This is the third of my promised reviews of
academic articles on the same subject: on the first of the passages in
Josephus’ works to mention Jesus Christ – the controversial passage. Of the
three articles, this strikes me as surely the most important.
So, this review is of Fernando
Bermejo-Rubio’s article, Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a “Neutral” Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on Antiquitates Judaicae 18.63-64. It was
published in Journal for the Study of Judaism 45 (2014)
326-365. A copy of it can be found online here.
First
things
Josephus was a first century Jewish historian who wrote in
Greek. Some of the books he wrote have survived in copies that have been passed
down the ages. There are two passages in his works that mention Jesus Christ.
Under the microscope here is the controversial mention. It’s found in Josephus’ Antiquities Book 18. It’s a passage sometimes
known as the “Testimonium Flavianum” (“TF” for short). I won’t bore you with
why it’s called that. (Here, I’m leaving aside the lesser known passage in Book
20. This is about Book 18.)
In Greek, the TF is only about 89 or 90 words, depending on how
you count it. Here it is translated into English in a well known translation:
Now
there was about this time Jesus, a wise man; if it be lawful to call him a man.
For he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the
truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the
Gentiles.
He
was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among
us, had condemned him to the cross;
those
that loved him at the first did not forsake him. For he appeared to them alive
again, the third day: as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten
thousand other wonderful things concerning him.
And
the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Many scholars have written on it, and it is a fascinating
subject to delve into. Fernando Bermejo-Rubio has credentials in history of
religions, the historiography of Jesus of Nazareth, early Christianity and
Manichaeism. According
to Bermejo-Rubio, the TF shows
Josephus being subtly negative towards Jesus Christ and Christianity.. Bermejo-Rubio wonders whether original content may have been dropped by a Christian editor. But he is challenging
the consensus view in academia that the passage should be more heavily edited by critics, after
which the remaining TF appears supposedly neutral about its subject Jesus. The remaining
words may appear quite innocent. But once we become more familiar with comparable
examples in Josephus’ writing, we may realise that our eyes have not been fully
opened to his meaning. Bermejo-Rubio argues that whether we look at the Greek text in the textus
receptus or a reconstructed version, the impression is that “from its very
beginning to its very end the passage (and a relatively brief one at that) is
swarming with negative overtones.” He says that his article presents only “the
clearest cases”, and so that is what I am reflecting below, although I would
like to see more of the less clear examples too. I have little to say by way of
negative criticism, so I’m mainly sharing in an orderly way his remarkable combination
of findings.
Bermejo-Rubio
steers a course away from the simplistic false dichotomy of either a hypothetical
text that is extremely hostile or one that is “neutral”. He finds in the TF
something in the middle, a literary masterclass by an unsympathetic Josephus who was skilled in
the fine arts of “dryness, disdain, scorn, disregard, contempt, irreverence,
irony” (page 347-348), although Josephus does not necessarily display all of
those in this single short passage.
Below,
I go through the TF, bit by bit, according to what Bermejo-Rubio has to say
about it. Under each excerpt from the Greek, I state whether he finds something
negative about Jesus and Christianity or not, and then try to summarise his
points. After doing so, I will finish by looking at some of his other
observations and conclusions. (Although I usually do the pre-ambles first, I
think there is merit in this case in putting his findings first.)
In
some places I underline a word or two in Greek to help the reader follow
Bermejo-Rubio’s argument.
Partial authenticity of the text
Bermejo-Rubio
gives brief reasons for holding that the passage is neither wholly a
fabrication (e.g. most of the vocabulary and style is typical of Josephus and
“several expressions in the text are not what one would expect a Christian
interpolator to say”), nor wholly genuine (e.g. “Origen’s statement that
Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ (contradicting the extant
form of the text).” Rather the text is partially authentic, with signs of more
than one redactor: “A wholly genuine text or a complete forgery would have
probably resulted in a more homogeneous passage”; and “the copyist who tampered
with the text did not have a true Sprachgefühl for Greek, because he does not seem to have realized that he left
behind a kind of patchwork.”
The
passage starts as follows:
Γίνεται
δὲ [English: Now there was / And there came…] (see Bermejo-Rubio pages 353-354)
Negative about Jesus: Bermejo-Rubio has this to say, that this typically Josephan
beginning “is not used by him to express meanings as “there lived” or
“flourished.” Rather, it is very often used by him to introduce reports of
Jewish disturbances and tumultuous events, or of some individual as the source
of such trouble.” (As examples, he cites Ant. 18.310, 20.118, 20.173;
and J.W. 1.99, 1.648, 4.208.) It’s basically saying uh oh, here comes trouble. Bermejo-Rubio adds: “In fact, those words are
usually the overture to the mention of a στάσις, an ἐπανάστασις, or a θόρυβος.
