Was Jesus even Crucified? Part 6b

Part 6

WHEN was Jesus Crucified?

Previous Parts:

Part 1 - Link
Part 2 - Link
Part 3 - Link
Part 4 - Link
Part 5 - Link
Part 6a - Link

Part 6b - More of Eusebius' Confusion

In the Part 6a last, I established that Eusebius had placed the crucifixion of Jesus – even if inadvertently – in 30 CE, 19 CE and 34 to 36 CE. Now I will show that he even throws in still more dates for said crucifixion; which, as I have shown before, could have been a cruci-fiction!

The next point I will bring up is Pilate’s storage and display of the imperial emblems at the House of the Holy Place in Jerusalem at the beginning of his term, which temple was rebuilt and dedicated as a ROMAN TEMPLE. So I give the page over to Eusebius so he will show us how it relates the aforementioned execution of the historical Jesus.

In his Church History II:5:¹

6. But I shall omit the most of them and record only those things which will make clearly evident to the reader that the misfortunes of the Jews came upon them not long after their daring deeds against Christ and on account of the same.

 

7. And in the first place he relates that at Rome in the reign of Tiberius, Sejanus, who at that time enjoyed great influence with the emperor, made every effort to destroy the Jewish nation utterly; and that in Judea, Pilate, under whom the crimes against the Saviour were committed, attempted something contrary to the Jewish law in respect to the temple, which was at that time still standing in Jerusalem, and excited them to the greatest tumults.

Continuing in Church History II.6:²

3. … With him [Philo³] agrees also Josephus, who likewise indicates that the misfortunes of the whole nation began with the time of Pilate, and with their daring crimes against the Saviour.

 

4. Hear what he says in the second book of his Jewish War, where he writes as follows: Pilate being sent to Judea as procurator⁴ by Tiberius, secretly carried veiled images of the emperor, called ensigns, to Jerusalem by night. The following day this caused the greatest disturbance among the Jews. For those who were near were confounded at the sight, beholding their laws, as it were, trampled under foot. For they allow no image to be set up in their city.

 

5. Comparing these things with the writings of the evangelists, you will see that it was not long before there came upon them the penalty for the exclamation which they had uttered under the same Pilate, when they cried out that they had no other king than Cæsar.⁵

Josephus in Antiquities 18.3.1 established the placements of the images of the emporer at the beginning of his prefecture, i.e., in 26 CE, or perhaps 19 CE going by the context in Antiquities 18.2.5 [54] which relates the death of Germanicus Caesar.⁶ Of course, this simply confirms the confusion that we have seen in Part 6a: the crucifixion occurred in 30 CE by Pontius Pilate (Church History I.10.1), 19 CE by Valerius Gratus (Church History I.10.2-4), and 34, 35 or 36 CE by the selfsame Pilate (Church History I.11.1-8.

A similar confusion is present in Eusebius’ Demonstratio Evangelica (The Proof of the Gospel), Book 8, chapter 2, sections 133 fin through 139 (Tertullian.org webpage) = pages 398 fin through 403 (Tr. W.J. Ferrar (1920)): (emphasis and formatting mine) ⁷

^{|133 fin} = (398 [fin]) And the Evangelist St. Luke seems to imply this, where he says, "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod, Philip and Lysanias being tetrarchs, Annas and Caiaphas being high-priests."⁸ For how could they both be high-priest at the same time unless the rules of the high-priesthood were disregarded? "In witness whereof Josephus writes: (399)

 

"Valerius Gratus the Roman General, after closing the high-priesthood of Ananus, appointed Ismael the son of Pheba, and removing him shortly afterwards appointed Eleazar son of Ananus the high-priest. A year later he removed him, and gave the office to ^|134 Simon son of Gathimus. He did not remain high priest more than a year, when Josephus, son of Caiaphas, took his place." ⁹ 

I was obliged to give this quotation because of the words "The Unction shall be cast out, and there is no judgment in it,''¹⁰ which seem to me proved by it beyond any doubt.

After this the prophecy says, "And the city, and the holy place, he will destroy, with the governor that cometh."¹¹ Here again I understand the rulers of foreign stock who succeeded him to be meant. For as above he named the High-Priests, Christs and Governors, saying, "Until Christ the Governor," in the same way after their time and after their abolition there was no other ruler to come but the (c) same Herod of foreign stock,¹² and the others ruled the nation in order after them, in whose company and by whose aid, using them as his agents, that hateful bane of good men is said to have destroyed the city and the Holy Place. And indeed he destroyed of a truth the whole nation, now upsetting the established order of the priesthood, now perverting the whole people, and encouraging the city (which (d) stands metaphorically for its people) in impiety. And Aquila agrees with my interpretation of the passage, translating thus, "And the people of the governor that cometh will destroy the city and the holy place."¹³ Meaning that the city and the Holy Place arc not only to be ruined by the leader to come, whom I have identified in my interpretation, but also by his people. And you would not be far wrong in saying, too, that the Roman general and his army arc [sic] meant by the words before us, where I think the camps of the Roman rulers are meant, who governed the nation from that time, and who destroyed the city of Jerusalem itself, and its ancient venerable Temple. For they were cut off by them as by a flood, and were at once involved in destruction until the war was concluded, so that the prophecy was fulfilled and they suffered utter desolation (400) after their plot against our Saviour, which was followed by their extreme sufferings during the siege.¹⁴ You will find an accurate account of it in the history of Josephus.

But after the prophecy of the events that happened to the Jewish nation in the intermediate period between the ^|135 seven and sixty-two weeks, there follows the prophecy of the new Covenant announced by our Saviour. So when all the intermediate matter between the seven and the sixty-two weeks is finished, there is added, "And he will confirm (b) a Covenant with many one week,"¹⁵ and in half the week the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and on the Holy Place shall come the abomination of desolation, and until the fullness of time fullness shall be given to the desolation. Let us consider how this was fulfilled.

Now the whole period of our Saviour's Teaching and working of Miracles is said to have been three-and-a-half years, which is half a week. John the Evangelist, in his Gospel, makes this clear to the attentive.¹⁶ One week of years therefore would be represented by the whole period of His association with the Apostles, both the time before His Passion, and the time after His Resurrection. For it is written that before His Passion He shewed Himself for the space of three-and-a-half years to His disciples and also to those who were not His disciples: while by teaching and miracles He revealed the powers of His Godhead to all equally whether Greeks or Jews. But after His Resurrection He was most likely with His disciples a period equal ^|136 to the years, being seen of them forty days, and eating with them, and speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, as the Acts of the Apostles tells us. So that this would be the prophet's week of years, during which He "confirmed a covenant with many," confirming that is to say the new Covenant of the Gospel Preaching. And who were the many to whom He confirmed it, but His own disciples and Apostles, and such of the Hebrews who believed in Him? And moreover, half through this week, during which He confirmed the said Covenant with many, the (401) sacrifice and libation was taken away, and the abomination of desolation began, for in the middle of this week after the three-and-a-half days of His Teaching, at the time when He suffered, the Veil of the Temple was torn asunder from the top to the bottom, so that in effect from that time sacrifice and libation were taken away, and the abomination of desolation stood in the holy place, inasmuch as the Being had left them desolate,¹⁷ Who had been from time immemorial till (b) that day the guardian and protector of the place. For it is fitting to believe that up to the Saviour's Passion there was some Divine Power guarding the Temple and the Holy of Holies. For He could not have attended with the multitude at the Temple to keep the Feasts according to the laws, if He had not known that it still remained a place worthy of God. Therefore there were in the Temple also some that prophesied up to that time, as Anna the (c) Prophetess, daughter of Phanuel, and Simeon, who took Him into his arms when He was an infant, whose prophecies are handed down in Scripture. Nor could our Lord have said to the leper, "Go, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift which Moses commanded for a testimony unto thee," if He had not considered it right for the legal observances to be carried out there as in a holy place worthy of God. Nor would He have thrust out those who bought and sold, saying, "Take these things hence, and make not ^|137 my Father's House a house of merchandise," if He had not thought that the Temple was still to be reckoned sacred. But it was when the hour of their extreme wickedness drew near, that He explained all when He said, "Behold your house is left unto you desolate," which also was fulfilled, when at his Passion the Veil of the Temple was wholly rent in twain, and from that moment the sacrifice and libation well pleasing to God according to the ordinance of the Law was in effect taken away, and when it was removed, the abomination of desolation, as the prophecy before us says, appeared in its place. And if it be said that the worship of the Sanctuary appeared to continue for a time, yet it was not pleasing to God, being offered without judgment and not according to the Law. For as before of (402) old when the Unction was abolished, and the lawful line of High Priests ceased after the death of Hyrcanus, they who held the office afterwards seemed to perform disordered and illegal rites, since they were breaking the fitting Laws, of whom the prophecy said, "The Unction shall be cast out, and there is no judgment in it," referring to its illegality and lack of judgment; so here you will rightly say it has happened to the offering and libation, which were rightly and (b) lawfully offered before our Saviour's Passion, while the Power still guarded the Holy Places, but which were taken away directly after the perfect and supreme Sacrifice which He offered, when He offered Himself for our sins, being the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world, which sacrifice having been delivered to all men in the new Sacraments of the new Covenant, the Sacrifices of the old are taken away. For concurrently with the fulfilment of the oracle which says, "And he shall confirm a covenant (c) with many one week," all that is connected with the old Covenant is abolished. And when was the new Covenant confirmed, but when our Lord and Saviour, about to consummate the great Mystery of His delivery to death, on the night in which He was betrayed, delivered to His disciples the symbols of the unspeakable words of the new Covenant referring to Him? For concurrently with this celebration, (d) the old Covenant of Moses was abolished, which was shewn by the veil of the Temple being rent at the very time. Sacrifice and libation being from that time abolished and ceasing in effect and truth, any sacrifices that were ^|138  afterwards thought to be offered there were celebrated in a profane place by profane and unhallowed men. Hear the witness of Josephus about this:

