A problematic testimony?

Josephus was a first century Jewish historian, most famous for his works “The Jewish War” and “Jewish Antiquities”. The latter work contains the so-called Testimonium Flavianum, in which Josephus mentions Jesus – the only roughly contemporary extra-Biblical reference to the founder of Christianity. Josephus also mentions other characters who appear in the New Testament: John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate and James (the brother of Jesus). For this reason, Josephus´ writings have been meticulously preserved by Christian scribes, whereas the Jews consider him a traitor, since he surrendered to the Romans during the Jewish War (66-70 AD) and became a confidante of Roman commanders (and later emperors) Vespasian and Titus. Of course, some believe that the works of this Jewish maverick were tampered with by the Christians, and that the real life Josephus never mentioned Jesus or his brother…

“Josephus and the New Testament. Second Edition” is a book by Steve Mason, a Professor of Humanities from Canada. The author is at pains to point out that his work is an introduction to Josephus studies, neither more nor less. It seems it takes a scholar of some standing to sort out all the esoteric speech in the oeuvres of Josephus! Mason wants the reader to look at Josephus in the context of his own time, since he is usually used (or misused) by later Christian apologists who quote-mine his works to score this or that theological point, often of an anti-Jewish nature, or simply attempt to prove that Jesus was indeed a real person. Josephus wasn´t particularly interested in Jesus, and he certainly didn´t see himself as anti-Jewish. Nor can his works be approached as “pure” history, a treasure-trove of objective facts about the world of the New Testament, another common approach. In reality, Josephus wrote his “histories” with a very clear agenda, and a grossly self-serving one at that, precisely because he was a participant in some of the events he is describing.

Josephus had two main aims in mind when producing his works. First, he wanted to defend Judaism and the Jewish people against Roman accusations after the anti-Roman Jewish revolt in Palestine. Josephus tried to prove that only a minority of fanatics and petty tyrants were involved in the war, Judaism as a whole being perfectly compatible with Greco-Roman civilization. The second aim was to exonerate himself from the charges of treason and cowardice since he had turned coat during the Jewish War, becoming a pro-Roman imperial asset. Thus, the works of Josephus are extended propaganda pitches, and frequently contradict each other. Josephus belonged to the Jewish priestly aristocracy, a privileged layer squeezed between the Roman occupation forces and Jews demanding independence, often plebeian ones. The aristocrats´ over-riding concern was to uphold “law and order”, which made them positive towards Roman imperial power, but the incompetence and greed of many Roman officials made the balancing act between Empire and the restive locals difficult.

The writings of Josephus follow Hellenistic literary conventions, which also makes them unreliable as “objective” source material. A good example is when the historian writes about himself. Josephus emphasizes his good genealogy, that he was a precocious child, studied philosophy as a teenager, but nevertheless entered public service at an appropriate age, etc – all standard tropes of this kind of literature. He even claims to have gone into the wild and become the disciple of a certain Bannus, a desert-dwelling holy man! This claim is more Jewish, but fits neatly with the Roman idea that young men were expected to study philosophy and train their virtues – before going on to more worldly pursuits. When describing Judaism, he deliberately tries to place it as close to the Hellenistic mainstream as possible. Hence, his discussions about the “three philosophical schools of Judaism”, the constant emphasis that Judaism is very ancient, and the claim that Judaism is preoccupied with the best constitution (just like, say, Plato or Cicero). Unsurprisingly, the best polity turns out to be an aristocracy, i.e. a society ruled collectively by people of Josephus´ own class background. The entire Bible is interpreted through this lens, as is the Sanhedrin of Josephus´ own day. The Zealots, by contrast, are “tyrants” (a loaded Greek term) and bandits.

With this baggage, small wonder that the relationship between Josephus and the NT is complex, too. Mason accepts Testimonium Flavianum, although he believes it was heavily amended by Christian scribes. There are also curious similarities between Josephus and Luke-Acts (the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles in the NT). Or “curious”, since they are readily explicable if we assume either that Josephus knew Luke-Acts, or – more controversially, if you´re Christian – that the author of Luke-Acts knew Josephus (rather than basing his story on authentic Christian tradition or divine inspiration). Mason is at first reticent to tell the readers his solution to the problem, but eventually discloses that he believes “Luke” used Josephus as a source. The parallels are just too many. Note also that Luke-Acts is using the standard Hellenistic tropes as Josephus when writing about Jesus and the apostles: Jesus has an impressive genealogy, the speeches are obviously composed by the narrator, there are references to philosophy and poetry, Jesus is a precocious child. Like Josephus, he even meets a master and teacher in the desert – yes, that would be John the Baptist! That “Luke” never mentions the Essenes is readily explicable on the assumption that the Christians play the same role in the Lukan narrative as the Essenes do in that of Josephus: as the peaceful, philosophical sect of Judaism. The main aim of “Luke” is the same as that of Josephus. Both want to make a group of outsiders respectable to the Greco-Roman mainstream (and to the Roman authorities). This also explains some of the differences between Luke-Acts and the works of Josephus, such as the near-positive description of Pontius Pilate by the Lukan author, while Josephus portrays him negatively. “Luke” wanted to downplay Roman complicity in the execution of Jesus, while Josephus used Pilate as another example of a provocative Roman official who was making it harder for the Jewish aristocrats to contain popular discontent.

In the end, the parallels between Josephus and the New Testament make it possible for us to question both.