The existence of so many parallels creates a strong presumption that the phrase
γίνεται δὲ was similarly employed here in the TestFlav to introduce the
account of some significant disturbance (nothing particularly welcome by the
pro-Roman Josephus).” Bermejo-Rubio will explain what he means by a
disturbance, so I will save my comments on that for now.
He
does not comment on the following clause:
κατὰ
τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον [English: about this time]
For
the following clause, he does comment:
Ἰησοῦς
τις [English: a certain Jesus] (see page 357-358) On this having a textual variant, see further below.
Negative: Having
the word τις after Ἰησοῦς, translates as “a certain Jesus.” Bermejo-Rubio points out that it can be used to
introduce a previously unmentioned figure, as it is here, but there is an added
layer: “it can carry a potentially contemptuous, disparaging meaning.” He deals
with one obvious objection adeptly: “If taken in isolation, the relevance of
this τις could be dismissed by saying that it is the first time that Jesus is
mentioned by Josephus, and that the pronoun is accordingly used in a neutral
way. In light of the abundant material with negative overtones and the mention
of crucifixion, however, this possibility is exceedingly unlikely.” That is,
Josephus is using it in that contemptuous way of his to introduce the negative
account of Jesus that follows. Thus, Bermejo-Rubio tells us that: “Josephus often refers
in this way to the persons whom he deems responsible for riots or disastrous
episodes among the Jewish people in order to emphasize more clearly the shift
between their bombastic claims and their objective insignificance.”
(Textual variant: the word τις is not in the textus receptus, but
has textual support in manuscripts of Eusebius’ works. And as Bermejo-Rubio says, “It is by far much easier to
explain the dropping of a τις by Christian hands, than its creation by a Christian
copyist.” He points out that scholars who agree that this τις is probably
authentic to the original include Eisler, Bienert, Potscher, Twelftree, Vicent,
Dubarle, Whealey, Scheidweiler, and Carleton Paget.)
σοφὸς
ἀνήρ, [English: a
wise man] (see page 357)
Likely neutral: Bermejo-Rubio
reasonably gives some
ground, saying that “Josephus’s account may have contained some neutral
statements, such as those which refer to his wisdom or his wondrous acts”. He
looks at respective cases for it being positive or negative but draws no firm
conclusion.
εἴγε
ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή [English: if it be lawful to call him a man] (see page 357)
Potentially negative: This clause is often taken to be a
Christian scribe’s interpolation, although it would be an odd one because it
was fundamental to orthodox Christianity that Jesus most definitely was a man and should be recognised as
such (and there are New Testament passages to that effect).
Bermejo-Rubio finds reason to treat it not only as
authentic but as potentially negative. He relies on the idea that Josephus may
be writing “with an ironical sense towards Christians’ deification of Jesus.
(only some years
later, Pliny witnesses that Christians sing a hymn to Jesus as if to a god), and he
could critically hint at this belief.” That is, as the
Roman official Pliny could say that Christians were singing to Jesus as to a
god, then his contemporary Josephus could be using irony in saying “if it’s
legitimate to call him a man”, and then promptly moving on to record his
degrading execution as a criminal. This would depend on Josephus knowing that
his nod-and-a-wink would be understood by his principle readers in and around
the Roman elite, and it is difficult to be confident of that.[1]
ἦν
γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, [English: For he was a doer of wonderful works] (see page 353)
Potentially negative: Bermejo-Rubio mentions this as one of the weaker cases for
being potentially negative, noting that Reinach, in “Josephe sur Jesus,” saw a
nuance “meprisante,” whereas others see it as potentially positive.[2]
διδάσκαλος
ἀνθρώπων [English: a
teacher of such men] (see page 354)
Probably negative: Bermejo-Rubio writes that “in the sixteen occurrences of
διδάσκαλος in Josephus, in almost half of them the word has a negative meaning
by referring to false teachers“. This particularly makes sense in light of how
Josephus has used some of the following vocabulary.
τῶν
ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, [English: as receive the truth with pleasure] (see page
354)
Negative: He
writes that “ἡδονῇ δέχεσθαι is a characteristic phrase of the scribe in
the latter part of Antiquities carrying negative overtones particularly
to refer to the tumultuous behavior of crowds.”
In support of this view, he notes the following three comparable
examples of negativity:
- In Ant. 18.6, ἡδονῇ . . . ἐδέχοντο “is employed in a seditious context to describe the people’s reaction to the call by Judas the Galilean and Saddok the Pharisee to resist the Roman census …”
- “Some paragraphs after the Jesus passage, the phrase is also used to describe Mundus’s reaction to a malevolent advice of his freedwoman Ida (Ant. 18.70: to commit a deceitful act.”
- “And a bit later (18.85) we read that the Samaritan prophet appealed to the ἡδονή of the mob, bidding them go with him to Mount Gerizim.”
- He also cites Ant. 17.329 and 19.185.
For further support of the impression
of negativity, he quotes Twelftree: “ἡδονή has a very negative meaning in
Christian literature. Therefore, a Christian interpolation is out of the
question.” In addition, “The phrase could imply simpleminded enthusiasm and
even self-delusion”. So Josephus’ use of words here comes with a track record.
καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ
καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο· [English: He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of
the Gentiles.] (see page 354-355)
Negative: He explains that ἐπάγομαι has a
negative overtone signalling “bring something bad upon someone)—only slightly less
negative than ἀπάγομαι—, and in this context it may carry the meaning of “lead
astray” or “seduce." Interestingly, Josephus himself uses the verb ἐπάγομαι
in this negative sense elsewhere (e.g., Ant. 1.207, 6.196, 11.199,
17.327).”
This Josephan negativity makes sense in
context, as he notes: “the crucifixion of a man
who won over (or rather “led away”) many people could be taken as [indicating]
a disturbance”. So “drawing away” is by no means automatically a positive
statement.
For further support of the impression of
negativity, he notes Christian usage, that “The verb is used in 2 Peter 2:1 in
connection with false prophets “bringing” destruction on themselves.”
ὁ
Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. [English: He was the Christ.] (see page
334-335)
A
much debated clause. The problem with it, widely recognised today, is not that
it is impossible to believe a Jew could think that Jesus was the Christ. Far
from it: all the first followers of Jesus are unanimously regarded as Jews, and
especially it is now known that the parting of the ways between “Judaism” and
“Christianity” cannot be dated to Josephus’ era. The actual problem is that
early Christian testimony is that Josephus definitely did not believe that Jesus was the Jewish Christ. Bermejo’s assessment
recognises that the phrase has been tampered with, and so he looks behind it:
Negative (prior
to Christian tampering with the text): He writes, “One has the strong
impression that Josephus wrote at least a little more than what has survived.” Many
scholars think this whole clause is interpolated, others that it has been
edited, shortened even. He is of the latter view. He points out:
- the past tense “was” where a pious Christian interpolator would surely write “is”. That “was” suggests the clause has an authentic element. Citing Barnes, he tells us: ““This was Christ” (as opposed to “is Christ”) is not a faith statement, but simply an historical identification of Jesus as the person known as “Christ”.” (Or indeed, as we shall see, that the original text said: “He was believed to be the Christ.”)
- merely deleting the whole clause is ineffective, because “an erasure of a title involving a politically charged claim would result that no explanation is being provided for the crucifixion of Jesus (nor, incidentally, for the alleged initiative of the Jewish authorities”. That is, the only clue which the text gives us for understanding the motive for why he was crucified, is the word “Christ”.
- and also, “the absence of any reference to “Christ” makes it more difficult to understand the term Χριστιανοί in the last sentence”.
So we shouldn’t just delete the whole clause. But should we
recognise that it has been edited? Surely, yes. He pays heed to Whealey’s
compelling argument that the text - ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν - has been edited, and that the key
evidence is in ancient translations (Syriac and Latin ones) that pre-date the known
Greek text. Triangulation from these two translations leads to a different
reading in Eusebius’ original citations of the TF, and thus to an earlier
Josephan version of the TF:
“Firstly, the independent attestations
by Jerome’s De viris illustribus (et credebatur esse Christus;
which dates to the fourth century) and by Michael the Syrian (in a reading of
the kind: “and he was believed to be the Christ”) indicate that the Vorlage must
have read ἐνομίζετο.”
The argument he cites is found in detail in Whealey who points out
that “it is hardly credible that both a Latin and a Syriac church writer
independently modified this part of the Testimonium in precisely this
same way.” The phrase thus unearthed – “he was believed to be the Christ” -
conveys that the belief in Jesus’ messianic status was “a subjective opinion of
his followers.” Josephus in this way signals it is a belief to which he does
not subscribe. To him, Jesus was not the Christ, not the Jewish messiah.
So an original version of the TF said “He was believed to be
the Christ.” Unearthing this original version is also helpful:
- in explaining Origen’s complaint that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Christ.
- In explaining that even the textus receptus still says “was” the Christ rather than any pious “is”.
Removing the whole clause does not have the same explanatory force
for those things as an edited version of the clause does. So, we have a
negative phrase: “He was (past tense) believed
to be the Christ” but got killed.
καὶ
αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾿ ἡμῖν [English:
And at the suggestion of the principal men among
us,] (see page 334-335)
Negative: it speaks for itself – the consensus
of the Jewish elite was they wanted him executed, and Josephus says not a word
of criticism towards them for this. The only person that Josephus leaves to
blame is Jesus. And with the phrase “the
principal men among us”, he is effectively siding with them and against
this troublesome Jesus. I would put it that Josephus is virtue-signalling to
his peers.
Bermejo-Rubio notes that “if we deem
the laconic reference to the “denunciation” that the Jewish authorities made
before Pilate as genuine, then, unlike what happened to John [the Baptist] (and
James), that which happened to Jesus according to Josephus was not the result
of the decision of a single man but of a collectivity of rulers.” (page 343) This
is thus more damning towards Jesus, precisely because it was a consensus view,
not just the opinion of one erratic powerful person.
And it further evidences that the previous clause was originally
negative before tampering emasculated it. That is, rashly removing ὁ
Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν would
only make this longer phrase problematic. It “would result that no explanation
is being provided for the crucifixion of Jesus (nor, incidentally, for the
alleged initiative of the Jewish authorities…)” and especially its severe
effect.
We would expect to find at least a hint of a motive for the
execution of a Jewish compatriot, given that “in his depiction of John the
Baptist, Josephus clearly indicates the motives of Antipas for having him
beheaded.” So, likewise, some form of the preceding phrase surely would have
existed to explain what Jesus did wrong in their eyes.
So we have the negativity - whereas “John’s beheading could be
plausibly ascribed to Antipas’s paranoia”, there is no mitigation for Jesus. The
motive is judicial, and negative towards Jesus in implying that Jesus was found
guilty of serious charges. Thus what follows:
σταυρῷ
ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου, [English: when Pilate had condemned him to the cross;] (see page 342-345)
Negative:
Firstly, the
insinuation of the text is that the execution was Jesus’ fault. “Contrary to
the accounts on John [the Baptist in Antiquities Book 18] and James [Book 20],
nowhere does Josephus suggest that Jesus was unjustly killed”. Secondly, the
method of execution: “The TestFlav clearly states that Jesus was crucified
by Pilate, a Roman civil servant, which seems to introduce unmistakably
seditious overtones: the former general in the Jewish War [Josephus] knew quite
well that in first century Judaea, the Romans only crucified trouble-making
provincials or those reckoned to be sympathetic to them. This reading is all
the more plausible because the text betrays the existence of Jesus’ messianic
claims.”
οὐκ
ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες·
[English: those that loved him at the first did
not forsake him] (see page 355-356)
Negative: Two
reasons are given:
In a textual comparison, a passage in Josephus’ War sheds light on this phrase: “In J.W.
1.171 it is stated that Aristobulus becomes the cause of troubles (ἀρχὴ
γίνεται θορύβων), because he gathered many Jews, τοὺς μὲν ἐπιθυμοῦντας μεταβολῆς,
τοὺς δ’ἀγαπῶντάς αὐτὸν πάλαι. This last expression is a close parallel
(even in the time indication) to οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες… it is hardly
plausible that what Josephus meant is that those men gathered by Aristobulus
really “loved” a man like him.” Thus, the similar phrase about Jesus’ followers
has the same capacity to be negative towards them.
An “ironical and derogatory meaning” is also to be found: “despite
the fact that Jesus had been condemned to crucifixion, other people did not
cease to be attached to him. Given the obvious negative significance of
crucifixion, what Josephus conveys is rather the idea that Jesus’ followers put
their commitment on the wrong track.” This has to be right. The crucifixion
taints not only Jesus but also his followers, and their continued adherence to
him is not to their credit. That is implied.
In answer to a technical objection that “παύομαι without a
verbal complement (a participle or infinitive) is not in the style of Josephus,”
he cites Whealey, who has noted that “Josephus does occasionally use the verb
without either a genitive noun or a verbal complement; even more decisively,
she has cited J.W. 6.407, which resembles the TestFlav since both
passages use the same verb with a nominal participle (κτείνοντες, ἀγαπήσαντες).”
ἐφάνη
γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν, τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα
μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων. [English: For he appeared to them alive again, the third day, as
the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things
concerning him.] (see page 345)
Bermejo-Rubio has little to say on this seemingly problematic passage,
except to note that some suggest this sentence is a Christian interpolation or
emendation. He thinks it may be simpler to suggest that “the original wording
was in oratio obliqua”. He does
not refer to scholarly discussion that the passage may have originally said
something like “It was claimed that he appeared to them” – perhaps this
is something he has omitted as among the weaker cases for a negative reading.
εἰς
ἔτι τε νῦν [English: at
this day/not yet] (see page 356 and 360-361)
Negative:
On this phrase,
which is much debated for its relative frequency in
different Greek authors, Bermejo-Rubio finds further evidence of a negative
meaning: “the words “Εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν . . . οὐκ ἐπέλιπε” do not convey a neutral
meaning, but rather a disappointed assessment: the Christian sect, though “not
yet” extinct, is on its way towards a natural death.”
τῶν
Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.
[English: the tribe (φῦλον) of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct]
(see page 356 and 360-361)
Negative: Bermejo-Rubio
writes that “φῦλον [tribe] usually has a pejorative sense.” In answer to
one objection from those who favour a neutral text, he writes:
“The argument according to which its
meaning must have been neutral because the expression τὸ τῶν Χριστιανῶν φῦλον
is also used by Eusebius of Christians is unsound, given that Eusebius uses this
expression (Hist. eccl. 3.33.1-3) simply because it appears in a text
where he is paraphrasing Tertullian’s Apol. 2.6-7—which he knew in a
Greek translation—, thus he uses some vocabulary of the source he is
discussing; otherwise, the meaning of the term is in his works overwhelmingly
negative.”
In support of his position, Bermejo-Rubio also notes that
“Eusebius uses the term φῦλον for groups that he disliked or even hated.”
For further evidence of potential
negativity, he writes that “the mention itself of Χριστιανοί in the last sentence of the
extant text seems to be significant. Given that this term is formed
according to Latin adjectives ending in -ianus and that in the plural it
refers to the members of a party, Erik Peterson has argued that in a Roman context the term
was politically charged, and concretely so with seditious overtones.”
So, within a matrix of evidence in which so many other pieces are negative,
then this piece betrays negative colour.
Finally,
“not only do several features of the extant text have negative overtones, but
its context seems also to be negative.” (page 361) That is, it’s found in the wider
context of Pilate putting down the troublesome locals.
Conclusions from the findings
And that’s
all the passage consists of. It’s not very long. In clause after clause, the
cumulative effect of characteristically negative Josephan phraseology makes a
compelling case that most of the extant text is from Josephus’ hand, and
Christian editing of the text is probably marginal. It is inherently improbable
that a Christian interpolator should accidentally, and in so few words, manage
to string together so many phrases that Josephus uses with negative tones about
trouble-makers. And even more improbable because some of the comparable examples
are from distant parts of Josephus’ works. And even more improbable because
these are not examples of blatant hostility, such as might be used by someone
why want to concoct something hostile to Jesus. Rather, it’s wave after wave of
subtly nuanced negativity written by the sly master that Josephus was. As
Bermejo-Rubio notes, “Although certainty is not
possible and every reconstruction remains hypothetical, I have offered a
cumulative series of arguments supporting the case that the original text must
have been at least implicitly negative.”
In
summary, these are Bermejo-Rubio’s findings:
Negative:
Γίνεται δὲ [English: And
there came…]
κατὰ
τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον [English: about this time] - He does not comment on that clause.
Negative:
Ἰησοῦς τις [English: a certain Jesus]
Potentially neutral: σοφὸς ἀνήρ,
[English: a wise man]
Potentially negative: εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή
[English: if it be lawful to call him a man]
Potentially negative: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής,
[English: For he was a doer of wonderful works]
Probably negative: διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων
[English: a teacher of such men]
Negative: τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων,
[English: as receive the truth with pleasure]
Negative:
καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ
τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο· [English: He
drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles.]
Negative:
ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. [English: He was
{believed to be} the Christ - being negative prior to Christian tampering with the text)
Negative:
καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾿ ἡμῖν [English: And at the suggestion of the principal men among us,]
Negative:
σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου, [English: when
Pilate had condemned him to the cross;]
Negative:
οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες· [English: those that loved him at the first did not forsake him]
ἐφάνη
γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν, τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα
μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων. [English: For he appeared to them alive again, the third day, as
the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things
concerning him.] - He
has little to say on that passage.
Negative:
εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν [English: at this day/not
yet]
Negative (note Χριστιανῶν
and φῦλον): τῶν Χριστιανῶν
ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον. [English: the tribe (φῦλον) of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct]
With
this catalogue of observations, Bermejo-Rubio throws down the gauntlet to the
scholarly consensus which has erred towards saying that a reconstructed passage
is more or less neutral about its subject. It remains to be seen whether
academia can provide a convincing rebuttal. I now need to sum up briefly his
observations of weaknesses in the consensus view.
Questioning the idea of a “neutral” text
As
part of his argument, Bermejo-Rubio has to review the arguments for the
opposing position. He finds multiple weaknesses in arguments for the consensus
belief in an originally neutral text, such as that excises three sentences as
Christians “interpolations”:
- “The hybrid nature of Josephus’s text is uncritically reflected in the inconsistent statements of modern scholars.” That is, “some scholars refer to Josephus’s text at the same time as both neutral and sympathetic, while others as both neutral and dismissive/unfavorable.” (pages 330-331)
- The fact that early Christian readers left the text in does not prove that it has to have been more or less neutral enough for their tastes. It may rather be that Christian readers recognised that Josephus fell into the same (mis)conception about Jesus as had been the case among his disciples, and the Jewish elite, and the Romans who executed him. So, Josephus thought that in Jesus he had found an insurrectionist. Bermejo-Rubio would argue that this was no misconception, whereas I would, which is why I’ve written “(mis)conception” above.
- Such Christian readers could have thought of Josephus that he “presumably relied on priestly or pharisaic traditions (and/or on the material contained in Roman archives), and that Josephus was thus misled to give a negative judgment simply because his sources were untrustworthy.” Now, I think that this is probably right. Josephus as a member of the elite would naturally have inherited their pejorative view of the crucified Jesus, which also happens to be consistent with the gospels’ view that the crucified Jesus had been framed by the elite as if he were a threat to Caesar. Such a passage in Josephus, in the eyes of Christian readers, thus no more warranted total suppression than the passages in the gospels portraying the Jewish elite having exactly that attitude to Jesus.
- Bermejo-Rubio thinks that Jesus was a would-be insurrectionist, whereas I think that Jesus was misjudged. When he refers to Jesus being involved in disturbances, he is imagining Jesus being closely linked with seditious violence beyond what the gospels portray, and that is what Bermejo-Rubio has in mind when he refers to “disturbances.” (pages 332-333) (He would therefore probably think that I am more or less making a mistake that echoes that of those earlier Christians who left the TF in.)
- A “neutral” version removing three sentences – or portions of them - can’t be confidently taken to flow more fluently than the text left almost unchanged. (pages 333-334)
- As to whether a neutral or a negative portrayal of Jesus in Book 18 better accords with the more sympathetic portrayal of his brother James in Book 20, Bermejo-Rubio does not think that a neutral portrayal is necessary. He is supported by the fact that Origen did complain that Josephus’ portrayal of Jesus was negative compared to his sympathetic portrayal of James. These are two different situations anyway. Sympathy for James arises because he was a victim of injustice, whereas Josephus treats the execution of Jesus as not problematic at all. Jesus and James are brothers, but Josephus was not bound to treat them alike. So a neutral TF is unnecessary. (pages 336-338)
- Does a neutral text provide the best explanation for the TF not being mentioned by multiple early Christian authors prior to Eusebius? Not really, for various reasons: (pages 338-339)
- “if the text had been truly neutral, it is hard to understand why at least some early apologists would not have cited it.“[3]
- “Christian authors could have used the great historian Flavius Josephus, a non-believer, as an independent witness to Jesus’ wisdom and miracle-working activity”, if such is allowed in a neutral text.[4]
- Perhaps they did, after all, cite the TF; but “a not inconsiderable portion of Christian literature of the second and third centuries has been lost, so an argument ex silentio proves inconclusive.”
- On the other hand, if the silence indicates that they may not have done, this could have been for valid reasons: it’s “likely that this voluminous … work was not circulated widely, and thus Christian writers would not have even been aware of Josephus’s passage on Jesus. Moreover, before Origen no Christian writer seems to have found it worthwhile to cite Josephus as an authority on New Testament matters.”
- Or Christians recognised and were a little bothered that the admirable Josephus was positing Jesus as seditious, under censure by Jews, and a threat to Rome: “perhaps Christian authors felt embarrassed about a passage which they deemed to be not dictated by personal hostility but, simultaneously, potentially devastating. With such a text they, at least for a time, did not know what to do, so they decided not to use it (it was indeed unsuitable for apologetic purposes) until someone decided that the time had come for the text to be doctored.”
So,
either way, a neutral text does not necessarily provide the best congruity with
an argument from silence. Bermejo-Rubio turns his sights on other arguments
wielded by scholars who prefer a redacted neutral text:
- As for the suggestion that the Arabic version (which largely omits the alleged Christian interpolations) of the TF might support an originally neutral Greek text, Bermejo-Rubio relies on Alice Whealey’s work showing the family tree of translations from a Greek version of Eusebius to Syriac to Arabic which does not allow the Arabic version to bear much, if any, weight. (339-341)
- As to whether a neutral portrayal of Jesus in Book 18 makes best sense in light of the sympathetic portrayal of John the Baptist in Ant. 18.116-119, Bermejo-Rubio shrewdly points out that “The notice on the Baptist is literarily and theologically unconnected with the passage about Jesus”. And whereas the deaths of John the Baptist - and of poor James - are in each case “attributed to the [capricious and unjust] behavior of a single Jewish ruler,” Jesus’ death seems to result from a consensus of the elite group that Josephus does not quibble with. (pages 341-2)
- Bermejo-Rubio also disputes the idea that a neutral text fulfils the scholarly ideal of being the simplest explanation that also covers the largest amount of data:
- While the neutral reconstruction “changes the reading of the manuscript only by subtraction of … just three phrases,” this potentially drops up to a third of the passage, up to 29 out of a mere 89 words. Also he disputes that having done so, “then one can smoothly read the text” because “a high degree of subjectivity is involved in this claim.” In any case, “It is indeed debatable whether the method of erasing whole phrases instead of making minor changes is the simplest procedure.” (pages 344-347)
- And preferring his negative reading for simplicity: “the editing process may not have necessarily required the drastic measure of a complete rewriting, but rather some minor emendations. This option is supported by an overview of the indirect tradition, the preference for philological soberness, the history of reception, and psychological probability. The proposal of an original text which could be read as the report of a historian with only slightly derogatory overtones offers the best account for the whole evidence. It explains both why the text was largely preserved and why an intervention was ultimately felt as necessary. Some small changes—but small changes can make a big difference!— would have been enough to make the text readable in a different direction. Thus, with a minimal investment, a great advantage was obtained: the historian became, at least prima facie, a witness for Christianity.”
- “the original text need not have been much more disparaging than the textus receptus.” (page 365) That is, it need not have been extremely hostile, but rather subtly demeaning to Jesus – and some Christian readers detected some or all of this attitude.
“did not feel any sympathy for
popular messianic claimants. His works do not leave any doubt about it, evident
in that they are riddled with disparaging comments on people of this kind. Now,
we are all but certain that he knew the messianic claims made by and about
Jesus, and also the frequent connection between this claim and political
subversion. The sum of Jesus’ messianic claim and his crucifixion—with its
rebellious implications and its testimony to Jesus’ failure—must have been
enough for Josephus to take a critical stance towards Jesus (a fortiori if the phrase about the joint
responsibility of Jewish leaders along with Pilate is accepted as genuine).”
(pages 348-349)
He
is careful to point out, however, that this “does not imply that he must have
felt any particular hostility towards Jesus, rather he must have considered him
to be just one more deluded visionary in a series of similar men. I think this
suffices to explain the presence of some degree of (perhaps only implicit)
negativity in the TestFlav, without attributing to Josephus a declared enmity towards Jesus
and/or Christians. Something which is not to be reconciled with Christianity is
not eo ipso “anti-Christian.”
This might also explain why he did not criticize Jesus and his followers at
greater length.” (page 350) Bermejo-Rubio rightly points out that it would be
anachronistic to expect Josephus to represent a gulf between Jews and
Christians – the parting of the ways between them was a gradual process that
would take several centuries, according to current scholarship.
Bermejo-Rubio
attacks the very heart of the consensus by questioning its motivation: “It has
been surmised that theological and apologetic constraints have substantially
conditioned the history of research on the TestFlav. This is not surprising, because the research of Jesus and the
beginnings of Christianity has too often been skewed by theological
constraints. I am afraid that in the contemporary discussion on Josephus’s text
extra-epistemic factors might also be at work.”
That
is, “the notion that the Vorlage of the TestFlav was “neutral” might be ultimately conditioned by the deep-rooted
assumption that Jesus had nothing (and, on principle, could have nothing) to do
with sedition: if Josephus, a stout opponent of any rebellious move against the
Roman Empire, was neutral towards Jesus, this supports the view of him as a
harmless preacher.” In other words, scholars have been finding what they wanted
to find (pages 363-5). Essentially, the case for a negative reading of the TF
needs to be considered seriously again.
Not
unusually in scholarship, Bermejo-Rubio develops a hypothesis for what may have
disturbed some Christians who were so silent about the original text of the TF
and ultimately Christianised it a little bit – that it more than hinted that
Jesus was a seditionist with potentially violent aspirations. Bermejo-Rubio is
quite taken with “the hypothesis that Jesus, whatever else he may have been,
was involved in some kind of anti-Roman resistance in his ideology and/or his
activity“ (page 351). He explores this is some detail. However, it is
superfluous to the core of his argument which is textually based findings of
subtle negativity within the text of the TF. I would just say that I find the anti-Roman
sedition idea implausible for reasons that I have given in another post. In particular, the apostle Paul
just a few small years after the crucifixion joined the Jesus movement, got to
know the likes of Peter, John and James, and he believed he had joined a
movement of non-violence. This makes the idea of it being a recently seditious
movement highly improbable. In addition, if someone wanted to have a movement of
non-violent teachings, the last possible figure you would develop it from would
be a seditionist. But that this could become the received view of the Jewish
and Roman elites is entirely plausible.
