamiliar with Book 18 of 'Antiquities' since he wrongly claims that Jesus was executed by Pilate in the reign of Claudius (Dem. ev. ap. 74), while Antiquities 18.89 indicates that Pilate was deposed during the reign of Tiberius, before Claudius. [18] As for writers of the Eastern church, Clement of Alexandria vaguely refers (Stromata 1.147) to Josephus' historical writings in a way that indicates that he knew directly or indirectly the claim of Jewish War 6.440 that there were 1179 years between David and the second year of Vespasian. Direct familiarity with 'Antiquities' is, however, unclear in this passage. Clement's claim that there were 585 years between Moses and David may be based on Antiquities 8.61, which says that there were 592 years between the Exodus and the Temple, if one assumes that he subtracted the four years of Solomon's reign, and that a copying error was responsible for Clement's text reading 585 instead of 588. But what this conjectural explanation for Clement's claim about 585 years, a figure that does not explicitly appear in 'Antiquities,' shows is that it far from clear that Clement had direct acquaintance with Josephus' 'Antiquities.' [19]

[edit] Vocabulary

It has been claimed that some of the passage fails a standard test for authenticity, in that it contains vocabulary not otherwise used by Josephus.[20] On the other hand, "the vocabulary and grammar of the [core] passage (after the clearly Christian material is removed) cohere well with Josephus' style and language...almost every word in the core of the "Testimonium" is found elsewhere in Josephus---in fact, most of the vocabulary turns out to be characteristic of Josephus." [21] Also, many other scholars state that much of the vocabulary and grammar of the passage coheres well with Josephus' style and language. C. Guignebert has noted that Josephus's style is not difficult to imitate, so that vocabulary proves little one way or the other.[22]

[edit] Interruption to the text

The passage before the testimonium flows naturally into the paragraph after it, which suggests the paragraph might be a later insertion. Thus "the short digression, even with the proposed corrections, interrupts the thread of the discourse into which it is introduced".[23]

[edit] Josephus's faith

It is often argued that "He was [the] Christ" can only be read as a profession of faith, and Josephus was almost certainly not a Christian. For example, John Dominic Crossan, in The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant:[24] has put it this way:"The problem here is that Josephus' account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish." Three passages stood out: "if it be lawful to call him a man … He was [the] Christ … 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." Consequently, some scholars regard at least these parts of the Testimonium as later interpolations.

However, the supposed confession of Josephus relies on the standard text. But a recent study by Alice Whealey has argued that a variant Greek text of this sentence existed in the 4th century—"He was believed to be the Christ."[24] The standard text, then, has simply become corrupt by the loss of the main verb and a subsequent scribal "correction" of the prolative infinitive.[citation needed] In any event, the audience for the work was Roman, and Roman sources always write of "Christus", never of "Jesus", which could make this merely an identification.[citation needed] It is also important to note that the word "Christ" simply means "the anointed," so Josephus may have been simply including this as a detail.

[edit] Alleged Anachronisms

A different question whether parts of passage are too confessional or too Christian is the question whether they are anachronistic. It has been argued by some that the passages "if it is right to call him a man," "he was the Christ" and "he appeared to them alive again" seem directly to address Christological debates of the early 4th century. On the other hand, by the early 4th century Christological debate was centered mainly on much narrower (some would say hairsplitting) questions, particularly whether Jesus was of the "same substance" (consubstantial/homoousios) with God or not, which was hotly debated at the First Council of Nicaea and several subsequent church councils. Christological debate by the early 4th century was not centered on the much broader points in the Testimonium: whether Jesus was a man, whether he was the Messiah, or whether he appeared alive to his disciples after death. There are indications in the New Testament that the latter three questions, whether Jesus was a man, whether he was the Messiah, and whether he appeared alive after death to his disciples were contentious issues among various church groups as early as the first century. Thus a text containing these points could certainly date from the first century.

