RECONSTRUCTING JOSEPHUS
“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 is agreed that unbeliever and bootlicker to the Romans, Flavius Josephus, did not really write the glowing testament about Jesus that is so like a Christian creed in his book but some scholars say it was tampered with and was not totally inauthentic. That still invalidates the text as being much good for you don't know what was left out or altered. The Christians have always needed him to at least mention Jesus for if he did not that was as good as saying the portrayal of Jesus in the gospels was just hype and lies. The forger and today's believers are as needy as each other.
Josephus could not even say that Jesus was maybe the Christ for that made Rome
look bad and called the Jews to disloyalty to Rome. Jesus had to be referred to
as either “called the Christ” or a “false Christ”. Yet his mention of
Jesus says bluntly, "He was the Christ".
It seems all reconstruction theories are doomed to failure because Jesus was
simply not famous enough at that time to merit a place in Josephus' work. What
if he wrote, "At this time there lived a man called Jesus if it be lawful to say
he was a man at all? The tribe of Christians named after him exists to this
day." How about that for a reconstruction? The words attributed to Josephus "if
he ought to be called a man" could mean "if he ought to be called a person"
which would be an euphemism for saying "if he existed". Or maybe he wrote, "At
this time there was said to be a Jesus, etc."
It is imagined that the reconstructed version would not be of much help
doctrinally to the Church so that was why it was never cited and Eusebius or
somebody altered it for religious propaganda purposes to make it useful and gave
it popularity (Josh McDowell's Evidence for Jesus: Is It Reliable?). This is
altogether nonsense for the Gnostic heretics who threatened the very existence
of the early Church denied that Jesus was crucified and the Church needed
something like Josephus's Testament to say that he was. When they never used the
reference to the crucifixion though they desperately needed a witness from
outside their own ranks for the Gnostics did not trust anybody in the Church
that proves that the reference to the crucifixion was not in Josephus even if
there was some material about Jesus in it. There was nobody else they could use
either which suggests that there was no evidence for the biggest thing in Jesus'
life, his crucifixion.
Some scholars accept some phrases in the report about Jesus as genuine but the
whole thing could easily be an interpolation. Perhaps the bit: “At this time
there was a man called Jesus if it be right to call him a man” meaning that
Jesus was first known through apparitions so Jesus might have been a vision and
not a man was all he wrote. Christians argue that he said that because Jesus did
miracles and taught the truth that was why he was reluctant to call him a man.
This is obviously not true for Josephus had no problem calling the Jewish
prophets who did miracles and taught the truth men. The passage looks as if
somebody didn’t like Josephus saying that Jesus perhaps should not be called a
man and altered it. That would mean Josephus wrote that Jesus was possibly a
vision – he could have been an unknown man who allegedly started appearing to
people after his supposed resurrection. It is possible that apparitions happened
and were claiming that Jesus had been put to death discreetly under Pilate and
that the apparitions were the first time Jesus was ever heard of. Perhaps some
of those who had the visions eventually pretended to have known Jesus before his
crucifixion.
If you are going to argue that some of what Josephus has
was really written by Josephus the simplest reconstruction is this: “At this
time there was a man called Jesus if it be lawful to call him a man was a
teacher of the truth and a worker of miracles and the tribe of Christians named
after him is not extinct to this day.” In the Testament as we have it we see
that the main point is that there was a possible man called Jesus and the other
details are just to support this assertion. The forger wouldn’t insert this
unless there were people doubting the existence of Jesus.
It is unthinkable that so shortly after saying Herod got rid of the harmless
John the Baptist just because he had a lot of followers and there was a fear
that they might rebel under his guidance that Josephus would write that Jesus
was active and was allowed to copy the Baptist by winning over many people for
that wouldn’t happen.
Josephus is depicted as calling the believers Christians when in fact the name
was only given to believers at Antioch and a host of names were used, Nazarenes,
Jesusers, the Way and so on. Only two New Testament writers use Christian and it
was given as an insulting nickname which was why it was slow of catching on and
also there was the problem that there were as many Jesus faiths as there was
followers of Christ. The official name used by Rome as late as 60 AD was
Nazarenes (Acts 24:5) so Josephus did not mention Christians.
