An atheist once said that the reason he did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is that there is not a single independent source that confirms that Jesus died and was raised. Initially, that seems alarming: that God would send his son Jesus to die and be raised, but that historians would ignore this event. Perhaps, then, Christianity is a hoax.
But we must look carefully at the accusation here. The key word here is “independent source.” This is how the atheist discounts the history given to us by four sources in the gospels. By independent, he means that Christian sources are not included. So then we are looking for non-Christian sources, sources who do not believe in Jesus’ resurrection, to confirm the resurrection. 
What the atheist is requiring of Jesus, then, is that someone who does not believe in the resurrection confirm the resurrection. It is no fault of Christianity if non-believers don’t believe. We cannot expect non-Christian sources to confirm the resurrection.
And yet we do. Flavius Josephus, a Jewish scholar who compiled the most complete account of history the first century ever saw, does not write from a Christian perspective. Frequently he defends Judaism, and never considers himself a Christian. And yet we read in his history:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those who 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 a myriad other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. ( Antiquities, 18:63-64)
Notice that Josephus does not consider himself a Christian; he merely notes that the Christians were not yet extinct at the time of his writing. And yet, as one who considered himself a Jew, he found himself unable to deny the plain historical facts: that Jesus Christ was a teacher who attracted those who loved the truth, that he performed miracles, that he was raised from the dead, that he fulfilled many prophecies of the Old Testament, and that he started the Christian movement.
And yet, the atheist mind does not accept the proof of Josephus. He rejects the gospels because they are written by the followers of Jesus. And the atheist likewise rejects the testimony of Josephus, saying it is a Christian fraud. Now–there is no evidence that Christians ever tampered with Josephus writings to make him match their beliefs. On the contrary, the chronologies given by Josephus contradict the Old Testament in so many places that it is clear that Christians preserved his writings even when they disagreed with the Bible. Similarly, Josephus, while telling us that Jesus Christ was indeed raised from the dead, contradicts the Biblical account by saying that when Jesus was crucified, his followers did not abandon him, although the Biblical account says that they did abandon him.
The atheist does not discount the gospels because they are not historical enough. The atheist does not discount Josephus because there is any real evidence of fraud. Evidence does, as it always has, support Christianity and terrify the atheist, who is then forced to hide behind impossible historical standards and unfounded conspiracy theories about fraud.
UPDATE: Upon thinking about it, maybe calling the belief that the passage in Josephus has been altered an “unfounded conspiracy theory” is a bit too strong. Maybe it’s not. Your thoughts are welcome.
14 Comments
As an atheist who is according to you “terrified” by the evidence, I have a couple of questions on your posting:
Josephus wrote:
“he was the Christ …for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and a myriad other wonderful things concerning him…”
Note that the passage is not merely reporting that that the Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead but it asserted that Jesus actually appeared to his disciples after he died and that jesus was actually “foretold by the prophets” and did many “wonderful things”. Also the passage said Jesus IS the messiah (not that the Christians believed so)
It looks to me that only someone on the verge of conversion into Christianity or is already a Christian could have written this.
Since Josephus was not a Christian – could he have written such a passage? Could a non Christian Jew believed Jesus was the messiah and still not be a follower?
You also noted that “Now–there is no evidence that Christians ever tampered with Josephus writings to make him match their beliefs.”
Yet we have the evidence of origen who wrote in his book Contra Celsum 1:47 that Josephus “did not believe jesus was the messiah”. How do you reconcile this statement of origen to the passage above in Antiquities which unequivocally states that Jesus is the messiah?
Look forward to your response.
Paul Tobin, a “terrified” atheist.
Dear Paul,
I am, I will admit, not an expert on the case of Josephus. However, I’ll do my best to respond to what you have to say.
It looks to me that only someone on the verge of conversion into Christianity or is already a Christian could have written this.
On this I absolutely agree with you.