[edit] Interpolations

The entire passage is also found in one Greek manuscript of Josephus' earlier work, The Jewish War. (This Greek manuscript of "Jewish War" with an interpolated Testimonium is known as the "Codex Vossianus.") A passage about Jesus that appears to have been inspired by the Testimonium, but that differs widely from it in content also appears in an Old Russian adaptation of "Jewish War" written c.1250.[25] Interestingly, the passage dealing with Jesus is not the only significant difference between the Old Russian and Greek versions of "Jewish War." Robert Eisler has suggested[26] that it was produced from one of Josephus's drafts (noting that the "Slavonic Version" has Josephus escaping his fellow Jews at Jotapata when "he counted the numbers [of the lot cast in the suicide pact] cunningly and so managed to deceive all the others", which is in striking contrast to the conventional version's account:

"Without hesitation each man in turn offered his throat for the next man to cut, in the belief that a moment later his commander would die too. Life was sweet, but not so sweet as death if Josephus died with them! But Josephus - shall we put it down to divine providence or just luck - was left with one other man....he used persuasion, they made a pact, and both remained alive."[27]

Other unique passages in the Old Russian version of "Jewish War" include accounts of John the Baptist, Jesus's ministry (along with his death and resurrection), and the activities of the early church.

[edit] Alleged fabrication by Eusebius

Ken Olson has argued that the Testimonium was fabricated by Eusebius of Caesarea, who was the first author to quote it in his Demonstratio Evangelica.[28] Olson argues that the specific wording of the Testimonium is suspiciously closely related to the argument Eusebius makes in his Demonstratio, in particular that Jesus is a "wise man" and not a "wizard", as shown by the fact that his followers did not desert him even after he was crucified.

The argument that Eusebius fabricated the Testimonium is supported by some popular writers, such as Marshall Gauvin[29] and Earl Doherty[30]. According to Gauvin, "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." Furthermore, according to Gauvin, Eusebius had written in his Demonstratio Evangelica, (Book III, pg. 124), "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." However, Whealey has already shown that Gauvin's assumption that ante-Nicene Christians were "eager to hurl" anything from any of Josephus' works in controversies directed at Jews is unsupported by the extant evidence. Likewise unsupported is Gauvin's assumption that Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria knew Josephus' works generally and "Antiquities" specifically well enough to know of the Testimonium.[31] Regarding Olson's arguments about Eusebian fabrication,Carleton Paget [32] and Whealey [33] have criticized them on stylistic and other grounds.

One of the earliest ecclesiastical authorities to condemn the Testimonium Flavianum as a forgery was Bishop Warburton of Gloucester (circa 1770), who condemned it as a particularly "stupid" forgery.[citation needed] On the other hand, because modern stylometric studies, which use a concordance of Josephus' works that did not exist in before the twentieth century, has revealed some Josephan vocabulary and phrases (see above), it has more recently been argued that even "some proponents of the forgery thesis would agree that it is a good one" (i.e. good forgery). [34]

[edit] Arguments in favor of partial authenticity

Until the 16th century, Christian writers took the position that Josephus wrote the Testimonium in its current form. Today, this position is rare, but many writers claim that Josephus did write something about Jesus which has been corrupted in the surviving Greek text.

[edit] Arabic version

In 1971, Shlomo Pines, a Jewish professor, published a translation of a different version of the Testimonium, quoted in an Arabic manuscript of the tenth century. The manuscript in question appears in the Book of the Title written by Agapius the historian, a 10th-century Arabic Christian and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis Bambyce (Manbij). Agapius' version of the Testimonium reads:

For he says in the treatises that he has written in the governance of the Jews: "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 their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders" - Shlomo Pines' translation, quoted by J. D. Crossan

The text that Pines gives is mainly derived from the quotation of this portion of Agapius in the later Arabic Christian historian, Al-Makin, which contains extra material not found in the Florence manuscript that alone preserves the second half of Agapius.

