THE JEWISH HISTORIAN JOSEPHUS AND HIS NARRATIVES ON JESUS, JOHN THE BAPTIST AND JAMES Josephus, son

of Matthias, a Jew of Palestine, was born shortly after the Crucifixion and lived till about the end of the first century. He lived through, and participated in, the great Jewish Revolt and War (66-70 C.E.), and had the unusual privilege of seeing them from both the Jewish and the Roman side. He wrote a history of his people from the Creation to his own times, and, though it is not free from faults, his story is one of the most valuable ancient records extant. He defended his race and his religion against attack, and was in fact one of the first Jewish apologists. There is no doubt that in his literary compositions he received assistance, especially in the writing of Greek, which was not his native tongue. It is equally certain that his actions were sometimes guided by the motives of self-preservation rather than by loyalty to his cause. But historians studying the period before and during the first century of the Common Era may well be grateful to Josephus both for his personal observation and for the, often important, sources he incorporates. Among Josephus still-extant works is The Antiquities of the Jews. It begins with a paraphrase of the biblical narrative of creation, carries the history of the Jews from the earliest times up to the period of the Jewish Revolt and War. A very long historical narrative, it was published c. 93-94 C.E. It is in The Antiquities that students of history would find important references to three New Testament characters: Jesus, John the Baptist, and James the brother of Jesus. Students of history must note, however, that extant copies of The Antiquities had been edited by political and religious parties with particular interests. Still, through critical historical appraisal, it is still possible to distinguish the parts of The Antiquities which were authentically written by Josephus and which parts were written by later editors. -0The Antiquities xviii. 116-19 Josephuss reference to the Baptist arises almost casually out of his account of the affairs of Herod Antipas. Some of the Jews thought that Herods army had been destroyed by God as a just punishment for his treatment of John called the Baptist. Herod killed him, though he was a good man and commanded the Jews to practise virtue, by exercising justice towards one another and piety towards God, and to come together to baptism. For the baptism would be acceptable to God if they used it, not for the putting away of certain sins, but for the purification of the body, the soul having previously been cleansed by righteousness. Now when the rest crowded together to him (for they were greatly moved by hearing his words) Herod was afraid lest Johns great influence over the

10

15

people might lead to a revolt; for they seemed ready to do anything he advised. He therefore thought it much the better course to anticipate any rebellion that might arise from him by destroying him, than be involved in difficulties through an actual revolution and then regret it. So John, a victim to Herods suspicion, was sent to Machaerus (the fortress mentioned above), and there killed.

l.1 Herods army had been destroyed by God. The Herod in question is Herod Antipas, a son of Herod the Great and tetrarch of Galilee (see e.g. Luke 3. i). His army had been destroyed by Aretas, king of the Nabataean Arabs, who had been enraged by Herods treatment of his (Aretass) daughter, to whom he was married. Herod, who wished to marry Herodias, his brothers wife, planned to divorce the daughter of Aretas; she however heard of his plans and escaped to her father, who collected an army and destroyed Herods forces. This narrative does not agree in all particulars with that of Mark 6. 14-29; there is also a difficulty regarding its date. The defeat of Herod by Aretas took place not long before the death of Tiberius in March AD 37, which is long after any date that can be reasonably deduced from the Gospels for the death of John. Nevertheless, Aretas may have lacked an earlier opportunity and his anger may have continued to smoulder for seven years or more. l.2 John called the Baptist. It is possible that the title was interpolated from a Christian source; but Josephus has not a little to say about Johns practice of baptizing and it is not impossible that his use of the name is independent. The general picture of John that he presents is different from that of the Christian sources; the eschatological and messianic element is lacking. l.3 Herod killed him. Josephus does not relate the bazaar story of Mark 6. His interests and tastes were different from those of the primitive Christian communities. l.4 To practise virtue. The evangelists (Matt. 3.7-10 = Luke 3. 7ff.; Luke 3. 10-14) provide some account of Johns moral teaching; but their primary interest was in his prediction of the Coming One. Josephus, writing in Rome, would no doubt find it convenient to avoid the discussion of such matters (a Christian interpolator would not have omitted them); but in point of fact his later references to Herods fear of a revolutionary movement show that the Baptist was concerned in messianic activity which either was, or showed the possibility of becoming, political and military. l.5 Baptism ... baptism. Josephus uses two words, one of which () is rare in the New Testament, while the other () does not occur at all. This fact does not suggest Christian influence or interpolation. l.6 Not for the putting away of certain sins, but for the purification of the body. Josephuss account hardly makes sense. The multitudes who were baptized by John did not go to Jordan to wash. There may be anti-Christian propaganda here; but compare Josephuss remark on the baptisms of the Essenes and of Bannus. l.8 The rest. The expression is awkward, and emendations have been proposed. The Latin perplurima multitudo, a very numerous multitude, gives the sense. It does not seem to be correct to distinguish between a company of ascetics who before Johns ministry had practised virtue and the rest who subsequently joined the movement. l.16 Machaerus. The Gospels do not name the place where John was killed. It is sometimes said that Herods birthday feast would not have been held in a gloomy fortress like Machaerus.

