Flavian testimony
The Flavian Testimony (in Latin Testimonium flavianum) is called paragraphs 63 and 64 of chapter XVIII of the book Jewish Antiquities (Antiquitates Iudaicae) written by the Jewish historian Flavio Josephus, in which Jesus called Christ is mentioned, although part of its text has later interpolations, it continues to maintain an authentic core.
The Jewish Antiquities is a chronicle written around the year 93 AD. C., which narrates the history of the Jewish people in a reasonably complete way. Flavio Josefo's interests —including winning Rome's sympathy towards the Jews— lead him, however, to minimize news that could be conflicting.
Josephus does not mention the leaders of the small group of Christians (Peter and Paul) or Mary (the mother of Jesus). However, two paragraphs deal directly and indirectly with Jesus:
In book 18 of the Ant.Iud., chapter 3,3, there is a text traditionally called «Flavian Testimony». The fragment in question has sparked extensive philological and historiographical debates as to its full or partial authenticity. In book 20, chapter 9.1, Jesus is indirectly mentioned when recounting the death of his brother James or James (contraction of the Latin Sanct & # 39; Iagus, that is, Saint James):
[...] Ananias was a soulless Sadducee. He summoned the Sanhedrin at the right time. Procurator Festo had passed away. The successor, Albino, had not yet taken possession. He called to judgment the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and with him he made several others appear. He accused them of being offenders to the law and condemned them to be stoned. [...].Jewish Antiquities, 20.9.1
This quote helps to date the death of James, brother of Jesus, in the year 62. This text from book 20 is philologically and historiographically more consistent than the Flavian Testimony; at least, it formally coincides with the style of Josephus. The scholar George Albert Wells suggests the hypothesis of a marginal gloss (an annotation in the margin of the manuscript) that was incorporated into the text in successive copies. In another passage ( Ant.Iud. , 18.5.2) reference is made to the death of John the Baptist at the hands of Herod, but without mentioning his relationship with Jesus.
Passage 18, 3, 3
The passage says verbatim:
By this time Jesus appeared, a wise man [if it is right to call him man, for he was a performer of shocking miracles, a teacher for men who receive the truth with joy], and drew many Jews to Him [and many Gentiles as well. It was the Christ]. And when Pilate, in the face of the denunciation of those who are the chief among us, had condemned him to the tree (matter of torment), those who had first loved him did not abandon him [as he appeared to them alive again on the third day, having predicted this and many other wonders about Him the holy prophets]. The tribe of Christians, so called by Him, has not ceased to grow until this day.Indicated in brackets possible interpolations.
About its authenticity there are conflicting opinions:
First, there are those who consider the entire passage false. The main reasons for this view seem to be the following:
- Josephus could not represent Jesus Christ as a simple moralist, and on the other hand he could not emphasize Messianic prophecies and expectations without offending the Roman susceptibility;
- The above mentioned passage of Josephus seems to have been unknown by Origen and the first patristic writers;
A second group of critics do not regard the entirety of Josephus's testimony concerning Christ as false, but hold that there is an interpolation of the parts marked in brackets above. The reasons assigned for this opinion can be reduced to the following two:
- Josephus must have mentioned Jesus, but he cannot have recognized Him as the Christ; therefore part of the present Flavian text must be genuine and interpolated.
- Likewise, the same conclusion follows the fact that Origen knew a text of the Jewish author about Jesus, but he was not familiar with the one analyzed, since, according to the great doctor of Alexandria, Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. (In Matth.XIII, 55; Against CellsI, 47).
This hypothesis received solid confirmation in 1971, when the Arabic version of Bishop Agapius of Hierapolis's History of the World was discovered, which very possibly offers the original text of Josephus, without the later Christian interpolations (vid. infra).
A third class of scholars believes that the entire passage about Jesus, as found today in Josephus, is genuine. The main arguments for the authenticity of the Josephus passage are the following:
- First, all the codexes or manuscripts of Josephus' work contain the text in question; to maintain the forgery of this text we must assume that all the copies of Josephus were in the hands of the Christians, and were changed in the same way.
- Second, it is true that neither Tertullian nor Justin use Josephus' passage about Jesus; but his silence is probably due to the contempt with which contemporary Jews considered Josephus, and the relative little authority he had among Roman readers. The writers of the age of Tertullian and Justin could appeal to living witnesses of the apostolic tradition.
