Jesus in Josephus

On the Mentions of Jesus Christ

Book 18, Chapter 3, Sections 63-64, contains the Testimonium Flavianum.

Book 20, Chapter 9.1, Section 200 mentions “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James”.

Book 18 and 20 are only preserved in 3 out the above 13 manuscripts. The MSS are A (11th c.), W (14th c.), and M (15th c.).
The MSS by siglum, location, and name:
A: Milan. Codex bibl. Ambrosianae F 128.
W: Rome. Codex Vaticanus Graecus 984.
M: Florence. Codex Medicaeus bibl. Laurentianae plut. 69, cod. 10.

All three of these are believed to share a common source text. The general consensus among scholars is that Josephus did not author the TF. The language used in the TF is closer to that of Eusebius than Josephus. The three phrases “maker of miraculous works”, “tribe of Christians”, and “to this day” are not used anywhere else in any of Josephus’ works, but they are used several other times by Eusebius. [2]

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

On the Transmission of the Testimonium Flavianum and the Passage about James

The passage is first cited by Eusebius in the 4th century in his:
Demonstratio evangelica (3.5, section 124)
Historia ecclesiastica (1.11.7-8)
Theophania (only survives in 1 Syriac translation).

There are two phrases that differ between Eusebius’ Demonstratio and Historia. He changes “revere” and “leaders” to “receive with pleasure” and “first men”. This was likely done for verisimilitude, to make it appear more Josephan in style.

The passage about James is also suspicious, as the only other place that the word Christ occurs in the MSS of Josephus is in the (generally accepted to be fake) Testimonium Flavianum. On the topic of the passage about James, in 1999, K. A. Olsen claimed, “We simply have no way of reconstructing how the passage originally read.”

Origen also mentions the passage about James in his:
Commentarii in Matthaeum (10.17)
Contra Celsum (1.47; 2.13).
Eusebius references Origen.

Shlomo Pines (1908-1990) brought Agapius’ Arabic translation to light in the 20th century. Pines believed Agapius’ text to be based primarily on Eusebius’ Historia.

Agapius’ text apparently misidentifies Phlegon as Plato. Also, “the passage contains many omissions, additions, and changes making it very different from its parent text.” Overall, the text of Agapius renders a different story than Eusebius’.

No author cites the TF before Eusebius. The next person to cite it is nearly a century later.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

References:

[1] – http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/josephus_antiquities.htm

[2] – Eusebius and the “Testimonium Flavianum”

[3] – https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004324749/B9789004324749_043.xml

[4] – https://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1470_augsburg_schussler.html

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: