ESSAY: JOSEPHUS, DID NOT MENTION JESUS
Christians worry about how the gospel portrait of a Jesus who made a big social impact does not line up to the lack of interest in him outside Christian circles.
The first century Jewish historian Josephus allegedly wrote: “An end was put
to this uprising. Now about the same time, a wise man called Jesus, if it be
right to call him a man for he was a worker of wonderful works and a teacher of
men who like to receive the truth. He won over to him many of the Jews and also
many of the Gentiles. He was the Messiah or Christ. Pilate at the request of the
chief men among us condemned him to crucifixion. When that happened those who
loved at from the first did not abandon him because he appeared to them alive on
the third day as the prophets of God had forecasted and not only that but ten
thousand other things about him. The tribe of Christians called after him are
not extinct even today. About this time another sad calamity put the Jews into
great crisis and terrible disgusting things happened concerning the Temple of
Isis in Rome.”
Even if Josephus wrote this we have testimonies from the New Testament itself
that contradict him regarding when Jesus lived. The New Testament provides the
best evidence that Jesus didn’t live at all. Much of the New Testament is older
than his writings so it is what should be heeded if a conflict arises. This
glowing reference to Jesus contradicts what he supposedly wrote in book 20 when
he referred to James the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.
Because Josephus was a Jew not a Christian and a supporter of the Roman Empire
which didn’t tolerate Messiahs and considered allegiance to them to be treason
against the divine Emperor in Rome this passage has been inserted or reworked by
a Christian. The Romans sponsored his writing. If a Christian went to this
trouble it would indicate that there was a need to fabricate evidence for the
existence of Jesus. There can be no doubt that the passage is principally
intended to bolster its main statement that there was a man called Jesus. The
other details are just meant to back this up.
There is no need to suppose that any of this Jesus material is genuine.
Arguments like that Josephus must have wrote that Jesus was a wise man for
Christians didn’t use that terminology are silly, we have all heard Christians
say that Jesus was a good man so why wouldn’t they say he was a wise one? The
passage really shouldn’t be discussed in attempts to prove Jesus lived for it
proves nothing. How could Josephus praise a man as wise who caused a riot in the
Temple showing contempt for Roman and Jewish law?
The testimony says that that Jesus won disciples and was crucified under Pilate
and rose BECAUSE the prophets spoke of these and countless others things about
him. THE TESTAMENT DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE A TESTIMONY. WHAT IT CLAIMS IS THAT YOU
MUST CHECK OUT THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES TO SEE IF WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT JESUS
IS TRUE!! This is critically important. It means that even if Josephus did write
the Testament it still does not help in the case for a historical Jesus because
it depends on human interpretative ideas about Bible prophecies. It is not
history that is here but faith. This means that his later reference to James
being the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ is put into a new context. It is
not saying Jesus existed because he indicated before that that this was a matter
of faith. The evidence is overwhelming. Josephus and Rome and the Jews did not
know of a Jesus of history.
When were the forgeries supporting Christianity implanted into Josephus' opus?
Nobody knew about them before 320 AD. If the interpolations were in the early
versions of Josephus the early Christian defenders of the faith would have used
them to support their religious stance. Eusebius was the first person to write
about the longer one and he did it in that year in his Demonstration of the
Gospel. Eusebius stated that lying to get people to believe in Christianity was
to be commended which is why many believe he was the forger of the Testament.
Origen in his famous Against Celsus, recorded that Josephus did not receive
Jesus as his Saviour, Lord and Messiah and was amazed when Josephus praised
James who was unjustly executed and who Josephus regarded as the brother of
Jesus. It would be more natural, as well, for Origen to be amazingly amazed at
what Josephus supposedly wrote about Jesus in the famous Testament of Flavius.
It was not in the text in those days. When Origen was so gobsmacked then his
Josephus did not mention Jesus in nice terms at all. Origen did not quote the
stuff about Josephus saying Jesus was the Messiah and rose from the dead to
Celsus though he wrote a lot against Celsus to defend the faith against Celsus’
scepticism about Christianity’s’ claims meaning it did not exist in the works of
Josephus in his time. Celsus rejected Jesus’ morals and Origen couldn’t even use
Josephus to argue that Jesus had been stated by a non-Christian to have been a
good man. Josephus never mentioned the man at all.
Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Cyprian did not know that Josephus had any faith
in Christ therefore their silence proves that he didn't. It must have been a
Christian copyist who inserted the Testament. This Christian forger of the
Testament did not know much about Jesus and had leanings towards the Christian
tendency to deny that Jesus was a proper man but just God or an angel in a human
body without a human mind. The interpolation was put in by somebody who did not
believe that Jesus was God for that is too foundational a detail to leave out.
It is surmised that the Testament was not mentioned in the first few centuries
because the existence of Jesus was not questioned by any important people or
groups. The existence was questioned for example by Trypho the Jew Justin argued
with for example but lets pretend the objection is right. The resurrection and
the miracles were questioned as were the Messiahship and the divinity of Christ.
The Christians had four very serious reasons then to use and cherish the text
and they did not because it did not exist. They would not have known that it was
a fake so that could not have put them off. The text would not be still extant
if it had been recognised for the fraud it was.
In book 20 of Jewish Antiquities another reference to Jesus appears. This is
the place where Origen and others used to read a glowing report about James
which is currently rejected as an insertion. This part of Josephus’ work was
tampered with so we have no reason to trust its mention of Jesus.
“Ananus...called together the Sanhedrin and brought the brother of Jesus the
so-called Messiah/Christ, James by name, together with some others. He accused
them of breaking the Law and condemned them to death by stoning. But the experts
of the Law who were more liberal were angry at this and secretly requested the
king stop this from happening” (Jewish Antiquities, Book 20).
Calling James the brother of the Christ or the Lord was a title given to James
by the early Church.
Josephus would not call Jesus the so-called Christ when it was not the Jews or
the Romans were calling Christ but a tiny persecuted and obscure sect that never
made the news.
Maybe Josephus was saying James brother of the so called Christ as in a sneer.
That would mean the line can’t prove if Jesus was thought to have existed or
not. If James claimed to be very close to the risen Christ he might be called
this in a sneering way.
In Galatians 1:19, Paul says that he met James the Lord's brother. This seems to
say that Jesus lived in the first century when his brother was still alive. But
the most important thing to realise is that Paul told Philemon that Onesimus the
slave was to be his blood-brother and not just a brother in the Lord so
blood-brother among the early Christians didn’t always mean that you shared a
parent. Josephus who also called James Jesus’ brother could have made a mistake
due to this confusing practice. The practice probably had a lot to do with the
universal accusations of incest that supposedly was rife among the early
Christians.
Tacitus the Roman Governor of Asia supposedly wrote about Jesus in 112 AD.
Tacitus makes it plain that the Christians were detested in Rome because they
got blamed for the fire of 64 AD which some believed that Nero himself had
started. How then could Josephus who depended on Romans to look after his
publications and buy them for the Jews hated him have spoken so well of Jesus or
of James his brother either? The official verdict in Roman law was that
Christians had a murderous hatred of Rome.
There were countless Christian believers in the early Church who did not
subscribe to the thought that a man died under Pilate by crucifixion and rose
again from the dead in the first century. To them Jesus was a vision from
Heaven. Would Josephus then simply talk about a man who there was so much
controversy about as if he was a real flesh and blood man? No. He would have had
to give his reasons for saying Jesus was a man.
Josephus who wrote the intimate details of Jewish history down for the Romans
ignored Christ. This indicates that he thought that Jesus never lived.