Friday, August 2, 2013

Was Jesus Even Crucified? Part 4

Link to Part 1.

Link to Part 2.

Link to Part 3.

Part 4 - Further Examination of the Testimonium Flavianum.

Could Josephus even have written any of this? If so, is it more “properly decorated” than most scholars who say it has an authentic Josephan core agree upon?

First, the first passage of 18.3.3 [63] calls Jesus “a wise man” which Josephus applied to figures who were genuinely wise – such as Solomon (Antiquities 8.2.7 [53]) and Daniel (Antiquities 10.11.2 [237].) It is questionable if Josephus saw Jesus as wise particularly if he was casting assertions on his masculinity and referred to him as “the one called Christ” (as in a so-called messiah) in Antiquities 20.9.1.[200].

The second passage: “if it is lawful to call him a man” / “if one has to call him a man” is also doubtful; most scholars would agree it is a Christian emendation. Instead of cutting both ways, as I said it could in Part 2 before, the qualifying phrase that follows forces a positive spin on it.

The phrase “for he was a doer (ποιητής (poiêtês)) of wonderful works / paradoxical deeds. (παραδόξων ἔργων (paradoxôn ergôn))” Again, I have noted Josephus used the phrase “wonderful works (παραδόξα ἔργα (paradoxa erga))” with regard to the works done by Elisha (Antiquities 9.8.6 [182]). And I have shown before in Part 2 that poiêtês is basically a poet, author, composer.

The fourth passage ”a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure” is another curious statement. It doesn’t look like either Josephus or a later Christian would have written this. Josephus could have written this but only with a noun or adjective that he used elsewhere with negative connotation, especially if he was denigrating Jesus’ masculinity, such as ἀνακαλύψας (anakalupsas) meaning “revealed, unconcealed, exposed”, which he used in a reference to a Roman soldier exposing himself at Passover in Antiquities 20.5.3 [108], instead of the generally positive τἀληθῆ (talêthê). Also curious and perhaps inappropriate is the term “with pleasure” (ἡδονῇ (êdonê)) when coupled with “receiving the truth” (τἀληθῆ δεχομένων (talêthê dechomenôn)), for it casts assertions on the masculinity of those being taught by Jesus. Philo, in his work Opif. 164, said that “a snake fighter”, lauded by Moses, was “a symbolic representation of self-control (ενκρατεια (enkrateia)), waging a fight that never ends and a truceless war against intemperance (ἀκρασίαν (akrasian)) and pleasure (ἡδονῇ (êdonê)), producing softness and voluptuousness in soul and body.” 1

Still, in Antiquities, ἡδονῇ (êdonê is sometimes employed in a positive sense, sometimes in a negative sense, and sometimes in a neutral sense. A coincidence that in Antiquities 18.1.1 [6], Josephus writes, “men received what [Judas tha Gaulonite / Galilean and Sadduc the Pharisee] said with pleasure,” nearly identical to what is extant in 18.3.3 [63]. 2 An even more curious coincidence is in 18.3.4 [70], in the account of the seduction of a Roman matron, Paulina, through the connivance of Egyptian priests of Isis and a freed-woman named Ide, is that the seducer, one Decius Mundus, “joyfully hearkened to her [Ide’s] entreaty,” that is, her proposal to arrange a way to trick the matron to spend the night together with Mundus posing as the Egyptian god Anubis. On the third day after their night together, Mundus reveals all to Paulina, saying it was him, and not a god she spent the night with, and said that he rejoiced “in the pleasure I reaped by what I did.” 3 In neither instance is ἡδονῇ (êdonê) interpreted positively or even in a neutral sense.