Since Josephus was not a Christian – could he have written such a passage? Could a non Christian Jew believed Jesus was the messiah and still not be a follower?
It is undeniable that Josephus was a practicing Jew. However, scholar William Whiston, whose annotated translation of Josephus’ work is still being reprinted to this day, believed that that Josephus experienced, rather late in life, a conversion to Christianity. And especially in the early stages of Christian history, a believer in Jesus Christ could also be considered a Jew.
Yet we have the evidence of origen who wrote in his book Contra Celsum 1:47 that Josephus “did not believe jesus was the messiah”.
With regards to Contra Celsum, it is certainly true that Origin referred to Josephus as an unbeliever. There are a number of possible ways in which this could occur without this indicating later corruption of the Josephus passage. There is the possibility that Origen was simply mistaken. There is the possibility that Origen had accurate information, but that it was based on earlier parts of Josephus’ life.
There is even the possibility that Origen had an officially censored copy of some sort which erased some of Josephus’ most positively pro-Christian references. And there is Whiston’s hypothesis, which is fairly lengthy, and which I will reprint in full in my next post, arguing that Origen not only knew of the Josephus passage quoted above, but also that he was quoting from it in Contra Celsus.
Now, I can’t prove any of these possibilities. But when I noted that there is no evidence Christians ever tampered with Josephus, I still stand by that statement.
I’ve yet to see a shred of evidence that Christians ever tampered with the Testimonium Flavianus.
Hi Mitchell,
Thanks for your quick reply. I have two follow up questions based on your reply.
So on Josephus writing the whole of that Testimonium – your only explanation is a speculation of Whiston made more than 250 years ago that Josephus had a late conversion into Christianity.
There is no evidence to support this speculation (no modern scholar I know have suggested this) yet this seems to be your only basis for asserting that the passage (as is) was actually penned by Josephus.
Since this suggestion by Whiston is a speculative one designed to explained away the obviously difficult to explain statements that Jesus was the Messiah and and that his followers saw him after he died. It is, at best, only a POSSIBILITY. Without a conversion, Josephus would NOT have written the passage (or at least the parts that are obviously “Christian”) as it stands.
The other POSSIBILITY, that Josephus did not write the passage as it stands (i.e. that it may have been changed or added by a later Christian copyist), has not been disproven by this speculation of Whiston.
Question 1: Can you explain why you think Whiston’s speculation (that Josephus did indeed convert to Christianity late in life) is more probable than that the other possibility (that the text was altered by later Christians)?
Now on to Origen, you mentioned Whiston’s further speculation that Origen had an “had an officially censored copy” – so you are saying that origen text had been altered (i.e. “tempered”) but by non-Christians! In other words. You were saying in your original blog that “Now–there is no evidence that Christians ever tampered with Josephus writings to make him match their beliefs.”. Now you are claiming that the very same texts has been tempered by non-Christians.
Question 2: Can you cite me the evidence where non-Christians had tempered with the text of Josephus?
Look forward to your response.
Cheers
Paul Tobin
The “terrified” atheist.
Hello, Paul.
Thanks for taking the time to post your questions. And as to the word “terrified,” I now wish I hadn’t written that, partially because you keep using it against me, and partially because it’s an unfairly harsh expression of the basic thought I had in mind. Ah well.
And now for a response on the historical issues:
So on Josephus writing the whole of that Testimonium – your only explanation is a speculation of Whiston made more than 250 years ago that Josephus had a late conversion into Christianity.
No. Whiston’s idea is not my only possible explanation. There’s any of a number of possibilities (I listed four in my last comment): There is the possibility that Origen was simply mistaken . . . that Origen had accurate information . . . based on earlier parts of Josephus’ life . . . that Origen had an officially censored copy . . . Whiston’s hypothesis, which is fairly lengthy, and which I will reprint in full in my next post, arguing that Origen not only knew of the Josephus passage quoted above, but also that he was quoting from it in Contra Celsus.