"On the day of Pentecost, the priests going by night into the Temple, as was their custom, for the services, said that they were first conscious of a quaking and a sound, and afterwards of a sudden voice which said, Let us depart hence."¹⁸

And he records this to have taken place after the Passion of our Saviour.¹⁹ And the same writer says elsewhere: (403)

"Pilate the Governor "(meaning the Pilate of our Saviour's time) "brought the images of Caesar into the Temple by night, which was unlawful, and caused a great outburst of tumult and disorder among the Jews."²⁰ Which Philo confirms, saying:

 

"Pilate laid up in the Temple by night the imperial emblems, and from that time the Jews were involved in rebellion and mutual troubles." ²¹

 

And from that time a succession of all kinds of troubles afflicted the whole nation and their city until the last war against them, and the final siege, in which destruction (b) rushed on them like a flood with all kinds of misery of famine, plague and sword, and all who had conspired against the Saviour in their youth were cut off; then, too, the abomination of desolation stood in the Temple, and it has remained there even till to-day, while they have daily reached deeper depths of desolation. And perhaps this will be so until the end of the world, according to the limit set by the prophet when he said, "And unto the consummation of time a fulfilment shall be given to the desolation." (c) These words our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ sealed, when He said, "When ye shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, standing in the Holy Place, then ye shall know that her desolation draws near."

 

And if the Jews are hard to persuade of this, they must be convicted not only of a shameless opposition to truth ^|139  and clear evidence, but also of misrepresenting, so far as they can, the predictions as falsehoods, if it is to be thought that in the seventy weeks of years some of them include all the time, while they prophesy of what is to happen in the intermediate period, while others, though we are now nearly a thousand years from the date of the prophecy, admit no (d) sign of the fulfilment of what was written, although their Unction has been abolished, as the divine prediction foretold, and their sanctuary, and the former inhabitants destroyed and utterly brought to naught in the flood of the completed war, and strangest thing of all even now to be seen, I mean, the abomination of desolation still standing in the one holy place, concerning which our Lord and Saviour said what I have quoted.  

This is a very long-winded and rambling passage!

Now I shall attempt to address each point to decipher the implied date for the Crucifixion of the historical Jesus.

First, he quotes Luke 3, which establishes the beginning of John the Baptist’s career in the fifteenth year of Tiberias Caesar, which would be 28 or 29 CE or 28-29 CE, depending on what dates are used. Since Luke was writing for an educated Greek and Roman audience, the counting syatem likely used would have been de facto years starting from August 14 or September 18, 14 CE; non-accession years by the Julian calendar which would count the partial year of 14 CE as a full year, i.e., the first year; or accession years which would make 15 CE the first year.²² This would make the year of the Crucifixion about 29 or 30 CE, given Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ career within the span of about one year.

Next, he mentions Luke’s assertion of Annas (Ananius) and Caiaphas being high-priests at once, which he questions, and resolves the conundrum by quoting Josephus’ recounting of the Romans’ annual replacement of the high priest, in contravention of Jewish Law, four times under Valerius Gratus during 14 to 18 CE, with Caiaphas becoming high priest starting in CE. ²³

Then Eusebius relates the end of the succession of high priests that was legally valid according to Jewish Law when Herod took the throne in Jerusalem in 37 CE. His recounting of Valerius Gratus’ removal and appointment of four high priests within the space of four years compelled him to cite Aquila version of Daniel 9:26, which interpreted the Messiah being cut off as the Unction (religious or ceremonial anointing in accordance with Jewish Law) being “cast out,” ²⁴ followed by the “destruction” of Jerusalem under the train of kings, prefects, procurators beginning in 37 BCE and ending with the Judean rebels being defeated and the city and temple physically destroyed by the Roman military commanders in 70 CE.

After this Eusebius asserts without any justification from the gospel of John or the Synoptics, that Jesus’ career lasted 3½ years. Now I have shown in Part 6a that in Church History Eusebius arrived at this bit of information by harmonizing Luke’s chronology concerning the high priests Annas (Ananias) and Caiaphas with that of Josephus, which are also recounted above. There are only three Passovers noted in gJohn, and just one in each of the synoptics, so the most amount of time Jesus’ ministry would have covered by a realistic reckoning of the data is a little over two years.

Stranger still is that Eusebius places the “Abomination of Desolation” at the Crucifixion -- not that the Crucifixion itself was the Abomination; but the curtain was ripped in twain as a result, and the Being that dwelt therein flew the coop – thus revoking the sacrifice and the libation and turning the continuation of the sacrifieces and so forth an abomination: because from henceforth, the priests were offering them in a profane place; and what is more, they did not recognize Jesus’ self-sacrifice as a final one-time sacrifice for all sins. On the other hand, I think it would make more sense if Golgotha, the locus of the Crucifixion, was the Temple Mount, where Mark appears to place it, right in front of the Temple, rather than in that place now occupied by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, thus making the Crucifixion itself the Abomination. He concludes this digression by quoting Josephus’ Jewish War anecdote of the Day of Pentecost, 65 CE, when voices were heard from within the Temple, “Let us depart hence.” ^{18, 19} But it can hardly be possible that the Crucifixion was in 65 CE! ¹⁹ Yet that is exactly where Eusebius places it, apparently.

And then Eusebius quotes Josephus’ recounting of the event where Pontius Pilate, the freshly minted prefect (and procurator) of Judaea, brings the images and ensigns of Caesar into the Second Temple, which was a Roman temple, causing an uproar among the Judean people as a result. He even has Philo say the same thing.²¹ And perhaps Philo did, in a work that is now (conveniently) lost. Still, Eusebius states that this incident happened after the Crucifixion, thus placing it at the very beginning of Pilate’s rule: 26 CE, or 18 / 19 CE if the Josephan references to the lengths of Valerus Gratus and Pontius Pilate’s hegemonies over Judea are interpolated instead of authentic.

On the other hand, Eusebius puts the special darkness of the Synoptic Gospels about 32 or 33 CE. On this point, Raymond E. Brown notes that: ²⁵

“Eusebius in his Chrinocle for the 18^th-19th year of the reign of Tiberius (GCS [2d ed.] 47.147-75)²⁶, the section for the “18th – 19th year of the government of Tiberius Caesar, reports that Phlegon says that in the 4th year of the 202d Olympiad there was a great eclipse of the Sun, outdoing all that preceded it. It became like a night at midday. The specified year would have run from July 1, AD 32 to June 30, AD 33.²⁷

It is not found in the Armenian, but it has been translated into Latin and repeated in Jerome’s Chronicle which contains the following on this point (emphasis and formatting mine): ²⁸

 

d Jesus Christ, according to the prophecies, which had been spoken about him beforehand, came to the Passion in the 18th year of Tiberius, at which time also we find these things written verbatim in other commentaries of the gentiles: an eclipse of the sun happened ⁽¹⁾, Bithynia shaken by earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings collapsed: all of which agree with what occurred in the Passion of the Saviour. Indeed Phlegon, who is an excellent calculator of Olympiads, also writes about this, in his 13th book writing thus:

"However in the fourth year of the 202nd olympiad, an eclipse of the sun happened, greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the sixth hour, day turned into dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of the city of Nicaea."

These things the aforementioned man (says).

The proof however of this matter, that in this year the Saviour suffered, the gospel of John presents, in which it is written that after the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, the Lord preached for three years. Also Josephus, a native writer of the Jews, attests that around that time on the day of Pentecost, the priests first perceived an earth tremor and certain (loud) sounds. Then, that an unexpected voice suddenly burst out from the innermost part of the Temple saying: "Let us flee from this abode." However the aforementioned man writes that in the same year Pilate the governor secretly in the night set up images of Caesar in the temple, and from this arose the first cause of the rebellion and turmoil of the Jews.

(1) November 24, 29 AD.

Here Eusebius comes close to the modern traditional reckoning of the crucifixion in 33 CE, as opposed to 30 CE, accepted by most scholars. But even here he makes a few errors. Here Eusebius states Jesus’ suffering was in the 18th year of Tiberius Caesar’s Government, which would be 32 CE by de facto (Aug/Sept 31 to Aug/Sept 32) or accessional year (32). The accessional year is worse – it yields 31 CE.

But his paragraph runs into the 19th year of Tiberius Caesar, which fits a three-year ministry ending in 33 CE nicely; it is in total agreement with Phlegon’s alleged dating of the eclipse. We are lucky in that eusebius explicitly stated that Jesus started his ministry in the 16th year of Tiberius, because people back then might have counted these years not as excluding said 15th year, but including it, which means we would have been back to 32 CE again!³⁰ Worse, Eusebius brings in an event which occurred in 65 CE (“Let us remove hence”) ²⁹ and an event which occurred most likely in 26 CE per Antiquities 18.2.2 (or perhaps 19 CE per Antiquities 18.2.5 & 18.3.1.). ³¹

Recap:

It appears that Eusebius does not know when Jesus was crucified. Quoting different sources, he seems to comes up with several different dates: 19 CE (when Caiaphas became high priest), about 30 CE (=the 16th year of Tiberius Caesar), 34 to 36 CE (after the death of John the Baptist), 26 (or 19) CE (the attempt by Pilate to erect standards with Tiberius Caesar’s effigies on them), 65 CE (the year of the Passover of the great throngs, when voices came from the Temple, saying, “Let us depart hence”) which is impossible, 32 CE (eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar), 32/33 CE (three years after the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, counted inclusively or exclusively), and 33 CE (4th year of the 202nd Olympiad). Rather, it is apparent that he is trying to shoehorn saecular history in order to fit the Gospel narrative, or rather, the harmonized Gospel “narrative,” as Dr. Brown himself observed. ³² So we finally come round to the baseline for Eusebius’ reasoning --  that Luke is correct in establishing John the Baptist’s ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar and assumed about one full year before Jesus showed up to be baptized. To him, everything else is secondary and the date of Jesus’ execution would have been in 33 CE. But to get there he creates an awful lot of confusion!

Which will lead us to Part 6c: what is the Gospel dating, or rather, what are the Gospels’ dates for the Crucifixion?

 

Notes:

 

 

1.      Eusebius, Church History II.5.6,7. Link: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm . For the Greek Text, see Historia Ecclesiastica at the Documenta Catholica Omnia website, Eusebius Caesariensis, Historia Ecclesiastica entry page here: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_0265-0339__Eusebius_Caesariensis__Historia_Ecclesiastica__GR.pdf.html.

2.      Ibid; see also Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.1.

3.      Philo Judaeus, Legate ad Caium 360 (ch. 38): “… and his endless savage ferocity.”

4.      Note Eusebius follows Josephus’ nomenclature of ἐπίτροπος (epitropos = procurator) in his Jewish War instead of ἡγεμών (hegemon = prefect) that he used in Antiquities.  See also Richard Carrier, at Richard Carrier Blogs “Herod the Procurator” where he explains that Tacitus actually wrote that one line about Christus, and used the word procurator to belittle Pilate and drag him down from the rank of praefectus, which Pilate actually held, to the status of a lowly procurator, which office was frequently filled by freedmen. (Posted by R. Carrier Jan. 6, 2012 and accessed Feb. 20, 2014)

5.      gJohn 19:15. The original Greek reads, οὐκ ἔχομεν βασιλέα εἰ μὴ Καίσαρα. (ouk basilea ei mê Kaisara) “We have no king, if not Caesar.”

6.      Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.1 [55]: “But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws.” Establishing the time in the context is “But now,” immediately following on the death of Germanicus Caesar in Antiquities 18.2.5 [54]. Note that in the Koine Greek, δέ (de) is a conjunctive participle with adversative force, generally meaning “while, whereas, on the other hand, then, yet, now.” The time established by this context then is 19 CE for the first instance in Antiquities of the controversy that Pilate stirred up (also recorded previously in Jewish War 2.x.x [169] – [174]).

7.    Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica (The Proof of the Gospel), Book 8, link: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_10_book8.htm

8.      gLuke 3:2; see n. 5 in Part 6a.

9.      Josephus, Antiquities 18.2.2 [34].

10.  Daniel 9:26, Aquila version, as quoted and/or interpreted by Eusebius in Dem. Evan. Book 8, chapter 2, section 396. It appears that Eusebius’ quotes within the body of text of this chapter vary widely from the actual Aquila text, which is given in full at the heading of chapter 2. See n. 7 for link.

11.  Ibid.

12.  Herod the Great (r. de jure 40-4 BCE, de facto 37-4 BCE) as understood by Eusebius in section 396, and the whole train of Roman-appointed leaders after him until the Roman general Titus and his legions destroy the temple and the town utterly in 70 CE.

13.  Same as n. 10 above.

14.  By traditional understanding, 37 years (33-70 CE) elapsed between the alleged Jewish plots against Jesus and the final siege of Jerusalem by the Roman general Titus. By most New Testament scholars’ understanding, 40.

15.  Daniel 9:27, Aquila version. Save caveats noted in n. 10 above also apply.

16.  Actually gJohn has mention of just three Passovers, which means the time period of Jesus’ ministry intended by John may be as short as slightly more than two years.

17.  This is a novel interpretation of the prophecy of Daniel 9:27, 11:31, 12:11; referred to by Mark 13:14.

18.  Josephus, Jewish War 6.5.3 [299].

19.  See n. 18 above. According to Josephus, this occurred on Pentecost in the year of the “Passover of the Great Throngs,” or 65 CE. By most modern New Testament scholars’ reckoning of the year of the Crucifixion (i.e., 30 CE), this was just shy of four decades after.

20.  Josephus, Jewish War 2.9.2 [169], Antiquities 18.3.1 [55].

21.  Philo Judaeus, Legate ad Caium 360 (ch. 38) is the location of Philo’s discussion about Pilate. The above quote appears to be made up, derivative of what Josephus wrote. Following is a paraphrase of what Philo wrote:

Philo tells us (Legatio ad Caium, xxxviii) that on other occasion he dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod in honor of the emperor. On these shields there was no representation of any forbidden thing, but simply an inscription of the name of the donor and of him in whose honor they were set up. The Jews petitioned him to have them removed; when he refused, they appealed to Tiberius, who sent an order that they should be removed to Caesarea. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online: “Pilate; Pontius“ (accessed 4-17-2014).

22.  John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Rethinking the Historical Jesus, New York, The Anchor Bible Reference Library, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing, 1991, Vol. I, p. 385. Dr. Meier notes herein that Luke was “certainly aiming his ambitious literary creation at a cultured Greco-Roman audience, embodied in the ‘excellent Theophilus’ of Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1….” He notes further that Luke most likely would have used the Julian calendar and accounted the regnal years of Tiberius as (a) the de facto regnal years August 19th as the anniversary date, (b) counted the portion of the year 14 CE after August 19th inclusive as a whole year, a.k.a. the “(‘non-accession-year system’),” or (c) counted the years beginning with January 1, 15 CE, a.k.a. the “(‘accession-year system’).”  

23.  Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1 [197], 20.9.2 [205]. Josephus herein refers to the elder Ananias as the high-priest; or rather for our understanding, high-priest emeritus, for Jewish Law, before the Romans nullified the relevant ordinances by their removals and reappointments of said priests, had stipulated that the high priest had a life-time tenure. In which case a 29 or 30 CE crucifixion date would be perfectly fine with the chronology of Luke (save the birth of Jesus linked with the first year of the rule of Quirinus as Legate of Syria in 6 CE).

24.  To be fair, the Septuagint does the same thing: ἐξολεθρευθήσεται χρῖσμα καὶ κρίμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ (exolethreuthêsetai chrisma kai ouk estin en autô) = “the anointing will be utterly destroyed and the decree is not by itself.” (Tufts Perseus Greek Word Study Tool 4-13-2014)

25.  Raymond E Brown, The Death of the Messiah. New York, Anchor Bible Reference Library, Doubleday, a division of Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 1994, p. 1042.

26.  Ibid., n. 26: “Tiberius reigned from 14 to 37; was Eusebius thinking of AD 31-32? Holzmeister (“Finsternis”) raises the issue of a possible confusion between a moon eclipse on April 3, AD 33, and the sun eclipse of Nov. 24, AD 29.”

27.  Ibid., n. 27: “Some like Maier (“Sejanus”) use this evidence to argue for the death of Jesus in April 33, but such reasoning does not remove the impossibility of a solar eclipse at Passover.”

28.  Roger Pearse, “Jerome’s Chronicle, Being Eusebius’ Chronicle, Part II (Chronological Tables / Canons),” (2005) pp. 188-332,  http://rbedrosian.com/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm, accessed 20 May 2014 p. 256/25[7],. This passage in para. b notes that Jesus started his ministry in the 16th year of Tiberius, the 1st year of the 202nd Olympiad.

29.  Same as notes 18 and 19 above.

30.  See n. 28 above.

31.  For 26 CE, from Josephus’ Antiquities 18.2.2: “He {Tiberius] was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus…. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.” For 19 CE, see note 6 above.

32.  Brown, p. 1042, “Eusebius goes on to connect this with an earthquake in Bithynia that caused buildings to fall in Nicaea and with signs in the Jerusalem Temple reported by Josephus; clearly he is constructing a scenario to match the gospels.”

 

 

Was Jesus Even Crucified? Part 6a

Part 6

WHEN Was Jesus Crucified?

Previous parts:

Part 1 - Link
Part 2 - Link
Part 3 - Link
Part 4 - Link
Part 5 - Link

Part 6a – Eusebius’ Confusion

In Church History I.11, Eusebius tries to pin down the date of the alleged crucifixion of the historical Jesus. Previously in parts 2 through 5 of this article, we have found out that Josephus, if he actually wrote the Testimonium Flavianum, was quite skeptical of whether the man was crucified or not! But here, Eusebius leaves quite an incomprehensible jumble, trying to figure out exactly when Jesus was crucified!

First of all, Eusebius starts off complaining about an alleged forgery concerning the times of Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea, 26-36 CE. (Church History I.9, emphasis mine)¹

“The same writer, in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, says that about the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius, who had succeeded to the empire after Augustus had ruled fifty-seven years, Pontius Pilate was entrusted with the government of Judea, and that he remained there ten full years, almost until the death of Tiberius.

“Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators.

“For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.”

The seventh year of the reign of Tiberius would be 20-21 CE.

That would dovetail nicely with the placement of the TF in Josephus’ Antiquities (18.3.3) right before anecdotes of two religious scams, using the accepted dating for the expulsion of the Jews and Egyptians from Rome per order of the Senate in 19 CE.²

Continuing in Church History I.10: (emphasis mine)

1. It was in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, according to the evangelist, and in the fourth year of the governorship of Pontius Pilate, while Herod and Lysanias and Philip were ruling the rest of Judea, that our Saviour and Lord, Jesus the Christ of God, being about thirty years of age, came to John for baptism and began the promulgation of the Gospel.

The fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (18 September 14 CE to 22 March 37 CE) is 28-29 CE. Valerius Gratus ruled in Judea as Prefect (military governor and procurator) for the first 11 years of Tiberius’ reign, after which Pontius Pilate took his place in 25 CE, so the fourth year of Pilate’s hegemony is the same one-year span. Since the Synoptic gospels, gLuke included, present a one-year ministry ³ for Jesus, his crucifixion date according to the Synoptics possibly would have been in the spring of 30 CE.

Continuing further in Church History I.10: ⁴

2. The Divine Scripture says, moreover, that he passed the entire time of his ministry under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas,⁵ showing that in the time which belonged to the priesthood of those two men the whole period of his teaching was completed. Since he began his work during the high priesthood of Annas and taught until Caiaphas held the office, the entire time does not comprise quite four years.

3. For the rites of the law having been already abolished since that time, the customary usages in connection with the worship of God, according to which the high priest acquired his office by hereditary descent and held it for life, were also annulled and there were appointed to the high priesthood by the Roman governors now one and now another person who continued in office not more than one year.

4. Josephus relates that there were four high priests in succession from Annas to Caiaphas.⁶ Thus in the same book of the Antiquities he writes as follows: “Valerius Gratus having put an end to the priesthood of Ananus appoints Ishmael, the son of Fabi, high priest. And having removed him after a little he appoints Eleazer, the son of Ananus the high priest, to the same office. And having removed him also at the end of a year he gives the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus. But he likewise held the honor no more than a year, when Josephus, called also Caiaphas, succeeded him.”⁷ Accordingly the whole time of our Saviour's ministry is shown to have been not quite four full years, four high priests, from Annas to the accession of Caiaphas, having held office a year each. The Gospel therefore has rightly indicated Caiaphas as the high priest under whom the Saviour suffered. From which also we can see that the time of our Saviour's ministry does not disagree with the foregoing investigation.

The above flatly contradicts what Eusebius has established as the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. For, according to Josephus, Valerius Gratus deposed Ananus about 15 CE, Ishmael ben Fabi serves for one year until 16 CE, then Eleazar ben Ananus to serve ‘til 17 CE, and Simon ben Camithus until 18 CE after him. Finally in 18 CE this otherwise do-nothing Roman Prefect appoints Josephus Caiaphas as high priest. This leaves us 10 years and some months until the beginning of the fifteenth year of Tiberius, in 28 CE. Luke’s assertion that Annas (Ananus) was *still* high priest alongside the high priest Caiaphas in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar’s government is clearly falsified; yet Eusebius labors on under the conviction or delusion that Jesus began his ministry when Ananus was high priest.

Note also Eusebius asserts that Jesus had a ministry that was almost four years in length. That would take us to 19 CE, having Jesus being crucified about eight or nine years before starting his ministry in 28 or 29 CE! Eusebius at this point appears to harmonize Josephus' Antiquities with gLuke; and as a result, establishes the beginning of Jesus' ministry in 15 or 16 CE rather than 28 or 29 CE. Clearly, the good Doctor of the Church does not know what he is writing here, but he does affirm that the gLuke stated that Jesus ended his ministry under Caiaphas, which was the longest of all the high priests under the Romans: 18 to 37 CE. Clearly, this high priest made some sweetheart deals with both Valerius Gratus and Pontius Pilate! And John affirms in his gospel that Caiaphas was high priest when Jesus was allegedly crucified:

49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being⁸the high priest that same⁹ year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being¹⁰ high priest that year¹¹, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;… (gJohn 11:49-51 KJV)

12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, 13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was¹² the high priest that same year.¹³ (gJohn 18:12-13 KJV)

Now, there is nothing in John’s gospel that says that Caiaphas wasn’t the high priest the year before or the year after; still, there’s nothing there that can prevent it from being interpreted to indicate that he was not high priest before, after or both before and after. Still, the imperfect tense of the Greek verb (εἰμί (eimi)) indicates he certainly could still have been high priest the year following, and this is how Eusebius interprets Caiaphas also becoming high priest in the last year of Jesus’ ministry. So now we have two years when Jesus was supposed to have been crucified: 30 CE by Pontius Pilate, and 19 CE by Valerius Gratus!

And Eusebius makes it even worse for himself, when in the 11th chapter of the selfsame Book I of Church History, he writes: (emphasis and formatting mine)¹⁴

1. Not long after this John the Baptist was beheaded by the younger Herod, as is stated in the Gospels. Josephus also records the same fact, making mention of Herodias by name, and stating that, although she was the wife of his brother, Herod made her his own wife after divorcing his former lawful wife, who was the daughter of Aretas, king of Petra, and separating Herodias from her husband while he was still alive.

2. It was on her account also that he slew John, and waged war with Aretas, because of the disgrace inflicted on the daughter of the latter. Josephus relates that in this war, when they came to battle, Herod's entire army was destroyed, and that he suffered this calamity on account of his crime against John.

3. The same Josephus confesses in this account that John the Baptist was an exceedingly righteous man, and thus agrees with the things written of him in the Gospels. He records also that Herod lost his kingdom on account of the same Herodias, and that he was driven into banishment with her, and condemned to live at Vienne in Gaul.

4. He relates these things in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities, where he writes of John in the following words: It seemed to some of the Jews that the army of Herod was destroyed by God, who most justly avenged John called the Baptist.

5. For Herod slew him, a good man and one who exhorted the Jews to come and receive baptism, practicing virtue and exercising righteousness toward each other and toward God; for baptism would appear acceptable unto Him when they employed it, not for the remission of certain sins, but for the purification of the body, as the soul had been already purified in righteousness.

6. And when others gathered about him (for they found much pleasure in listening to his words), Herod feared that his great influence might lead to some sedition, for they appeared ready to do whatever he might advise. He therefore considered it much better, before any new thing should be done under John's influence, to anticipate it by slaying him, than to repent after revolution had come, and when he found himself in the midst of difficulties. On account of Herod's suspicion John was sent in bonds to the above-mentioned citadel of Machæra, and there slain. ¹⁵

7. After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words: And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ.

8. When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him. For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him. Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day. ¹⁶

9. Since an historian, who is one of the Hebrews themselves, has recorded in his work these things concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, what excuse is there left for not convicting them of being destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them? But let this suffice here.

What Josephus wrote about John the Baptist is found in his Antiquities 18.5.2¹⁷ and what he wrote about the defeat of Herod Antipas at the hand of Aretas IV which occurred about 36 or 37 CE is found in Antiquities 18.5.1 and 18.5.3.

First, a bit of background here. Philip the Tetrarch, Herod Antipas’ brother who ruled the northeast portion of Herod the Great’s kingdom, passed on about the end of 33 CE or the beginning of 34 CE.18 About this time, Herod Antipas got into a spat over his divorcing Aretas’ daughter so he could marry another woman he was smitten with, Herodias the wife of his brother Herod! 19 Eventually war breaks out over the dispute and Herod loses the battle spectacularly; he forthwith asks Tiberius Caesar to order Vitellus to continue the fight on his behalf – Vitellus was preparing to do so when he heard news that Tiberius was dead and that Caius “Caligula” Caesar replaced him, and so Vitellus recalls and disbands his army.²⁰

So although there is a bit of uncertainty here, we could date John the Baptist’s death to around 33 or 34 CE. With Jesus’ ministry following the death of John, we have a crucifixion date of 34, 35 or 36 CE. Unfortunately it does not follow that Jesus’ ministry could have been a bit less than four years in length, with the crucifixion in spring of 37 CE, because Pilate was recalled by Tiberius in the winter of 36-37 CE.²¹ The problem is, is the goofy placement of the so-called Testimonium Flavianum by Eusebius immediately after Josephus’ paragraph about John the Baptist in Antiquities 18.5.2 when in reality we find the paragraph about Jesus right between the Aqueduct incident²² and the two religious scams²³ that proved to be a disaster for the Jews!

Now on the other hand what we have in the Synoptic gospels,gMark, gMatthew and gLuke, is that Jesus started his ministry in the Galilee after John was put into prison!²⁴ GJohn, on the other hand, has Jesus and the Baptist active about the same time in the first portion of Jesus’ career.^{25, 26} This is a bit of a pickle, for in the Synoptics, at least gMark and gMatthew, John is reported to have been put imprisoned and later beheaded (to please his wife and daughter) because he reproved Herod Antipas for marrying his brother Philip’s wife!²⁷ This is entirely contrary to Josephus’ stated reason why the Baptist was killed – for political reasons due to his popularity.²⁸


Soon to come, Part 6b -- More of Eusebius' Confusion

Notes:


1. Eusebius, Church History I.9.1b-3, New Advent.org, Fathers, Eusebius, Church History. For the Greek Text, see Historia Ecclesiastica at the Documenta Catholica Omnia website, Eusebius Caesariensis, Historia Ecclesiastica entry page here. Cf. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18.2.2 [35].

2. Tacitus, Annales 2.85. The date is established by the death of Germanicus, grandson of Caesar Augustus, in Annales 2.83.

3. Bernard D. Muller, Historical Jesus.info, “Appendix B: 28 C.E., 1. The synoptic gospels evidence.” Link: http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html accessed 11 January 2014.

4. Eusebius, Church History I.10.1-4. See n. 1 above for links.

5. GLuke 3:2 (link: http://biblehub.com/luke/3-2.htm). No other Gospel has Annas (Ananus per Josephus) as the high priest; gMatthew and gJohn state Caiaphas was high priest and gJohn states Annas was his
father-in-law.

6. Antiquities 18.2.2 [33].

7. Antiquities 18.2.2 [34].

8. Original Greek for “being”: ὢν (ôn), verb-participle present active, male nominative singular of εἰμί (eimi), “I am, I exist.” http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=wn&la=greek, http://biblehub.com/greek/1510.htm, http://biblehub.com/text/john/11-49.htm.

9. Original Greek for “that same year”: τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου (tou eniautou ekeinou), article, noun and demonstrative pronoun respectively, genitive masculine singular of ὁ ἐνιαυτός ἐκεῖνος (o eviautos ekeinos), “that same year, that selfsame year, that there year”. Links: Tufts Perseus Greek Word Study Tool: tou, http://biblehub.com/greek/3588.htm, Tufts Perseus Greek Word Study Tool: eniautou, http://biblehub.com/greek/1763.htm, Tufts Perseus Greek Word Study Tool: ekeinou, http://biblehub.com/greek/1565.htm, http://biblehub.com/text/john/11-49.htm.

10. Greek word references same as n. 7, http://biblehub.com/text/john/11-51.htm.

11. Greek word references same as n. 8, GJohn reference same as n. 9.

12. Original Greek for “was”: ἦν (ên), verb, imperfect indicative active, third person singular of εἰμί (eimi), “I am, I exist.” http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=hn&la=greek, http://biblehub.com/greek/1510.htm, http://biblehub.com/text/john/18-13.htm.