In the fifth passage we read that “he drew to himself (ἐπηγάγετο (epēgageto)) many of the Jews and many of the Greeks.” Again, this could be positive, if Jesus was winning over people who are glad to hear the truth; or it could be negative, as Jewish polemic records that he (or someone else named Yeshu) was a mesith (enticer). But then again it could be seen as casting assertions on Jesus’ masculinity even if it was written as is. It is noted by Stephen Moore and Janice Anderson that:
Educated elites who excelled in paideia were actually suspicious of speakers who were excessively popular with audiences of low degree, stigmatizing them as illegitimate players in the game of words. Some of the suspect speakers were, like Jesus, entrepreneurs in the religious sphere: people such as the quasi-Christian Peregrinus and the snake-oracle-monger Alexander of Abonuteichas. So, though Jesus could control an ignorant crowd, in the eyes of the educated Jesus’ public-speaking ability would have been at best an ambiguous component of his masculinity. 4

The sixth passage “He was the Christ.” (ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν (o Christos outos ên)). On this point serious scholars unanimously agree that Josephus never would have written this like this. There is disagreement among scholars whether Josephus did or did not write something like the statement that “Perhaps he was the Messiah” like the one in Agapius’ 10th-Century Arabic version, but I am convinced the Agapian version is an expansion of the bald statement “He was the Christ” in the original and extant Greek interpolation. 5, 6, 7

The partial phrase “of the leading men among us” (πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν (prôtôn andrôn par' êmin)) repeats somewhat in Antiquities 18.5.3 [120]-[123], which mentions that Vitellus is entreated by men of the highest standing: “the principal men” (ἄνδρες οἱ πρῶτοι (andres oi prôtoi)). So Josephus could very well have written this. The problem is, is that the whole phrase “at the suggestion [or indictment] of the leading men among us” (ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν (endeiksi tôn prôtôn andrôn par' êmin)) is so close to the Canonical Gospel accounts that if ἐνδείξει (endeiksi) is to be interpreted as “indictment” instead of a mere “pointing out” or “providing of information,” then Josephus is confirming that the Sanhedrin put or wanted to put the historical Jesus on trial, but on what charges? Josephus doesn’t tell us. Neither does he tell us that Pilate actually tried him, either. Philo stated that Pilate was known for his lawlessness, cruelties and briberies, who frequently put many Jews to death without trial and was also known for his endless savage ferocity. (Embassy to Gaius, 360)

The next phrase, “when Pilate condemned him to the cross” (σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου (staurô epitetimêkotos Pilatou) actually means, “of Pilate having condemned him to a pole (plain or crossarmed)”. The verbiage is different from all other occurrences of crucifixion or impalement described in Antiquities, where Josephus employs conjugates either σταυρόω (staurow) or ἀνασταυρόω (anastaurow), or even more colorful language. The verbiage here is an outlier, obviously Christian in tone, possibly translated direct from the Latin crux, for generally in Latin articles generally are not used and in Greek they generally are. Instead, Josephus would probably have used ἀνασταυρῶσαι (anastaurôsai): “to be impaled, crucified, suspended.” This, of course, is complicated by the fact that Diodorus Siculus and Philo of Alexandria both refer to the word σταυρός (stauros) as the penal act of Roman crucifixion (i.e., suspension upon a T-pole), not the actual “cross” or pole itself. So does Lucian of Samosata according to the English translation. 8 In the 10th-Century Agapius version in Arabic, discovered in 1971 by Schlomo Pines, the passage records that “Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.” It may have been cribbed from a fuller version rather than one independent, more original or more accurate. Agapius’ version has been judged to have come from a Syriac source, itself from an earlier Greek source. So it is difficult to determine if Agapius’ came from a different Antiquities manuscript or was a paraphrase from the familiar “Testmonium Flavianum” with critical changes made to counter Muslims’ objections that he was not crucified, period. 5, 6, 9, 10

Other evidence that may indicate that Josephus may have used ἀνασταυρῶσαι (anastaurôsai) instead of σταυρῷ (staurô) and a Christian scribe changed it to "improve" the text is the the use of the former in writings during the Third Century CE that used the former verb to denote the suspension of heads impaled on pikes. 11 It should also be noted that Byzantine and Medieval chronicholers regarded the Greek ἀνασταυρόω (anastaurow) and ἀνασκολοπίζω (anaskolopizô), and the Latin in crucem agere to be synonymous. 12, 13, 14, 15 This could mean that the Christian scribe who was copying an earlier copy of Antiquities made the change because he did not want the implication that Jesus was impaled instead to be assumed by some future reader who wasn't as pious.