So to reduce my response to saying I must simply rely on Whiston’s explanation is an oversimplification.
I also agree that none of the possibilities have been eliminated by what I’ve said. But I haven’t set out to prove that this passage by Josephus is authentic. All I have set out to show is that evidence that could be considered to be in favor of Jesus’ resurrection is automatically discounted as ‘Christian’ even when there is nothing but the Christian-ness of the evidence to discount it.
And now to your two questions:
Question 1: Can you explain why you think Whiston’s speculation (that Josephus did indeed convert to Christianity late in life) is more probable than that the other possibility (that the text was altered by later Christians)?
I don’t think I ever committed to Whiston as being more probable than the later Christian alteration idea.
Now on to Origen, you mentioned Whiston’s further speculation that Origen had an “had an officially censored copy”
That’s my further speculation, not Whiston’s. Whiston believed Origen had a copy in his hands exactly like the ones we have today.
so you are saying that origen text had been altered (i.e. “tempered”) but by non-Christians!
Nope. I’m not saying the text was altered by non-Christians. I’m simply presenting it as yet another alternate explanation–an explanation which to me seems easier to swallow, as it posits only a single altered copy rather than wholesale alteration of all copies and complete destruction of non-conforming copies.
Question 2: Can you cite me the evidence where non-Christians had tempered with the text of Josephus?
No. I can’t show any direct evidence of non-Christian tampering, any more than you can show evidence of Christian tampering. And that’s the point of my comment about evidence: we have none.
Mitchell,
Thanks for your quick reply. You noted here that: “And that’s the point of my comment about evidence: we have none.”
In your original posting, you brought up Josephus’ account as ‘evidence’ that there are non-Christian sources as you wrote:
” So then we are looking for non-Christian sources, sources who do not believe in Jesus’ resurrection, to confirm the resurrection….We cannot expect non-Christian sources to confirm the resurrection.
AND YET WE DO [my emphasis -PT]. Flavius Josephus, a Jewish scholar who compiled the most complete account of history the first century ever saw, does not write from a Christian perspective…
…
…The atheist does not discount Josephus because there is any real evidence of fraud. Evidence does, as it always has, support Christianity and terrify the atheist, who is then forced to hide behind impossible historical standards and unfounded conspiracy theories about fraud.”
So it looks like you were original presenting Josephus’ account as confirming the account of the resurrection. Now you are saying there is no evidence either way.
Please answer this question: Given our discussion over the past few days, do you still claim that the Testimonium Falvianum is non-Christian evidence for Jesus’ resurrection?
Cheers
Paul Tobin
The not-so terrified atheist.
Paul,
Thank you for your ability to criticize without becoming nauseatingly bitter (a problem that is far too common on both the pro- and anti-Christian sides of the aisle). I’m glad we’ve had our discussions.
When I said that ‘we have none’ I was referring to us having no evidence as to whether Josephus’ work had been tampered with. I was most definitely not saying that we have no evidence as to the resurrection accounts.
As someone who is a Christian and therefore believes in the resurrection, it appears that what Josephus wrote confirms the resurrection, unless it was tampered with. However, in the absence of any evidence of tampering, I (and this is my opinion as a simple person and not as a historian) will consider his work as confirmation of the resurrection.
If evidence ever surfaces or arguments are made which make me believe the Testimonium Flavianum is a later Christian addition, so be it. I’m willing to accept that. My faith is not built on Josephus.
My original post was about the impossibility of a neutral source validating a resurrection, and how Josephus amazingly manages to fit that description. Now, Josephus would have to be some sort of Christian (or, as Origen so aptly put it in that Contra Celsus passage, not remote from the truth) in order to write this. So in this sense, as I noted in the original post, calling the TF non-Christian is false. However, Josephus fits the ‘independent source’ bill as exactly as could possibly be expected, and so in the sense that he wrote his books from a historical rather than pro-Christian perspective he may fairly be called non-Christian confirmation.
So if I were to sum up a short answer to your question “Given our discussion over the past few days, do you still claim that the Testimonium Falvianum is non-Christian evidence for Jesus’ resurrection?”
Yes, I consider the TF non-Christian evidence, in the sense I originally intended when I wrote the post. I’ve tried to express what I was thinking to the best of my ability.
Mitchell,
Thanks for your quick reply. I am a little confused at your train of thought, so I need your help to clarify what you have written.
Your answer to my previous question:
“Given our discussion over the past few days, do you still claim that the Testimonium Falvianum is non-Christian evidence for Jesus’ resurrection?”
was
“Yes, I consider the TF non-Christian evidence, in the sense I originally intended when I wrote the post. ”
But you just wrote in your previous posting that:
“I don’t think I ever committed to Whiston [that Josephus became a Christian-PT] as being more probable than the later Christian alteration idea.”
Remember that without Whiston’s speculation, it cannot be at all possible that Josephus would have written that Jesus was the messiah and that he was seen after he had been crucified. (He was not stating that the Christians BELIEVED he was the messiah, he was reporting it as a MATTER OF FACT. Not something a non believer like Josephus would have done).
One would assume that if two ideas are equally probable (not my position – I happen to think the latter is more likely but we can discuss this later) then BOTH position cannot be used to “prove” one position or another.
So if in your own words Whiston speculation it is not more probable that “the later Christian alteration” than how could the TF be considered “non-Christian evidence” IN FAVOR of the resurrection?
Look forward to your clarification on this.
Cheers
Paul Tobin
The slightly confused atheist
Paul,
The confusion you feel at least partially stems from the fact that we are using the words “Whiston’s hypothesis” in different ways. I am using it to refer to Whiston’s belief that Josephus was part of a quasi-Christian belief system which acknowledged Jesus as a supernatural being and as resurrected, but not as Christ in the Orthodox Christian sense of the term. You appear to be using the term to simply mean the idea of Josephus’ Testimonium being genuine, and applying this definition to some things I’ve written causes some of my writing to appear self-contradictory.
Although Whiston’s idea seems plausible, I don’t know exactly how probable his view is. Now, the genuineness of the Testimonium on the other hand, I certainly see as more probable than the idea of alteration. And no, despite your repeated protestations that only a single scholar supports this idea, this isn’t so. The idea that Josephus’ work was valid is supported by a great number of writers, from Eusebius in 324 AD, including a great many writers up till the time of Whiston. Not until over 1500 years after Josephus’ writing do we find anyone doubting the genuineness of it, and then not on grounds of evidence so much as a supposition that anything so supportive of Christian beliefs must not be valid.
Your easy splitting of people into ‘believer’ and ‘non-believer’ categories is also problematic, as the early years of Christianity saw a great many different sorts of belief systems, many in sharp disagreement with what we take today to be normal Christian practice, and some of which were more or less compatible with being consider a Jew in the first century.
And so, despite my ambivalence toward Whiston’s theory (which does seem to look more plausible the more I look at it), I most definitely stand by my early and continued stance of viewing the Testimonium as most likely genuine unless evidence can be produced to the contrary.
Hopefully that clears up my stance a bit.
Thanks for your response.
Unfortunately, again I fail to see the logic behind your response. If you recall in your first reply, you wrote that you “absolutely agree” with me that only someone on the verge of conversion into Christianity or is already a Christian could have written certain portions of the TF (in particular I am referring to the claim that Jesus was the messiah and that he was seen by his disciples after his crucifixion.)
It was then that you brought up Whiston’s hypothesis to explain why you still believed that passage could have been written by Josephus (i.e. “Josephus experienced, rather late in life, a conversion to Christianity”).
Now WITHOUT this hypothesis, and since you “absolutely agree with me” that only someone only someone on the verge of conversion (or had already converted) could have written the portions of the passage mentioned, what is your basis, then, for asserting the genuineness of the passage being “more probable than the idea of alteration”?
Cheers
Paul Tobin
The still-confused atheist
Let me try again.
Again, Whiston’s hypothesis is only one possible explanation, and I do not need Whiston to think the Testimonium is most likely genuine.
Whiston’s hypothesis is that Josephus experienced, rather late in life, to a sort of belief which would be best described as borderline Christian, and which did not consider Jesus the Messiah is the classical Jewish or Christian senses of the term.
I consider genuiness more probable because we find no evidence of alteration, nor do we find a single person even suspecting alteration for over 1500 years after Josephus made his writing. In the absence of evidence of tampering, I consider genuineness more common.
I don’t find Whiston necessary for the idea that the Testimonium is genuine.
I hope that helps.
Thanks for your comments.
You wrote:
“I consider genuiness more probable because we find no evidence of alteration, nor do we find a single person even suspecting alteration for over 1500 years after Josephus made his writing. In the absence of evidence of tampering, I consider genuineness more common.”
This is a very weak argument indeed. Especially when one considers the evidence.
Let me remind you of the facts/evidence:
a) The earliest extant manuscript of Antiquities with this passage that we have is the Codex Ambrosianus which dates to the 11th century CE.
b) The earliest citation of the passage in TF as you have quoted is found only in the 4th century – by Eusebius (c260-c340).
c) Origen (c185-253) who wrote a century EARLIER than Eusebius wrote in his Commentary on Matthew (10:17) and Against Celsus (1:47), that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the messiah. An unlikely statement, if the TF as we know it, which states explicitly Jesus WAS the messiah, had existed during his time.
d) Louis H. Feldman, on of the world’s foremost authorities on Josephus, cited 11 church fathers prior to or contemporaneous to Eusebius who KNEW Josephus’s work yet did NOT cite the TF. [Louis Feldman, "Josephus (CE 37-c.100)," in William Harbury et al., ed., The Cambridge History of Judaism vol. 3 (1999) pp. 911 - 912.]
It is time to pause and consider this evidence. No one, NOT a single Christian author prior to the fourth century (i.e. prior to Eusebius) who KNEW Josephus’s works, cited this passage in the TF. This omission in itself remarkable. Why would they not cite this passage when it so obviously helps their cause in debates against Jews about who holds the promise of Abraham etc?
Finally the claim that we do not “find a single person even suspecting alteration for over 1500 years after Josephus made his writing” is totally unconvincing.
Since Josephus’ texts was transmitted mainly by Christians who had a vested interest in using what is in his text (post Eusebian text, at least) to “prove” some of the early Christian claims as you are doing right now.
In short, the evidence against your rather cavalier assessment iof the genuineness of the TF as it stands, is quite compelling. Let me list it again:
a) The passage is too Christian to be written by someone like Josephus (ALL available evidence points towards him being a Jew “who did not believe in Jesus as the messiah” throughout his life)
b) The earliest citation of the TF as we know is dates to the 4th century.
c) ALL the earlier Church fathers who knew Josephus’ works did NOT cite the TF when one would have expected them to do so, in view of the rather ‘spectacular’ claim in the TF.
d) We even have an explicit contradiction to the TF, in the works of Origen who mentioned that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the messiah.
So if one compares the two lines of evidence it is quite obvious to me (and to most historians who have considered the matter) that the TF, as it stands, is at the very least, a heavily interpolated passage.
If you have further evidence to support your claim, I would certainly be glad to hear it since what you have mentioned so far is not convincing (not just to me but to most historians).
Cheers
Paul Tobin
Your friendly neighbourhood atheist
I suppose we disagree, then. But you might just convince me yet (about Josephus).
I’ll look at each issue you brought up, in order, and reflect a little bit. And I’ll put numbers next to them for convenience.
1) You mention that Codex Ambrosianus of the 11th century is the oldest copy we have. This is not much of a problem for me, because there are many ancient documents for which our manuscripts don’t go back for more than a thousand years. So the relatively late date of our earliest manuscripts is to be expected whether the TF is spurious or genuine.
2) You mention that the earliest citation we have of the TF by another source is by Eusebius around 324 AD, and that eleven other early Church writers used Josephus but failed to mention the TF. This bit of argument is something I’d like to learn more about. Particularly if the 11 fathers you speak of are shown to have had an extensive knowledge of Josephus’ writings, this could be a strong argument in favor of an originally Testimoniumless text.
However, it assumes that Origen’s wording does not indicate a knowledge of the TF.
On top of this, I’m not sure how inclined Christians would be to use Josephus in debate against Jews, expecially such spectacular words as found in the TF, considering his reputation as a slimy traitor who sold out to the Romans and considered Vespasian to be a sort of partial Messiah.
Nor did the earliest Christian communities necessarily possess a great deal of written material for use in disputation, considering the periodic persecutions they faced and the burning of their books which occurred from time to time.
3) You see an absolute contradiction between Origen considering Josephus as not a believer “in Jesus as Christ” while the Testimonium says that Josephus said that “ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν,” that is literally, “This one was Christos.” However, I fail to see, as you do, an explicit statement here that Jesus was the promised Messiah. For other writers (e.g. Tacitus, Pliny the Younger) who wrote to a Greek or Roman audience in the earliest days of Christianity also referred to Jesus as “Christ/Christos/Chrestus/Christus” without implying that he was the long-awaited Messiah. In fact, at least Pliny referred to Jesus as “Christ” without even bothering to use the name “Jesus,” and there existed some early on who thought “Chrestus” was simply the man’s name. So considering that Josephus was writing for a Greek-speaking Roman audience, I don’t see this statement as necessarily an explicit declaration of Messiahood, but also possibly as nothing more than an identification for those who might not be familiar with any “Jesus” but who had heard of “Christos.”
4) Origen had plenty of good reason to believe that Josephus may not have considered Jesus the Christ in the Messianic sense of “final deliverer of the Jews from foreign oppression.” And Origen would have good reason to say that Josephus did not “believe in Jesus as Christ.” For Josephus in another place simply says that Jesus “was called Christ,” and in his Jewish War even applies prophecies of the Messiah to the Roman Vespasian.’
5) You find my argument about the lack of evidence of alteration totally unconvincing. I still think it deserves weight. Because if we are too assume addition, it must follow that in the time of Origen the Testimonium was absent, and then added, by the time of Eusebius in 324, to all known copies of Josephus. This would have to be done before Christianity was imposed on the Roman Empire, which is no mean feat, but also would have to be done in such a way that no copies of the original-type text remain and not a single person, Christian or otherwise, left any comment on the alteration. Although I’ve heard allegations of later addition, I’ve yet to hear a plausible account of how this was pulled off in this manner.
It only gives me slight pause that so many historians find this account unsatisfying.
Mitchell,
Thanks for your gracious reply.
I have nothing to add to what you have said except that in the future, do not assume that atheists are “terrified” by the evidence and are “forced to hide behind impossible historical standards …”
At least in the case of Josephus TF all the above is untrue. The evidence is not “terrifying”.
The historical standard it sets is not “impossible” – there is strong evidence that at the very least the TF has been modified by Christians. [FYI - I believe Josephus DID write something about Jesus in the place where the TF is today but, keeping Origen in mind, it was not in the 'friendly' tone we find today. ]
Thanks for keeping the tone of our discussion civil and respectful throughout.
Cheers
Paul Tobin
Just another bloke who cares about the truth
Paul,
Thanks for taking the time to have this chat. You really don’t seem terrified, and that was a bad choice of words.
Although we both come to different conclusions, I’m glad we had the back-and-forth.
Regards,
Mitchell