13. Same as n. 10.

14. Church History I.10.1-9. See n. 1 above for links.

15. Antiquities 18.5.2 [115]-[119].

16. Antiquities 18.4.6 [106]-[108].

17. Same as n. 15.

18. Antiquities 18.4.6 [106]- [108].

19. Antiquities 18.5.1 [109]-[114].

20. Antiquities 18.5.1 [105], 18.5.3 [120]-[124].

21. Antiquities 18.4.2 [89].

22. Antiquities 18.3.2 [60]-[62].

23. Antiquities 18.3.4 [65]-[80], 18.3.5 [81]-[84].

24. gMark 1:14, gMatthew 4:12: "After that John was put into prison..."

25. gLuke 3:1-3, 7:19-34, 9:7-9: In gLuke 3, it is Tiberius’ 15th Year, and John the Baptist begins his ministry. John Baptizes almost everybody in Judea, and Jesus himself is baptized. In gLuke 7:19-24, John sends two disciples out enquiring if Jesus is the One prophesied to come. Jesus gives an answer that does not appear straightforward at first glance but is full of clues for the Christian understanding of that One to come. In gLuke 9:7-9 John the Baptist is meantioned as having been beheaded already.

26. Same as n. 15.

27. gMark 6:14-29, gMatthew 14:1-12: it is these two accounts that explain the (in my opinion, erroneous) rationale for Herod Antipas being beheaded. Cf. Luke 9:7-9 where it merely mentions that John the Baptist was beheaded by Herod Antipas. All three accounts mention that Herod Antipas married his brother Philip’s wife. Note this is all contrary to the account written in Josephus which precedes and follows within the main body of the text.

28. gJohn 1:28-33, 3:22-30 and 4:1-2: In gJohn 1, John the Bapist has begun his ministry and is actively baptizing Just before Jesus calls his disciples. In gJohn 3, just after the first Passover of Jesus’ ministry in that gospel, John is still active and is yet to be arrested; he says about Jesus and himself, “He must increase and I must decrease.” In John 4, the Pharisees hear that Jesus is now baptizing more that John the Baptist was at that time.

Was Jesus Even Crucified?

Link to Part 1.

Link to Part 2.

Link to Part 3.

Link to Part 4.

Part 5

Antiquities 18.3.3 or “Testimonium Flavianum:” a Gospel Commercial!

Note: meanings of all Greek words can be looked up at the Tufts Perseus Greek Word Study Tool.

As it turns out, a computer comparison check was made against Josephus’ Antiquities 18.3.3 against all the ancient Greek writings, and the closest match to it was found in the Canonical Gospel of Luke!

So let’s see how the two compare, shall we?

So the major reliance of this Part 5 will be on the article “The Josephus-Luke Connection” by G.J. Goldberg, Ph. D. ₁

First Josephus’ Antiquities 18.3.3 (Whiston’s translation)₂:

[63] 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. [64] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst 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.

Then Luke 24:13-27 (Young’s Literal Translation) ₃:

13 And, lo, two of them were going on during that day to a village, distant sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, the name of which [is] Emmaus, 14 and they were conversing with one another about all these things that have happened. 15 And it came to pass in their conversing and reasoning together, that Jesus himself, having come nigh, was going on with them, 16 and their eyes were holden so as not to know him, 17 and he said unto them, ‘What [are] these words that ye exchange with one another, walking, and ye are sad?’

18 And the one, whose name was Cleopas, answering, said unto him, ‘Art thou alone such a stranger in Jerusalem, that thou hast not known the things that came to pass in it in these days?’

19 And he said to them, ‘What things?’

And they said to him, ‘The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who became a man — a prophet — powerful in deed and word, before God and all the people, 20 how also the chief priests and our rulers did deliver him up to a judgment of death, and crucified him; 21 and we were hoping that he it is who is about to redeem Israel, and also with all these things, this third day is passing to-day, since these things happened. 22 And certain women of ours also astonished us, coming early to the tomb, 23 and not having found his body, they came, saying also to have seen an apparition of messengers, who say he is alive, 24 and certain of those with us went away unto the tomb, and found as even the women said, and him they saw not.’

25 And he said unto them, ‘O inconsiderate and slow in heart, to believe on all that the prophets spake! 26 Was it not behoving the Christ these things to suffer, and to enter into his glory?’ 27 and having begun from Moses, and from all the prophets, he was expounding to them in all the Writings the things about himself.

Now if we boil the above passage from Luke down to the essentials about Jesus, we have this:

‘The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who became a man — a prophet — powerful in deed and word, before God and all the people, how also the chief priests and our rulers did deliver him up to a judgment of death, and crucified him; and we were hoping that he it is who is about to redeem Israel, and also with all these things, this third day is passing to-day, since these things happened…. And he said unto them, ‘O inconsiderate and slow in heart, to believe on all that the prophets spake! Was it not behoving the Christ these things to suffer, and to enter into his glory?’ 27 and having begun from Moses, and from all the prophets, he was expounding to them in all the Writings the things about himself.

As Dr. Goodman demonstrates, there are several parallels between Antiquities 18.3.3 and Luke 24:19b-27 with verses 22-24 skipped over. And almost all of them are in the exact same order.

The first one:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man / The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who became a man — a prophet.

In the Greek we have from Antiquities, Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ (Ginetai de kata touton ton chronon Iêsous sophos anêr = “There came of age about this time Jesus, a wise man), and from Luke, τα περι ιησου του ναζωραιου ος εγενετο ανηρ προφητης (ta peri iêsou tou nazôraiou os egeneto anêr prophêtês = “Those about Jesus the Nazorean who was [or became] a man prophet”). For “came of age” and “was [or became]” we have the same root Greek verb, γίγνομαι (gignomai), “come into being, come into a new state of being, to be born”. Then what Josephus has for “a wise man” σοφὸς ἀνήρ (sophos anêr), Luke has the similar “man prophet” ₄ ανηρ προφητης (anêr prophêtês). Josephus doesn’t admit to Jesus being a prophet here, but admits to the person being a wise man: what follows is Josephus stating that Jesus did what prophets did do!

The second statement:

If it be lawful to call him a man

This passage in Antiquities 18.3.3, in Greek, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή (eige andra auton legein chrê = if one has to call him a man) has no parallel in Luke 24, unless one wants to interpret Luke’s use of the conjugate of γίγνομαι (gignomai) therein as “became” as in becoming a human from a prior state of being of being as a god or in the more ordinary sense of becoming a man by reaching maturity, which, according to Goldberg, is inconsistent with Luke’s use of the verb elsewhere to mean “was.” ₅

Third, we have:

for he was a doer of wonderful works / powerful in deed

In Antiquities for “for he was a doer of wonderful works” the Greek phrase ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής (ên gar paradoksôn ergôn poiêtês = literally, “for he was a composer of amazing deeds”) has its parallel in Luke’s δυνατὸς ἐν ἔργῳ (dunatos en ergô = “powerful in deed”). Both use ἔργον (ergon) “work, deed, action,” and δυνατὸς (dunatos) “strong, mighty, powerful, dynamic” has its parallel in παραδόξων (paradoksôn), “contrary to expectation, incredible, paradoxical, admirable, wonderful”.

Then fifth we have:

a teacher of such men / and word

For Josephus’ “a teacher of such men” (διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων (didaskalos anthrôpôn)) and for Luke we have καὶ [δυνατὸς ἐν] λόγῳ (dunatos en ergô kai logô = “and [powerful in] word.”). It doesn’t look parallel at first glance abut a look into λόγῳ (logô) would show that the noun also includes “saying, statement, maxim, proverb, speech, discourse, reasoning, account, rule, principle, law, etc.,” which means that being a teacher is not ruled out in this passage.

