JOSEPHUS, DID NOT MENTION JESUS
The first century Jewish historian Josephus allegedly wrote the so-called
Testament of Flavius in his book, Jewish Antiquities, which runs: “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.” It has solely been Christian copyists who have preserved
Josephus's writings for us (page 43, The Marian Conspiracy) and understandably
we can be suspicious about this Testament.
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 someone called Jesus. The
other details are just meant to back this up.
There is no need to suppose that any of this Jesus
material in the Testament is genuine. Arguments like that Josephus must have
wrote that Jesus was a wise man for Christians didn’t use that terminology are
silly. They are obviously very weak. Besides, 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, according to the
gospels, 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 a billion times more
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 in
relation then his Josephus did not mention Jesus in nice terms at all.
Here is the text from Origen,
"For in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears
witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those
who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus
as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and
the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the
conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people,
since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless -
being, although against his will, not far from the truth - that these disasters
happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a
brother of Jesus (called Christ) - the Jews having put him to death, although he
was a man most distinguished for his justice" Contra Celsus, Book I, Chapter
XLVII.
This text is very odd. At least it proves that the
current version of Josephus is tampered with for it calls Jesus the Christ.
If Origen expected Josephus to blame the fall of Jerusalem on the murder of
Jesus that implies that Jesus rather than being a fake messiah was a good man
but his followers lied about him being the Christ. Josephus would not have
recognised Jesus as a prophet so Origin is saying he should have. If Jesus
was a prophet and as good as James then Jesus would have got the attention not
James for James never claimed to be a prophet. Notice that Origen says
nothing at all about the Testament. What he gives is a synopsis of the
James and Jesus material from book 20. That Origen should write about book
18 and its narrative of the baptist and not mention what it said about Jesus is
clearly as good as proof that it did not mention Jesus at all.
Origen did not quote the Testament 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 who were big into defending the faith 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 or his words
could be taken to mean that Jesus was just an apparition or an immaterial being.
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. That is another Christian lie.
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 many 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 its being a fake 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. We now have a heavily doctored
version which we will meet in a moment. 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.
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. Some of them believed that the crucifixion and resurrection was an
illusion.
Assuming Josephus thought Jesus was a real man, would Josephus then simply talk
about a man who there was so much controversy about as if he were 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.