In
summary, Bermejo-Rubio’s article validates partial authenticity of the TF, and
gives an interesting argument as to why a Christian scribe(s) would have
redacted the TF. He believes that the redaction is a reaction against a slant
that Josephus puts on the data. We recall that in the gospel accounts of Jesus’
trial and execution there is startling piece of data, that he supposedly
claimed to be “King of the Jews”, which appears out of the blue (in that such a
particular claim never appears prior to those trial scenes in the gospels). As
such, that data sticks out to historians as a historical nugget. “King of the
Jews”? It was framed in the gospels as seeming seditious enough to get Jesus
crucified. And that is the slant that Josephus was perpetuating with multiple
negative insinuations about Jesus in the TF that were obvious to his readers
until Christian redactions muddied the waters.
I
am grateful to Fernando Bermejo-Rubio for reading a draft of
this review, and for his helpful comments.
Appendix 1: Answering a case for total interpolation
Addressing
a case that the passage is entirely an interpolation - namely that the passage
does not at all belong where it is found because its portrayal of Pontius
Pilate (yielding to Jewish pressure rather than being ruthlessly anti-Jewish)
is dissonant with the portrayal found in surrounding passages - Bermejo-Rubio
soundly refutes this:
“it is a debatable matter whether
Pilate is so strongly criticized in the previous passages: in the episode of
the standards, Josephus writes that when Pilate realizes the devotion of the
Jews to the laws he “straightway (παραχρῆμα) removed the images” (Ant. 18.59); and in the episode of
the sacred treasury it is said that the soldiers “inflicted much harder blows
than Pilate had ordered” (18.62). Secondly, one could likewise point out that
the subsequent text contains some (ostensibly) just punishments, and that the
episode about Jesus could be included here… the following context records a
series of calamities and shameful practices that required harsh Roman legal
intervention (Ant. xviii.65-87), and it is quite possible that Jesus’ actions were
originally portrayed by Josephus as an uprising that Pilate believed he needed
to quell.” (page 350, n. 113)
This
last suggestion pre-supposes that a much longer passage was suppressed, and
there is simply no direct evidence for this, and it would surely be
self-refuting for Bermejo-Rubio’s case that the TF is only subtly negative
towards Jesus.
Appendix 2: Josephus’ source(s)
Bermejo-Rubio
seems agnostic on whether Josephus’ source(s) for the TF might have been Roman
or Jewish or Christian – it’s simply unprovable. Goldberg sponsors the latter
(Bermejo-Rubio mentions this), and we could in theory combine Goldberg’s
argument along with the idea that Josephus spins whatever material he had with
an anti-Jesus slant that he inherited from the Jewish elite, doctoring a
Christian source (or any other source for that matter). Bermejo-Rubio has shown
that Josephus is doing rather more than mere recording of a source that he had
to hand. Rather than following a Christian (or other) text rigidly, Josephus in
making alterations to suit his written style actually slyly chooses his phrases
to give a slant unsympathetic to Jesus, conveying to his original readers that
Jesus was a dead political enemy of Rome, and Jesus’ followers were hardly much
better.
[1] I
would also add that I think this is probably a better explanation for the
existence and authenticity of the phrase than one sometimes heard: namely that
Josephus is merely reflecting the swirl of speculation in Judea around the life
of Jesus (see Mark 6:14-16, whose author was a contemporary of Josephus).
[2]
I would add that much ink has been
spilled over the issue that Josephus normally uses ποιητής to mean poets rather than doers, unlike say Eusebius some
centuries later. But there are reasons to be cautious about putting too much
weight on this anomaly. That is, Josephus’ Jewish contemporaries who wrote the
New Testament documents could use ποιητής to mean both poets and doers. So it’s difficult
to deny Josephus the right to do so too. However, I don’t think Bermejo-Rubio
would treat this clause as a hill to die on – he doesn’t even raise these
points, and they contribute little to whether the passage is negative in tone.
[3] I would add that such would not apply universally, as it rather
depends on who is addressing whom. For example, would a mistrusted Christian be
wise to try to enlist the help of Josephus when debating a Jew who regarded
Josephus as an unworthy traitor? In other debates, this issue might not arise.
[4] I would add that there is an inherent risk in enlisting an
opponent as support: namely that the hearer is cued up to respond, “That’s all
very well, but if that wasn’t enough to convince Josephus to become a
Christian, then it doesn’t convince me either.”
No comments:
Post a Comment