- Third, Eusebius (Hist. Eccl.I, xi; cf. Dem. Ev., III, v) Sozomeno (Hist. Eccl., I, i), Nicéforo (Hist. Eccl., I, 39), Isidoro de Pelusium (Ep. IV, 225), St. Jerome (Catal.Script.Eccles. XIII), Ambrosio, Casiodoro, etc., resort to the testimony of Josephus, so in the time of these illustrious writers there should be no doubt as to their authenticity.
- Fourth, Josephus' complete silence about Jesus would have been an even more eloquent testimony than we have in the present text; the latter does not contain any affirmation that is incompatible with his Flavian origin: the Roman reader needed the information that Jesus was the Christ or the founder of the Christian religion; the wonderful works of Jesus and his resurrection from the dead were incessantly preached by Christians in such a way that without these attributes the Christian Jesus was not.
Versions
Greek version
Collected by Eusebius of Caesarea in Ecclesiastical History (chapter I, 11), from the year 323, it was transmitted through the literature of Christian Europe. The oldest copy is dated to the XI century (codex Ambrosianus 370 (F 128), which is preserved in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan):
Jesus appeared at this time, a wise man, if indeed he can be called a man. He was the author of amazing facts; teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. Many, both Jews and Greeks, followed him. This was the Christ (the Messiah). Some of our most eminent men accused him of Pilate. This one condemned him to the tree of torment. However, those who had loved him before, did not stop loving him. They were resurrected on the third day, as had been announced by the divine prophets who had predicted it and a thousand other wonderful things. And until today, the tribe of Christians, which owes him this name, has not disappeared.Ant., XVIII, iii, 3
Latin version
It is collected by Saint Jerome (342-420) in his De Viris Illustrubs, and it also appears attested in the Latin translation of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History by Rufinus as well as in a paraphrase of Josephus made by the author of the so-called Pseudo-Hegesippus. This version is characterized by the fact that where in the Greek version Josephus would affirm that " He was the Messiah" the Latin version reads "He was believed to be the Messiah" (et credebatur esse Christus).
Arabic version
Also known as the Slavic version, it was included in the X century in an Arabic translation of Flavio's work Josephus, within Universal History, from its beginnings to 941/942 AD. C., due to Agapio, bishop of Hierapolis. It was brought to light in 1971 by the Jewish exegete Shlomo Pines:
At this time there was a man named Jesus. His behavior was good and considered virtuous. Many Jews and people from other nations became their disciples. The converted into his disciples did not abandon him. They reported that they had appeared three days after their crucifixion and that he was alive. According to this it was perhaps the messiah of whom the prophets had told wonders.
As has been well observed by some authors, especially James Charlesworth in 1988, this text, which predates the oldest manuscript copy of the Jewish Antiquities, must reproduce the original version of Josephus without later Christian interpolations, and contributes decisively, even more than Eusebius's text, to affirming the validity of the Testimonium flavianum as a document on the historical Jesus.
Syriac version
It appears in the Syriac Chronicle, a work from the XII century, by Michael the Syrian.
Exegetical analysis
Exegetes are divided into three groups of opinions:
- Those who claim that on the text of Flavio Josefo one or more Christians intercalated added (signed in bold on the text of the Greek version).
- Some authors, like Eisler, think that the Greek version was retouched, but not Arabic.
- Many believe that the forgery occurred in two moments:
- the first most discreet produced the Arabic version;
- and the second with the interposition of phrases of Christian content, originated the Greek version.
- Those who think the whole text is genuine, written by Flavio Josefo. This group is minority and almost exclusive to the most conservative Christian apologetics.
- Those who consider the whole paragraph to be false. One or several Christians wrote it replacing Flavius Josephus. Within this group,
- Some consider that Flavius Josephus did not mention Jesus or Christianity. It is proposed as a hypothesis, although it does not explain the mention that Flavio Josephus makes of James "the brother of Jesus" in chapter XX. This option is often supported by detractors of Christianity.
- Many historiographers consider it likely, by the internal coherence of the text, that Flavio Josefo made mention of Jesus of Nazareth in this section of Chapter XVIII. They believe that, if he mentions a disciple or brother of Jesus in chapter XX, he speaks of the one who refers to "Santiago, the brother of Jesus".