Then there is the part where Josephus mentions the disciples who loved him ἀγαπήσαντες (agapêsantes) at the first and do not leave off doing so after Jesus was “condemned to the cross.” In all other locations of Antiquities where Josephus uses the word, only two have a definite negative sense (Antiquities 3.1.4 [20] and 18.9.6 [361]) and two others might have a negative sense (5.10.2 [342] and 18.7.2 [245]). All other instances of ἀγαπάω (agapaô) appear have a positive sense, even in cases where sexual love may be implied (4.8.23 [249], 5.10.2 [342]. 16 Instead, the word is variously translated as “loved, had affection for, was contented with, affection” and the like. It’s possible that Josephus thought the followers who had an affection for him at the start -- of what? Josephus doesn’t mention that -- did not leave off doing so, but the overwhelming majority of the instances of the word ἀγαπάω (agapaô) in Antiquities (48 in all) have a positive sense. 17

Then there is the business why the disciples who loved Jesus and had an affection for him at the start did not leave off doing so: “for he appeared to them alive again on the third day” (Whiston) or “having a third day alive again” (apparent literal translation). 18 The word for “appeared,” ἐφάνη (ephanê) means “appeared, showed up, was seen, was stripped bare” but the last is peculiar and strange because Josephus in this paragraph uses the grammatical genitive to denote a personal instrumental agent; 19 “alive,” ζῶν (zôn) means “alive, living” but it could also mean “in full life and strength.” In other words, Jesus could have survived the suspension, which in my opinion is not likely when surrounded by executioners guarding against any escape while alive; or, he could have given everybody the slip and returned three days after. The traditional location of Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane at the foot of a hillside stairway as publicly revealed by Fr. Jerome Murphy O’Connor of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem (The Search for Jesus (6 of 7) 4:02 – 5:05, for the link to the in-video discussion click here), plus the fact that Josephus does not say if Jesus was even present before Pilate, gives in my opinion credence to the latter interpretation of Josephus’ description of the post-condemnation appearance.

On the other hand, whoever wrote the phrase concerning his post-condemnation appearance intended to mean that “he appeared to them alive again [i.e., the second time] on the third day,” then the overwhelming majority of serious scholars who say this line is an interpolation (forgery) are correct, for (in addition to the obvious reason) the Greek words for “third day” (τρίτην ἡμέραν (tritên êmeran)) are in the singular accusative (direct object) without their necessary preposition εἰς (eis) to indicate that it’s the third day. Nor are they written in the dative τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ (tritê êmera), "on the third day" that Josephus himself employs in Antiquities 18.3.4 [77]. These words corresponds to the Latin words tertia die which are in the singular ablative and have no article, which is peculiar to Latin, which shows to me that the Greek may have been translated from a Latin original “crib note” without the proper level of carefulness and then inserted into the paragraph. Even so, Josephus still could have written that Jesus showed up to his followers reportedly alive again (but in reality alive still) at some unspecified time after his official condemnation by Pilate, which could have been decreed with Jesus in absentia. For without the appearance, we have Josephus expressing a sense of surprise that Jesus’ first lovers did not leave off loving him, and also in either case a sense of dismissiveness, hostility and perhaps disgust that the “tribe” or “swarm” of lovers still hadn’t disappeared as of his day. 20

The next phrase about the ancient prophets of God I will leave without comment, except most scholars would consider it a Christian interpolation [i.e., a forgery].

The last phrase is a doozy in my opinion – “And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day,” The Greek word for “tribe,” φῦλον (phulon), can be interpreted as “race, people, tribe, class, clan, family; company, host; host, swarm.” In fact, Josephus uses this very word in Antiquities 2.14.4 [306] for a swarm of locusts! 21 Otherwise, the use of the word to denote Christians basically would have been Eusebian and in this passage, possibly indicative of a complete or partial forgery by Eusebius or those under his command. 22 Then there is the closing phrase, “are not extinct at this day” (εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν… οὐκ ἐπέλιπε (eis eti te nun ouk epelipe)), literally: “unto still and [in particular] even now not have become wanting,” which I sort out as: “and in particular, still… have not disappeared unto this very day.” This phrase usually means in ancient Jewish (ex.: Biblical) references that a very long time has elapsed since the events in question occured. 23 Even so, some like Peter Kirby would conclude that sixty years (i.e., 33 to 93 CE) would be a sufficiently long time for Josephus to employ such verbiage in this passage. 24

The whole paragraph precedes two religious scams that Josephus thought gave rise to, or was tangentially related to, a disaster for the Jews in Rome: the expulsion of them out of the city by Tiberius Caesar, 19 CE. Even so, my search for an alternate meaning of this paragraph which would reveal that Josephus clearly intended the religion to have started as a scam has been resoundingly tripped up and confounded. All we are left with is some kind of Gospel commercial, which could have been far too dangerous for Josephus to write, even in the truncated form accepted by most scholars, 25 unless at that very early stage Christianity (or at least one form of it) was politically correct.