Later he referred to James as the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ which
could mean that he thought that James was the brother of some obscure man who
had come back as a ghost which would mean that Josephus did not claim to have
any evidence that Jesus lived. We have seen from Paul that Jesus was entirely
known through visions and so it might have been “revealed” by some prophet that
Jesus was an unknown brother of James’ through a long-lost mother. It is
possible that brother of Christ or the Lord or whatever was a honorific title
given to James. Josephus would not mention Christ without trying to debunk him
for he didn’t like false Christs and was devoted to Rome’s cause and it was
dangerous to draw attention to James being of Christ’s royal blood if the
expression is literal. That is why many believe that the reference to Christ in
the text is an interpolation. All agree that Josephus was tampered with by a
Christian copyist so there is no reason to take any reference to Christ at face
value.
It is certain that some interfering person inserted the “clarification” that
James was Jesus’ brother. Hegesippus declared that James was holy from birth,
was allowed into the holy places of the Jews as a unique privilege, and was so
strict about the Jewish law that he wore linen and wouldn’t touch wool, and he
wouldn’t wash himself or cut his hair. Because his loyalty to Jewish tradition
was so rigid he was nicknamed James the Just or Righteous. The brother of a man
who altered the Jewish traditions and condemned them and who was believed to
have been a false Messiah and who yearned for the destruction of the Temple, the
very life-force of Judaism, would not have been so greatly esteemed among the
Jews. The designation of James as Jesus’ brother, if literally meant, is an
insertion. Early tradition was in the habit of describing people who looked like
Jesus or were like him other ways as brothers and even as twins. Thomas was
reckoned to be the twin of Jesus. Hegesippus wrote in the early second century
and had been a Jew before he converted to Christianity. Palestinian in birth, he
knew what he was talking about.
According to the letter of Paul to Philemon Christians believed you could make
somebody you loved your brother or sister by blood even if they were not a blood
relation. Paul told Philemon that Onesimus was not just a brother in the Lord
but a blood brother from now on. A brother in the Lord means a non-literal
brother but Paul’s saying Onesimus who was not related to Philemon was more than
that and a blood brother indicates plainly that you can become a literal blood
brother by adoption. This practice could have confused people about James and
made them think he really was born a brother of Jesus’.
Even if the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ reference is real, it was not
a statement Josephus even hinted he had any evidence for. It was James he wrote
about. He wasn’t even looking at the Jesus evidence. It therefore has no more
value than somebody saying that Katie King visited the séances of Florence Cook
while writing about Florence. Katie King was a materialised spirit that was
perhaps the medium, Florence, in disguise.
James is certainly not the brother in any sense of the rebellious and turbulent
figure we have in the gospels. That he was given this title of the just or the
righteous proves plainly that the gospel history is dubious. How could the
supporter of a heretic like Jesus been so greatly esteemed among the Jews of
Palestine?
The fact that somebody had to put a heap of dogmatic assertions about Jesus in
Josephus just to show he existed proves that Jesus did not exist. Paul clearly
showed that the only reason to believe in Jesus was visions so that supersedes
anybody else who said that Jesus lived for they came along after Paul’s time.
Also Paul had the most influence in the early Church and since he was an apostle
and the apostles were special witnesses of Jesus and the heads of the Church it
follows that what any of them says comes first. And by the way, there is no
reason to believe that any gospel was really written by an apostle and most
scholars agree. So if Paul says there is no evidence for Jesus but visions that
is the case. Period.
FINALLY
The idea that the Testament isn’t all a forgery is really asking us to believe
in the existence of Jesus over fanciful evidence. It is sheer speculation and
everybody just guesses what the reconstruction is. However some Christians
feel the Testament was just a complete replacement for what Josephus really
wrote which might have been an accusation that he was a scoundrel who deserved
to be executed and who arranged a fake resurrection. They wonder if the
Jewish lie that Jesus was stolen from the tomb by his disciples that Matthew
says they believe to this day could have been repeated in Josephus's treatment
of Jesus.