And sixth we have:

as receive the truth with pleasure / before God

The extant Greek in the Testimonium reads: τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων (tôn êdonê talêthê dechomenôn = “those receiving the unconcealed [truth] with pleasure”); in Luke it reads: ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ (enantion tou theou = “before God”). The two are not exactly the same, but in each of Jewish and Christian concepts God is supposed to be a God of Truth, with a capital T. So if Jesus was powerful in Word before God and taught men who gladly accepted that which was concealed but was unconcealed by Jesus, he wouldn’t exactly be teaching lies, now would he? ;^)

The seventh is:

He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles / and all the people

In the Greek we have for Josephus’ “He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles,” καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο (kai pollous men Ioudaious, pollous de kai tou Ellênikou epêgageto); and for Luke’s “and [before] all the people,” καὶ [ἐναντίον] παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ (kai [enantion] pantos tou laou). These two are very well matched, even if the former seems more expansive than the latter.

Then we have in eighth place:

He was [the] Christ. /

The Greek in Antiquities for this is: ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν (o Christos outos ên). There is NO parallel in Luke at this point, which dovetails nicely with the majority of scholars who’ve studied this, that this passage was a Christian interpolation. I will come back to this later, however.

Now we come in the ninth to the part about the Passion:

at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, / how also the chief priests and our rulers

In the Greek, Antiquities 18.3.3 has: ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν (endeiksi tôn prôtôn andrôn par' êmin = at the passing of information against [him] of [= by] the most superior men among us”); and Luke 24 has: ὅπως τε παρέδωκαν αὐτὸν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες ἡμῶν (opôs te paredôkan auton oi archiereis kai archontes êmôn = “that moreover the chief priests, and the rulers of us, delivered him up”). Another hit! Although the language is not exact, the meaning is about the same: “chief priests and rulers of us” (οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες ἡμῶν (oi archiereis kai archontes êmôn)) are one in the same with “most superior men among us” (τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν (tôn prôtôn andrôn par' êmin); and, although “delivered him up” (παρέδωκαν αὐτὸν (paredôkan auton) is certainly not identical with “with a passing of information against [him]” (ἐνδείξει (endeiksi)), the effect, as we shall see, is the same: a passing of the death penalty.

And so we have the death sentencing in tenth place:

And when Pilate… had condemned him to the cross / to a judgment of death, and crucified him

Now here we actually have an actual crucifixion occurring in Luke, but *not* necessarily in Josephus! For Josephus reads: καὶ αὐτὸν… σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου (kai auton… staurô epitetimêkotos Pilatou = “and of Pilate having sentenced him to a cross [or pole or an upright pale or a staurôs-punishment]”); whereas, Luke reads: εἰς κρίμα θανάτου καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν. (eis krima thanatou kai estaurôsan auton = “unto a judgement of death and they crucified him”). The only differences between Luke and Josephus is (1) Josephus only has Jesus condemned by Pilate, while in Luke he is actually (allegedly) crucified; and (2) Pilate is the one who does the condemning in Josephus, whereas in Luke, the chief priests and rulers of the Jewish people in Jerusalem are the ones indicated who do the condemning and the crucifying (although Pilate is recorded in Luke 23:25 as handing over Jesus to their will). ₆ And if you read on from there, of course, in Luke’s account the Jewish leaders do the dirty work of crucifying him. I know that’s not how Christianity interprets it, at least these days, but that is how the text reads!

After this in the eleventh place, we have:

those that loved him at the first did not forsake him / and we were hoping

In the Greek, for Josephus we have: οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες (ouk epausanto oi to prôton agapêsantes = “they did not leave off doing so, [those] who loved [or adhered to ₇ or had an affection for] at the first”), indicating the followers of Jesus kept their love for and their allegiance to him; and for Luke we have: ἡμεῖς δὲ ἠλπίζομεν (êmeis de êlpizomen = “we moreover were hoping”), indicating the disciples were presently losing or have recently lost their faith in the man. Clearly each indicates an opposite direction from the other, like the parallel roadways on an expressway or a divided highway where the two lines of traffic go in perfectly opposite directions. So we have a parallel here, too.

After this, there is in the twelfth place:

/ that he it is who is about to redeem Israel

The extant Greek for Luke has it as: ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ μέλλων λυτροῦσθαι τὸν Ἰσραήλ (oti autos estin o mellôn lutrousthai ton Israêl = “that he is the one being destined to redeem [or release by paying a ransom for, liberate by paying a ransom] the [nation of] Israel”), which excludes any idea of liberation by warfare or by warmongering, but by payment of ransom only. This sort of “liberation” is not in line with the sort of Messianic beliefs that caused the Jews to rebel against Rome in 66 CE, but is certainly in conformance with the Christian belief system that Jesus Christ died as a ransom for many. Josephus has nothing at this point, but earlier at the end of section [63], his extant Greek reads, ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν (o Christos outos ên = “the Christ he was.”) The existence of a parallel here is possible and probably, even though the placement of the order of the phrase in Luke does not match that in Josephus. Note also, a little later on in Agapius’ 10th Century Arabic work, ₈ there is the phrase: “he was perhaps the Messiah” and we will discuss this when get to that point.

Then for the thirteenth, skipping over Luke 24:22-24, but directly to the next phrase in Josephus’ Antiquities 18.3.3 [64], we proceed to the reason why, in Josephus, those who “loved him at the first did not cease to do so:”

for he appeared to them alive again the third day / “and also with all these things, this third day is passing to-day, since these things happened….” And he said unto them

For the Greek in Antiquities we have: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν (epsanê gar autois tritên echôn êmeran palin zôn = “for he appeared to them having a third day₉ being alive [and in full strength(?)]₁₀ again”)and Luke has: • ἀλλά γε καὶ σὺν πᾶσιν τούτοις τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει ἀφ’ οὗ ταῦτα ἐγένετο.… • καὶ αὐτὸς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς (alla ge kai sun pasin toutois tritên tautên êmeran agei aph’ ou tauta egeneto… kai autos eipen pros autous = “but really also with all these things, this third day it passes, after which all these things happened…. And he said unto them) Here, the parallel is almost exact and completely congruent, except for the length of time he was allegedly alive again; Josephus’s passage states he was alive and in full strength again for three days when he appears to his followers. Whereas in Luke, he shows up three days after he was nailed up.

Now at this point we would encounter in Agapius’ Arabic-language World Chronicle, a phrase tacked on the end of Antiquities’ depiction of Jesus appearing to the disciples having a third day alive [and in full strength(?)] again. Shlomo Pines translated the added phrase, which introduced the next point below, as: “They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah….”₁₁ Although whether Agapius obtained his source from perhaps an authentic Josephan source rather than a paraphrase of the textus receptus quoted almost verbatim in Eusebuis’ Ecclesiastical History, it does show that when this was written, in the Tenth Century CE, the mention that Jesus was the Christ was not dropped, merely modified and relocated.

And this is the fourteenth instance: what Jesus says to the two disciples outside Emmaus is right similar to what Josephus allegedly wrote in Antiquities 18.3.3:

as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him / ‘O inconsiderate and slow in heart, to believe on all that the prophets spake! Was it not behoving the Christ these things to suffer, and to enter into his glory?’

Again, we have another parallel. Josephus’ extant Greek states: τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων (tôn theiôn prophêtôn tauta te kai alla muria peri autou thaumasia eirêkotôn = “as the prophets of God having proclaimed these and also countless other marvellous [things] about him”). Luke adds Jesus’ excoriation of the two to reprove them for their loss of faith – basically blaming them for not expecting that the Messiah was to suffer and die and so forth; this is what Jesus says, in the Greek text of Luke: Ὦ ἀνόητοι καὶ βραδεῖς τῇ καρδίᾳ τοῦ πιστεύειν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν οἷς ἐλάλησαν οἱ προφῆται• οὐχὶ ταῦτα ἔδει παθεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ; (O anoêtoi kai bradeis tê kardia tou pisteuein epi pasin ois elalêsan oi prophêtai, ouxi tauta edei pathein ton Christon kai eiselthein eis tên doksan autou; = “’O unthinking and slow to comprehend in the heart to believe on all the things that the prophets spoke!’ Was it not needful [for] the Christ to have suffered these things and enter into his ?‘”) Note both Josephus and Luke has the same Greek word (different declensions) for prophets (προφητῶν, προφῆται) and similar words denoting inspiring of awe: θαυμάσια (wonderful, marvellous) in Josephus and δόξαν (glory) in Luke.