Even so, if Josephus did write that Jesus appeared alive to his earliest followers after he was supposed to have been executed on the Roman T-pole, then he certainly was skeptical whether Jesus was ever crucified in the first place.

And so we will find out in Part 5 that in a way, it is a sort of Gospel commercial.


1. Philo, Opif. 164, quoted in: Stephen D Moore and Janice Capel Anderson, New Testament Masculinities. Atlanta, Society of Biblical Literature (2006), p. 70

2. The extant Greek of this passage in Antiquities 18.1.1 [6] reads: (καὶ ἡδονῇ γὰρ τὴν ἀκρόασιν ὧν λέγοιεν ἐδέχοντο οἱ ἄνθρωποι (kai êdonê gar tên akroasin ôn legoien edechonto oi anthrôpoi)). The whole of Antiquities 18.1.1 recounts the first Jewish revolt of the First Century CE under Judas the Gaulonite/Galilean whose philosophy, dubbed the “fourth philosophy” by Josephus in 18.1.2, consisted of a declaration that there is no lord but God, to the obvious exclusion of Caesar, and also that paying taxes to Rome is tantamount to accepting a status of slavery to Rome. Of course, Josephus deemed the “fourth philosophy” to be the reason for all the disasters that came upon the Jews and that these two individuals were the ones who promulgated it. So “with pleasure” (ἡδονῇ (êdonê)) would be interpreted entirely in the negative sense.

3. Antiquities 18.3.4 [71], [77] In section [71] the extant Greek of “and when he joyfully hearkened to her entreaty” is: καὶ δεχομένου τὴν ἱκετείαν ἡδονῇ (kai dechomenou tên iketeian êdonê)), which is also nearly identical with the subject line in 18.3.3. In [77]. We read for “I value not the business of names, but I rejoice in the pleasure I reaped by what I did,” the extant Greek: μηδέν μοι μελῆσαν τῶν ὀνομάτων, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐκ τοῦ πράγματος ἡδονῆς (mêden moi melêsan tôn onomatôn, alla tês ek tou pragmatos êdonês): literally,”by no means for myself is an object of interest of the names, but of the pleasures from the act.”

4. Moore and Capel Anderson, pp. 325-6. The authors note on pp. 68-70 that sex and gender were seen in the Greco-Roman world on a sliding scale, an hierarchial gradient from male to female where in middle ranges masculinity begins to shade imperceptibly into femininity, creating a slippery slope where a swift slippage from more manly status (with the elite males at the top) to a less manly status is an ever-present danger to the sexually advantaged male subject. At the tail end would be those labeled “not-men:” females, slaves (of either sex), boys, sexually passive or “effeminate” males, eunuchs, barbarians, etc. In fact, the term malakos was regularly used to differentiate women, girls, youths and “effeminate” males from “true” men.

5. The chain of custody of Agapius’ TF, as well as Michael the Syrian’s Chronica which contains a more obviously Christian version of the TF, appears to be able to be traced back to a Syriac version of Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiasticae. The Jesus Passages in Josephus: Part 2m, Part 2n and Part 2o.

6., Richard Carrier's Article Accessed 6-15-2013. One-sixth of the way down, Mr. Viklund writes, quoting Mr. Carrier:

“Like me, he thinks Alice Whealey is wrong when she claims that Eusebius originally wrote ‘He was thought to be the Messiah’ in his quotation of the Testimonium. I am pleased to see that Carrier argues in the same way as I do regarding the small deviations of the Testimonium, especially in the translations: ‘More likely some early copy of Eusebius’s History alone was ‘improved’ by a scribe intending to restore a more plausible quotation from a Jew … and it is this that we see in Whealey’s cited examples. It is inherently less likely that all manuscript traditions of all the texts of Eusebius and all manuscript traditions of Josephus were conspiratorially emended in the same way, than only one manuscript tradition of a single text of Eusebius being emended the other way.’”

7. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Rethinking the Historical Jesus. New York, Doubleday division of Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. (1991). Vol. 2, pp. 78-79, notes 37, 38. In these two notes Meier makes it clear that he does not believe Josephus wrote any version of “He was he Christ” (ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν (o Christos outos ên)) with or without qualifications of any sort.

8. Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 20.54.7, “so that the wanton violence and vengeance almost resembled a crucifixion” (ὥστε σταυρῷ παραπλησίαν εἶναι τὴν ὕβριν ἅμα καὶ τὴν τιμωρίαν (ôste staurô paraplêsian einai tên ubrin ama kai tên timôrian = literally, “just as almost tantamount with a stauros-punishment to be the outrage and at the same time the vengeance")). Cf. with Philo In Flaccum 72, “where the final and reserved penalty is a crucifixion” (ἡ τελευταία καίἔφεδρος τιμωρία σταυρός ἤν (ê teleutaia kai ephedros timôria stauros ên = literally, “where a final and seated penalty is a stauros-punishment”), and Lucian, 1, “altogether a sweet spot for a crucifixion” (καὶ ὅλως ἐπικαιρότατος ἂν ὁ σταυρὸς γένοιτο. (kai olôs epikairotatos an o stauros genoito = literally, “and as a whole a most perfect place if haply the stauros it’s become”)). In all three cases the noun used by these authors is σταυρὸς (stauros), and only in Lucian the noun is translated incorrectly by the translators – in that instance it should be “cross” or “crossarmed pole” rather than “crucifixion” in English (although “cross” brings up imagery of the object of adoration in the business end of a church).

9. Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus? “Supplementary Articles – No. 16: Josephus on the Rocks.”, accessed 6-12-2013.

10. The Qu’ran, Surah 4,156. For a fuller discussion on this, see the Part 1 post of this article.

11. Cassius Dio, Roman History 75.8 on the capture and beheading of Niger by Alexander Severus: "[But] his pursuers overtook him and cut off his head. Severus caused the head to be sent to Byzantium and be set up on a pole.” The verb for "be set up on a pole" is ἀνεσταύρωσεν (anestaurôsen). Cf. a similar sentence in his Roman History 76.7, where after capturing and slaying another rival, one Albinus, the same Severus "ordered all but the head to be cast away, but sent the head to Rome to be exposed on a pole." Again, the verb for "to be exposed on a pole" is ἀνεσταύρωσεν (anestaurôsen). See also Herodian of Antioch, History of the Roman Empire 3.8.1, reports that Severus, "having sent the head of Albinus (to the capital city), he ordered it to be set on a pike as public property. The verb for "to be set on a pike" is ἀνασταυρωθῆναι (anastaurôthênai).

12. Hesychius of Alexandria (5th C. CE) Alphabetical Collection of All Words, a.k.a. Peter Allan Hansen, ed. Hesychii Alexandri Lexicon, Volumen III Π – S. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. (2005), pp. 312, 340:

16__. σταυροί, οί καταπεπηγότες σκόλοπες, χάρακες (Stauroi, oi katapepêgotes skolopes, charakes). My translation: Stauroi: these skolopes (impaling stakes) having been fixed down in [the ground], pointed stakes [for palisades and other defensive works].

1066. σκόλοπες, ὀρθέα (l. ὀρθᾷ) καί ὀξέα ξύλα, σταυροί, χάρακες (Skolopes, orthea (l. ortha) xula, stauroi, charakes) . My translation: Skolopes, upright and sharpened timbers, stauroi (pales), pointed stakes.

1072. σκόλοψιν ὡς ὀπτῶσιν: τό γάρ παλαιόν τούς κακουργοῦντας ἀνεσκολόπιζον, ὀξύνοντες ξύλον διά ῥάχεως καί τοῦ νώτου καθάπερ τούς ὀπτωμένους ἰχθούς ἐπί ὀβελίσκων (skolopin ôs optôsin: to gar palaion tous kakourgountas aneskolopizon, oxunontes xulon dia racheôs kai tou nôtou kathaper tous optômenous ichthous epi obeliskôn). My translation: with skolopes (impaling stakes) as for roasting: for in the ancient times they impaled those doing evil, [using] sharpened timbers through the lower part of the spine and the back, just like those fish roasting on spits.