Pines suggests that this may be a more accurate record of what Josephus wrote, lacking as it does the parts which have often been considered to have been added by Christian copyists. This would add weight to the argument that Josephus did write something about Jesus.

However, Pines' theory has not been widely accepted. The fact that even the title of Josephus's work is inaccurate suggests that Agapius is paraphrasing his source, which may explain the discrepancies with the Greek version. Agapius explicitly claims that he used a lost, older Syriac chronicle by Theophilus of Edessa (d. 785) to write his chronicle. This indicates that his Testimonium is also a paraphrase of a Syriac version of the Testimonium.[35] In addition, the claim that Pilate condemned Jesus to be crucified and to die has been interpreted as a reaction to the Muslim belief that Jesus did not really die on the cross.

[edit] Syriac version

Pines also refers to the Syriac version cited by Michael the Syrian in his World Chronicle. It was left to Alice Whealey to point out that Michael's text in fact was identical with that of Jerome at the most contentious point ("He was the Christ" becoming "He was believed to be the Christ"), establishing the existence of a variant, since Latin and Syriac writers did not read each others' works in late antiquity.

[edit] Literary connection with the Gospel of Luke

In 1995, G. J. Goldberg, using a digital database of ancient literature, identified a possible literary connection between Josephus and the Gospel of Luke. He found a number of coincidences in word choice and word order, though not in exact wording, between the entire Josephus passage on Jesus and a summary of the life of Jesus in Luke 24:19-21, 26-27, called the "Emmaus narrative":

And he said to them, "What things?" And they said to him, "Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. ... Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory? And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. [36]

Goldberg points out explicit similarities in the Greek text, including a grammatical form of "the third day" which exists only in these two texts, and nowhere else in Christian literature; an unusual introduction of the first-person plural; as well as other consistent peculiarities of order and style that, he argues, have no parallel in other Jesus descriptions. From these, Goldberg writes that "The conclusion that can therefore be drawn is that Josephus and Luke derived their passages from a common Christian (or Jewish-Christian) source." Goldberg points out that Josephus' phrases "if it be lawful to call him a man," "He was [the] Christ," "he appeared to them," and "And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day," have no parallel in Luke's passage, and takes this to support the position that the first two short phrases are Christian interpolations, while the latter two form the context of the Emmaus text and so were available to be transmitted by Josephus. Luke contains the phrases "but besides all this," four sentences on the women who witnessed the tomb, and "the Christ should suffer," which there is no counterpart in Josephus' text; unless referred to in the summary "these and countless other marvelous things about him". [37]

[edit] Reference to Jesus as brother of James

The other reference in the works of Josephus often cited to support the historicity of Jesus is also in the Antiquities, in the first paragraph of book 20, chapter 9. It concerns the execution of a man whom traditional scholarship identifies as James the Just.

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. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; 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, 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 sanhedrin 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.[38]

The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars.[39] Unlike the Testimonium, the passage was mentioned in several places by Origen.

Some popular writers have asserted that the words who was called Christ were not in the original passage, or were a later interpolation.[40] Earl Doherty has suggested that the original may have said no more than "and brought before them [a good man] whose name was James, and some others". A small minority, including Frank Zindler, challenge the passage in its entirety, noting contradictions in both the characterization of Ananus and the chronology of his tenure between the passages in the Antiquities and the Jewish Wars.[citation needed]

Josephus does not mention the martyrdom of James in his Wars of the Jews, there he attributes the fall of Jerusalem as a consequence of someone else's death - the death of the person responsible for the death of James as mentioned in the Antiquities. Josephus writing in Jewish Wars:

I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city (of Jerusalem), and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city.