/ and having begun from Moses, and from all the prophets, he was expounding to them in all the Writings the things about himself.

This is but a continuation in Luke of the same Josephan – Lukan parallel in the paragraph above, it’s really a repeat of Josephus’ “as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. (τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων (tôn theiôn prophêtôn tauta te kai alla muria peri autou thaumasia eirêkotôn)” In Greek, Luke wrote: καὶ ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ Μωυσέως καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν προφητῶν διερμήνευσεν αὐτοῖς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς γραφαῖς τὰ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ. (kai arksamenos apo Môuseôs kai apo pantôn tôn prophêtôn diermhneusen autois en pasais tais graphais ta peri eautou = “and having begun from Moses and from all of the prophets he was expounding to them in all the writings as to those [things] about himself.”) Here we have Josephus’ “the divine prophets” mentioned in Luke as “Moses, and… all the prophets;” in Josephus “foretold” as “in all the writings;” and “these and ten thousand other things concerning him“ as “those [things] about himself.”
And in the fifteenth and last, we have:

And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. /

Josephus is said to have written in the Greek, εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον. (eis eti en te nun tôn Christianôn apo toude ônomasmenon ouk epelipe to phulon.) Although there is no parallel to this sentence in the compact section in Luke, the continuance of the story past verse 27 through the end of Acts completes the parallel. Nota bene that according to Acts 11:26, the “disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.”₁₂ Acts finishes up with Paul arriving in Rome and meeting brethren there (Acts ch. 28), showing that Christians were everywhere!

And so we have fifteen instances, twelve of which are found parallels between Josephus’ Antiquities 18.3.3 and his counterpart Luke’s Gospel 24:13-27 each opposite the other in order in their respective places, save the eigth, the twelfth and the fifteenth. Yet, the eighth point in the extant Greek Antiquities (the end of the thirteenth point within Agapius’ quote thereof) finds its parallel in the twelfth point found in Luke; the fifteenth point for Antiquities finds its parallel in what transpired after Luke 24:27, clear through to the end of Acts. Clearly, the passage widely assumed to be written by Josephus is none other than a Gospel Commercial and the obvious parallels between the two could not have occurred at ramdom. Either Luke copied Josephus; or Josephus copied Luke; or both copied the same source; or Eusebius, Pamphilus of Caesarea, or some other early (3rd or 4th Century CE) Christian clergyman forged the whole thing in toto.

I will now hand the blogspace over to Dr. Goldberg:₁₃

There are several alternatives. I shall demonstrate the following:

1. The similarities are too numerous and unusual to be the result of accident. This will be demonstrated on another page by a statistical comparison of all other known descriptions of Jesus of similar length.

2. The similarities are not what would be written by a 2nd or 3rd century Christian deliberately mimicking Josephus' style. This is a consequence of the study on the statistics page.

3. The similarities are what would be expected if Josephus had employed a document very similar to Luke's Emmaus narrative as his source for information on Jesus, which he then moderately rewrote. This will be demonstrated on the style page by studying how other passages in his works were rewritten by Josephus from sources known to us.

The conclusion that can therefore be drawn is that Josephus and Luke derived their passages from a common Christian (or Jewish-Christian) source.

The analysis allows us to identify what is authentic in the Testimonium. It also allows is to plausibly uncover the document used by both Josephus and Luke. I will argue elsewhere that this document is a copy of a speech used by early Jesus proselytes of Jerusalem.

For the first time, we will have independent, Jewish documentation of the speech that is called, many times in Luke/Acts, "the word" and "the gospel."

Well, well, well. So so it appears that Josephus could very well have written this piece, copying off of a Jewish Christian “bible tract.” Yet he hardly could have written this without including a rather strident disclaimer. After all, the consensus of scholars who have studied the TF is that the passage has been tampered with by Christians. If he only actually wrote this verbatim, or only what the majority of scholars agree he wrote, then what we have here is that by the time of Domitian Caesar, at least one branch of Christianity had become politically correct. And Suetonius tells us what happened to historians who wrote things that the Roman Emperor found to be politically incorrect, and what happened to their scribes as well. ₁₄ And if there was even one branch of Christianity that was politically correct back then, then we are certainly looking into the abyss.

Notes:

₁ G. J. Goldberg, Ph. D., “The Josephus-Luke Connection,” The Journal for the Study of the Pseuepigrapha, 13 (1995), pp. 59-77. Also found at this Link: http://www.josephus.org/LUKECH.html
₂ Flavius Josephus. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by. William Whiston, A.M. Auburn and Buffalo. John E. Beardsley. 1895. Tufts Perseus Digital Library.
₃ Luke 24, Young’s Literal Translation, http://biblehub.com/ylt/luke/24.htm.
₄ Goldberg is correct concerning the English meaning here: that Jesus didn’t necessarily become a man, that is, was a divine spirit prior to becoming a man, but in the neighborhood of the time of Cleopas relating these things, Jesus was a man – and came of age of maturity to become a man, i.e., 30 (Luke 3:23). Goodman is also correct about Jesus being a man-prophet, which all the English translators stumble over, often omitting “man” or changing it to “male” or hyphenating the term as “man-prophet.”
₅ Goldberg, “The Jesus-Luke Connection.” Cf. with Strong's Lexicon's meaning (http://biblesuite.com/greek/strongs_1096.htm) and the concordance at Biblesuite.com (http://biblehub.com/greek/egeneto_1096.htm). The listing the verb’s occurrences in Luke shows all manner of valid English meanings for the Greek verb.
₆ Greek: τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν παρέδωκεν τῷ θελήματι αὐτῶν (ton de Iêsoun paredôken tô thelêmati autôn). Latin: Iesum vero tradidit voluntati eorum. Link: http://biblehub.com/text/luke/23-25.htm
₇ Goldberg.
₈ Goldberg.
₉ Goldberg. I am not the only one to figure that this is how the extant Greek reads! If the writer of this passage meant “on the third day” as all translations assume, even Jerome’s Latin, then he left out the preposition ἔν (en), variant of εἰς (eis).
₁₀ For ζῶν (zôn), variant of ζάω (zaô) The Middle Liddell Greek-English Lexicon includes “being alive and in full strength,” although metaphorically. Josephus might have meant this literally, rather than simply “being alive,” but as far as I know, no known scholar reads it this way. ₁₁ Alice Whealey, “The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic,” New Testament Studies, Cambridge, England, UK, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 54 (2008), pp. 573–590, p. 574.
₁₂ Greek text: χρηματίσαι τε πρώτως ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ τοὺς μαθητὰς Χριστιανούς. (chrêmatisai te prôtôs en Antiocheia tous mathêtas Christianous) Literally, “Were called, moreover, first in Antioch the disciples, Christians.” Nota bene, the Codex Sinaiticus had originally instead of Χριστιανούς (Christianous), Χρηστιανούς (Chrêstianous).
The “correction” was rather poor in the Sinaiticus. The Vaticanus on the other hand, has Χρεἰστιανούς (Chreistianos), a "Latinist" substitution of an epsilon and an iota for the Greek êta.
₁₃ Goldberg (conclusion).
₁₄ Suetonius, Life of Domitian 10: “Then Hermogenes of Tarsus died because of some allusions that he had introduced into a historical work; and the slaves who acted as his copyists were crucified.” Link: https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~wstevens/history331texts/dom.html; Domitianus 10: item Hermogenem Tarsensem propter quasdam in historia figuras, librariis etiam, qui eam descripserat, cruci fixis. Link: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/suetonius/suet.dom.html#10.

Coming soon: Part 6 - When was Jesus Allegedly Crucified?

Beth Tells Jake What-for!

Note what she did to the graffito he wrote.

It was written and captured at the southwest corner of S. Telemachus and Baudin Streets in New Orleans.