Cf. Hesychius’ Etymologus 100.51: ἀνασκινδυλεὐωθαι: ἀνασκολοπισθῆναι. (anaskinduleuôthai: anaskolopisthhnai.) My translation is: anaskinduleuôthai: to have been impaled. Justus Lipsius (de Cruce I.6) defines the verb as in cruce diffindere, meaning, “to be split apart on a crux [i.e., an impale].” See also Photius of Constantinople (815-893 CE), where σκινδαλεύω (skindaleuô) is defined as ἀνασταυρόω (anastaurow = impale, crucify), incorporating Ctesias’ Persica, frg. 6 wherein is recounted the death of the Persian Eunuch Petisaras who, per order of Princess Amytis, had his eyes put out, was skinned alive, and then was crucified (that is, impaled).

13. Orosius (4th to 5th C. CE) Historiae 6.18.33fin. "...but Octavian, remarkable of intellect, released from service 20,000 soldiers, he returned 30,000 slaves to their masters, and drove onto the stake 6,000 slaves for whom their masters could not be found." The Latin for "drove onto the stake" is in crucem egit. Cf. Cassius Dio Historiae Romanae 49.12.5, which has for the execution of the 6,000 slaves the Greek ἀνεσκολοπίζετο (aneskolopizeto = were impaled).

14. Eustathius of Thessonalica (1115-1195 CE), Commentary on the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Odyssey ξ. 11: σταυροί ὀρθᾷ καί ἀπωξυμμένα ξύλα. - οἱ δ᾽ αὐτοί καί σκόλοπες λέγονται, ἀφ᾽ ὧν τό ἀνασκολοπίζεσθαι, καί ἀνασταυροῦσθαι. (stauroi ortha kai apôxummena xyla. – oi d’ autoi kai skolopes legontai, aph’ ôn to anaskolopizethai, kai anastaurouthai.) My translation: Stauroi: upright and sharpened logs. – But these themselves and skolopes are called, from these that anaskolopizethai [(to be fixed on a sharp stake)] and anastaurouthai [(to be fixed on a pale) are derived].

Iliad ἡ. 441: σκόλοπες λέγονται δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι σκόλοπες καί σταυροί - ἐκ δὲ τούτων τό ἀνασκολοπίζειν, καί ανασταυροῦν. (skolopes legontai de oi toioutoi skolopes kai stauroi – ek de toutôn to anaskolopizein, kai anastauroun.) My translation: Skolopes they are called, and of such a kind [as] these skolopes and stauroi – from these that anaskolopizein [(to fix on a sharp stake)] and anastauroun [(to fix on a pale) are derived].

Odyssey η. 11: σκόλοπες δὲ καί νῦν ξύλα ὀρθᾷ, οἱ καί σταυροί. (skolopes de kai nun xula ortha, oi kai stauroi.) My translation: But skolopes even now [are] upright timbers, these and stauroi.

15. Ioannis Zonaras (12th C. CE), Annales 8.14fin, writes: "Moreover the general Hasdrubal indeed evaded [punishment], but afterwards at home he was accused by the Carthaginians and driven onto a stake." The Greek for "driven onto a stake" is ἀνεσκολοπίσθη (anastkolopisthê = impaled) and the Latin is in crucem actus est. Annales 8.17 (2nd pgh.): But Hanno, having escaped, was directly urged on into Carthage. But the Carthaginians, exacting punishment for his life and with a panic fear indeed drove him onto a stake, and the Elders sent Catulus to sue for peace. The Greek for "drove onto a stake" is ἀνεσταύρωσαν (anestaurôsan = crucified/impaled) and the Latin is again in crucem actus est..

16. Nota bene: in the reference to Johnathan loving David, Antiquities 6.11.1. [206] Josephus makes clear that in his opinion, Johnathan’s love for David was not sexual: “because he [Johnathan] loved the young man [David] and reverenced him for his virtue.”

17. Tufts Perseus Digital Library word search on ἀγαπήσαντες (agapêsantes), expanded to include all forms of ἀγαπάω (agapaô).