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1.
  2. ^ a b c d e Feldman (1989), p. 431
  3. ^ McGiffert, Arthur Cushman. "Paragraph 7 of "Chapter XI.—Testimonies in Regard to John the Baptist and Christ" from Book I of Eusebius' "The Church History."". Retrieved on 2007-08-12.  (From the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 1, edited by Philip Schaff.)
  4. ^ Feldman (1989), p. 430
  5. ^ Origen, Against Celsus, i:47
  6. ^ Origen, Commentary on Matthew, x:17]
  7. ^ Vermes, Geza (2003). Jesus in His Jewish Context. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. pp. 91–92. ISBN 0800636236. 
  8. ^ Josephus on Jesus [(Whealey)] p. 41;190.
  9. ^ "Alice Whealey, "The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic" New Testament Studies 54.4 (2008) p. 581
  10. ^ Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew
  11. ^ 'Josephus as an historical source,'Michael Hardwick, p. 37-46
  12. ^ 'Josephus on Jesus'Whealey p. 11, 14-15, 28-29, 34]]
  13. ^ Josephus on Jesus Whealey p. 7-11.
  14. ^ Josephus on Jesus Whealey p. 7-8, 11.
  15. ^ Josephus as an historical source Hardwick p. 49-50.
  16. ^ Lost and Hostile Gospels, Rev. Sabine Baring-Gould
  17. ^ 'Josephus as an historical source' Hardwick p. 112
  18. ^ Josephus on Jesus Whealey p.7-8
  19. ^ Josephus on Jesus Whealey p. 8; Josephus as an historical sourceHardwick p. 31
  20. ^ Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, edited by K. H. Rengstorff, 2002.
  21. ^ "A Marginal Jew, Volume I" by John P. Meier.
  22. ^ "It may be admitted that the style of JOsephus has been cleverly imitated, a not very difficult matter ...", Jesus by C. Guignebert, University Books, New York, 1956, p. 17.
  23. ^ Jesus by C. Guignebert, University Books, New York, 1956, p. 17
  24. ^ "The Testimonium Flavium Controversy from Antiquity to the Present" Alice Wealey, 2000.
  25. ^ pgs 470-471, appendix F of The Jewish War, Josephus. (trans. G. A. Williamson; introduction, notes and appendixes E. Mary Smallwood. Penguin Books, Penguin Classics imprint, 1981. ISBN 0-14-044420-3)
  26. ^ Iesous Basileus ou Basileusas ("Jesus the King who was never King"), by Robert Eisler. Published in Heidelberg in 1929.
  27. ^ pg 220 The Jewish War, Josephus. (trans. G. A. Williamson; introduction, notes and appendixes E. Mary Smallwood. Penguin Books, Penguin Classics imprint, 1981. ISBN 0-14-044420-3)
  28. ^ "Eusebian fabrications: the Testimonium Flavianum" Ken Olson. July 29, 2000.
  29. ^ Did Jesus Christ Really Live?
  30. ^ CritiqueFour-3
  31. ^ Whealey, 'Josephus on Jesus' p. 7-11.
  32. ^ Carleton Paget,'Josephus and Christianity' p. 562, 577-578.
  33. ^ Whealey,'Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum,'in "Josephus und das neue Testament," Tuebingen, 2007, 73-116
  34. ^ Josephus and Christianity Carlton Paget p. 575-576
  35. ^ Alice Whealey, "The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic," New Testament Studies 54.4 (2008) 575-578.
  36. ^ English Standard Version translation of Luke 24:16-28
  37. ^ Goldberg, G. J. The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus. The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (1995), pp. 59-77
  38. ^ Online Reader - Project Gutenberg
  39. ^ Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1. An exception is C. Guigenbert, a Professor of the History of Christianity in the Sorbonne, who held that "[i]t seems probable that Josephus did not name Jesus anywhere; that the Christians - and perhaps the Jews also, for a different reason - were very early surprised and pained by this silence and did their best to rectify it, by various glosses, at various times and in various places, of the different manuscripts of [Josephus]", Jesus, C, Guignebert, University Books, New York, 1956, p. 18
  40. ^ G. A. Wells, The Jesus Of The Early Christians, A Study in Christian Origins (Pemberton Books, 1971), p.193-194.

[edit] References

[edit] External links

Personal tools