THE JOSEPHUS TESTAMENT: WHERE DOES IT BELONG?
There is a text in Josephus that reads like a Christian creed. Nobody thinks Josephus really wrote it. It says Jesus did miracles and appeared alive after his death.
It has been noticed that it is out of place. It is
put in book 18 but there is no indication that it belongs where it is.
Just before it, there is the story of Pilate violently putting down a riot by
the Jews who protested when he used holy money to fund a canal to Jerusalem. The
story ends with the words, “This was how this rebellion was brought to an end.”
Then it goes on to the Jesus Testament which it begins by saying, “Now about the
same time, a wise man called Jesus, etc”.
After the Testament appears the account immediately proceeds to another sad
calamity to befall the Jews and then he says he will diverge for a moment to
tell the story about a Roman lady Paulina who was fooled for sex by a man she
thought was the apparition of the god Anubis in the Temple of Isis. He said then
he would return to the story of the Jews as he promised and then he wrote of the
calamity that happened to the Jews. So we see then that when he allegedly wrote
about Jesus he was determined not to digress without saying. At the time he
wrote he was not into wandering all over the place with his words. What he did
other times would have nothing to do with this for we all temporarily take on
good and bad habits. Therefore the Testament is an insertion by a Christian
forger.
The text about Jesus can be extracted and not missed for it is in the middle of
a train of thought which proves that it is an insertion for it breaks the train
(The Jesus Mysteries, page 137). It is not a weird digression for Josephus was
well organised. Some object that since it appears between two paragraphs of
separate material that this cannot be proved. But it claims that Jesus appeared
after John died so it is out of chronology and the length is bizarre for it is
too short for a man who wrote in detail about John and little about Jesus and
centred on doctrine.
Because of the lady in the Temple story, Christians argue that the Jesus
Testament could be authentic despite looking out of place for Josephus
occasionally wandered from the topic anyway. After this Temple story digression
which he stated was a digression he went on to discuss the calamity he had in
mind which was the Jews been ejected from Rome. He Walked Among Us claims that
the story of the lady seduced in the Temple of Isis is seriously out of context
(page 43). This story starts with the words, "At this time another sad calamity
put the Jews into disorder but I will go back to this later," so this book is
lying to cover up the fact that the Testament is what is out of context or to
minimise our perception of how out of place it is. It goes as far as to say that
the story about the lady is what should be removed not the Testament. This is
ridiculous for Josephus explicitly warned that he was digressing so it is not
really out of context but no such warning exists for the Testament. The Jesus
Testament is still out of context and the story of the lady does not make this
any less true.
The only basis on which Christians and the book He Walked Among Us dismiss the
idea that Josephus's entire book 18 can do perfectly well without the Testament
is that those who think it can see a pattern in the book that deals with
disasters that is not there and they argue that the woman is a digression so why
couldn't Jesus be? We have seen that the lady in the temple is not an unexpected
digression. The Jesus one is in a different category for there is no hint that
it is a digression unlike the woman’s story. Josephus would not have started
about a Jewish disaster and then got carried away about Jesus especially if he
liked Jesus for he would have given what he was going to write about him more
thought than treating it as a footnote or impromptu afterthought. He would have
written his book out roughly first and so this aberration would have been fixed
in the final version.
Josh McDowell's Evidence for Jesus is it Reliable? says that being out of
context would not mean the Testament was a forgery because ancient writers often
digressed for it was in a time that footnotes and stuff were not thought of. But
even if the case is that we don't know if it is a case like that or if it is an
insertion by a fraudster we still cannot rely on the passage for evidence about
Jesus. And why would Josephus digress so dramatically and not give some
warning? The passage sticks out like a sore thumb. The passage starts with "At
this time there was a man of wisdom called Jesus". At what time? Certainly not
the time when Pilate put assassins in the middle of a Jewish rebellion. Clearly,
it does not matter who digresses in ancient writings. What is relevant is, would
Josephus digress without indication and was it his style? We know he wouldn't.
Some reason, “It could well be that Josephus was in the habit of inserting
material into his finished book which gave the forger of the Testament the
perfect chance to put in his little Christian creed. Paulina’s tale could be an
instance of Josephus’s habit.” Even if we grant that the Testament is so out of
place and he would have slotted it into the context just like he said he was
digressing to put in the details about Paulina.
Josephus says immediately after the Testament that another calamity for the Jews
happened. No hint was given that the death of Jesus was a calamity for the Jews.
He denied it was for he said Jesus appeared after his death and the Jews wanted
him dead and nothing bad came to the Jews because of it. The gospel of John says
the Jews believed that it was better for Jesus to die than to risk antagonising
the Romans who might turn on them all. Therefore the entire Jesus Testament was
an insertion, a fabrication.
Josephus’ Testament speaks of Jesus a bit before it relates the terrible things
that began to take place after the demise of John. This would contradict the
gospels which all say that Jesus was baptised by John and was active before
John’s demise and that he stole a lot of the light from John. If any part of the
Testament is real then Josephus would not have believed the gospels and
considered them to be silly lies. Some believe the time scale is spot on because
the gospels speak of Herod thinking Jesus was John raised from the dead which
can only mean that the gospels lied about Jesus’ actions and ministry before
John’s demise.
If the Testament is not in its right place then that would destroy the link
between Jesus and John the Baptist. We would have to wonder why when Jesus and
John were so linked in the gospels why the Testament wasn’t put next to some
John material. This would stand as a refutation of the gospels and their
time-scale. Not that there is a solid link in Josephus except that it is near to
it.
The Testament is just too avoidable and awkward where it is to be anything other
than an interpolation – the claim that the concept of footnotes didn’t exist in
those days and so what would have been footnotes were stuck in anywhere does not
wash here. Why? Because even footnotes have some link to the text but the Jesus
one has no link at all. Why would Josephus just think of it just like that? If
he really liked Jesus he would have put a lot of thought into it and put it in a
suitable place. It says he liked Jesus so it is a fake. Josephus would have
written his book out roughly first before copying what he finally decided to
write into the final manuscript. He had no need to wander from the point and had
to be careful as to where he put data in case he would need to go back and
revise it again. That was too much of a digression though everybody digresses a
bit. This digression is too sharp and unexpected for comfort (Biblical
Discrepancies).
Even if the Christians are right that there is no evidence that the Testament
can be done without then we still don't know if it belongs there. To trust it
would be like trusting a letter from your lover that could just as easily have
come from her or a forger.
The fact that the insertion in Book 18 was not stuck in at Book 20 where there
is an alleged reference to Jesus makes it plain that the original Book 20 never
mentioned Jesus at all.
Josephus recounts the calamity of the protesters being slain first and then the
Testament follows straight after and it begins by saying, “Now about the same
time, a wise man called Jesus, etc”. So the impression given is that Jesus
appeared at the time of the calamity – it has a dating function. But it was not
a big enough event for that for slayings of Jews by Romans were common. This
indicates that the Testament is an insertion.
Christians will object that he wrote about this time so it could give or take a
few years. What use would that be. He says that another calamity befell the Jews
and a shamefulness took place in the Temple of Isis at that time as well. He as
good as wants the year in and that is how he says it. He wants us to know with
sufficient accuracy when these events happened. The events happened in the same
year if he is to mean anything at all.
He said that Jesus appeared at the time Pilate had the protesters slain – it was
an unnecessary slaying at that for the Romans were able to go among the
protestors in plain clothes without fear and then they withdrew their weapons
and murdered them. This does not fit the Pilate who wanted to delight the Jews
by killing Jesus that we have in the Testament. But enough digressing. He says
the shame in the Temple and a disaster befell the Jews at the same time. This
makes more sense if you leave the Testament out because then you have the
slaying of the protestors and then the Temple shenanigans and the Jewish
calamity said to be at the one time. But you can’t do this with the Testament
for it says when Jesus appeared and gives events such as Jesus getting followers
and then being killed which did not happen at the one time but would have taken
a few years.
So what Josephus says is that at the time of the protesters being murdered,
Jesus appeared and worked, died and rose and then at the same time the Temple
seduction and the calamity happened which makes no sense because Jesus’ tale
would have been a more long-term thing spanning up to three years. When you
leave it out the times make sense.
Another reason the Testament does not fit is that if Josephus liked Jesus so
much then why would he describe the expulsion of Jews from Rome as another great
calamity for the Jews for that would be disrespectful to Jesus? There is no
comparison between the Messiah’s murder and Jewish men being exiled from Rome.
And the Jews didn’t feel that Jesus’ death was a calamity.
I wonder though if that creed was among Josephus' notes
and then some editor put it into his book.
The Testament does not belong in Josephus at all. End of.