The Antiquities xviii. 63f. The authenticity of Josephuss reference to Jesus as it now stands is very questionable. The passage is found in all the MSS. of the Antiquities (but none of these is older than the eleventh century), and was known to Eusebius (fourth century); but the Christian apologist Origen (first half of the third century) does not seem to have read it, at least in its present form, since he says plainly that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Christ. It does not however follow from this fact that the whole passage is spurious. It will be indicated in the notes that several clauses could not have been written by Josephus; but when these are removed there remains a notice of Jesus comparable with that of John the Baptist, a notice from which all messianic and eschatological claims have been suppressed. It is, moreover, possible that Christian omissions as well as Christian interpolations should be allowed for; Christian writers, adding material in praise of Jesus, may quite well have omitted what they thought derogatory to his person. About this time arose Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful deeds, and a teacher of men who gladly receive the truth. He drew to himself many both of the Jews and of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, on 5 the indictment of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not cease to do so, for he appeared to them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things about him. And even to this day the race of Christians, who 10 are named from him, has not died out. l.1 About this time. Josephus has just described two disturbances made by the Jews under the provocation of Pilate who had (a) brought into Jerusalem military standards bearing images of the emperor, (b) diverted Temple funds for the building of an aqueduct. The immediately preceding passage ends, And so the disturbance (, cf. Mark t 5. 7, et al.) came to an end. It is in such a context as this that Josephus might be expected to refer to the messianic disturbances which accompanied the execution of Jesus. A wise man. This does not seem to be a Christian description of Jesus. Josephus is probably civilizing Jesus as he did John. If indeed it be lawful to call him a man. This, on the other hand, is almost certainly a Christian addition. One who was not a Christian would have no hesitation in calling Jesus a man. l.3 Many ... of the Gentiles. Either this is a Christian interpolation, or Josephus is writing out of his knowledge of the composition of the Church of his day. l.4 He was the Christ. This must be a Christian interpolation; it is quite impossible to make Josephuss words mean, He was believed to be the Christ. l.5 On the indictment ... condemned him to the cross. This agrees sufficiently with the narratives of the gospels, but it is not necessarily to be ruled out as an interpolation, especially as those who loved him at the first is not a specifically Christian phrase. l.7 He appeared to them ... about him. These words must have been written by a Christian.

l.9 The race of Christians. The expression is not found in the earliest Christian literature, though in the second century Christians are spoken of as a new (i.e. neither Jewish nor Gentile) race (Epistle to Diognetus 1).

The Antiquities xx. 200. Like the reference to John the Baptist, Josephuss allusion to James the brother ofJesus arises out of his account of the political history of the time. It is repeated by the Christian historian Eusebius (II, xxiii. 22), who also cites in the same passage another paragraph which he (in company with Origen) attributes to Josephus but which is not in our MSS., and those of the Christian historian Hegesippus, somewhat divergent, narrative of Jamess death. Ananus, therefore, being of this character, and supposing that he had a favourable opportunity on account of the fact that Festus was dead, and Albinus was still on the way, called together the Sanhedrin, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, James by name, together with some others, and accused them of violating the law, and condemned them to be stoned.

l.1 Ananus, being of this character. He was a son of the Annas mentioned in the Gospels as participating in the arraignment of Jesus; Josephus has in the context described him as exceptionally bold and reckless. l.2f. Festus ... Albinus were successive procurators of Judaea. The latter was particularly rapacious and unscrupulous, and did much to provoke the revolt of 66 C.E.; he took office in 62 C.E., which accordingly will be the date of this incident. l.4 The so-called Christ. This seems to be the best rendering of the phrase in the MSS. of Josephus. It is noteworthy that Eusebius transposes the words, perhaps with the intention of giving the sense, who was called Christ. l.6 To be stoned. This was the normal punishment for blasphemy and certain other offences; see Sanhedrin 7. 4. Hegesippus has a different and more circumstantial account.