18. The extant Greek reads, τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν (tritên exôn êmeran palin zôn) the words translate literally in order as: “third having a day again alive [or alive and in full strength]”

19. Examples within Antiquities 18.3.3 [64]: ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν (endeiksei tôn prôtôn andrôn par’ êmin): “with a pointing out of [= by] the chief men among us;” ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου (epitetimêkotos Pilatou): “of [= with, when] Pilate having sentenced”

20. Meier, p. 66.

21. Antiquities 2.14.4 [306]: “After this a tribe (φῦλον (phulon)) of locusts consumed the seed which was not hurt by the hail; so that to the Egyptians all hopes of the future fruits of the ground were entirely lost.” Obviously in this instance Josephus meant “swarm.”

22. Peter Kirby, Earliest Christian website, “Testimonium Flavianum: Josephus’ Reference to Jesus,” under the heading “Conclusions.” In it, he notes: “After reading the study of Ken Olson that shows the vocabulary of the Testimonium to be not Josephan but rather Eusebian, I was inclined to regard both references as spurious.”


23. Examples are to be found in the book of Joshua: “…and raised over it [the body of the King of Ai] a great heap of stones, which stands there to this day” (Joshua 8:29), and “they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day” (Joshua 10.27). Quotes are from the New Revised Standard Version, quoted in John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Exposingthe Roots of Anti-Semitism, San Francisco, HarperSanFrancisco, Div. of HarperCollins Publishers (1995), p. 163.

24. Peter Kirby writes, “It is sometimes argued that the phrase "to this day" at the end of the passage indicates the perspective of a writer who was writing long after the events in question and that Josephus was too close in time to make it believable that he would have used the expression. On the contrary, a span of 60 years time after the death of Jesus is sufficient to cause some surprise at the survival of the cult. According to the speech of Gamiliel in Acts 5:35-39, most movements disbanded shortly after the death of the leader.” See subheading 1 under the heading, “Arguments that the Testimonium is Spurious,” in Earliest Christian, “Testimonium Flavianum, Josephus’ Reference to Jesus.” Refer to Note 20 above for the link.

25. The truncated form accepted by most scholars probably would be as follows:

[63] Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦ τον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο. [64] καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀνασταυρῶσαι ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες. εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον. (Change from σταυρῷ to ἀνασταυρῶσαι mine).

[63] Ginetai de kata touton ton chronon Iêsous sophos anêr: ên gar paradoksôn ergôn poiêtês, didaskalos anthrôpôn tôn êdonê talêthê dechomenôn, kai pollous men Ioudaious, pollous de kai tou Ellênikou epêgageto. [64] kai auton endeiksi tôn prôtôn andrôn par' êmin anastauroôsai epitetimêkotos Pilatou ouk epausanto oi to prôton agapêsantes. eis eti te nun tôn Christianôn apo toude ônomasmenon ouk epelipe to phulon. (Change from staurô to anastauroôsai mine)

[63] Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the unconcealed [truth] with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. [64] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those that loved him at the first did not ease to do so. And the swarm of Christians, so named from him, are still not extinct at this very day. (Tweaks to truncated vesion of Whiston's translaion mine)

On edit:
August 2, 2013: Add links to Parts 1, 2 and 3; changed in Note 20: (Greek) σταυρῷ to ἀνασταυρῶσαι, (transliteration) staurô to anastauroôsai, (English) "to the cross" to "to be crucified."
August 4, 2013: Reordered and renumbered notes for sequential reference in the text; added paragraph that begins with "Other evidence that may indicate," and added notes 11 and 12.
August 5, 2013: Changed verbiage about the third day to include the preposition εἰς (eis) and Josephus' own use of the Greek dative meaning "on the third day" in Antiquities 18.3.4.
August 6 through 8, 2013: Cleaned up formatting, spelling, grammar and syntax errors. August 8, 2013: Add new Note 12, renumbered old Notes 12 through 22. Note 22 (now 23): added additional tweak to Whiston's translation for fuller meaning of "truth" in line [63]. August 16, 2013: Add new Notes 12 and 14, renumber existing Notes 12 through 23 as Notes 13 and 15 through 25.

No comments: