Historical Jesus research has been one of the most intriguing aspect of my religious studies. As I continue my research, I will post additional articles here.
When the old quest for the historical Jesus began in 1778 with the post-human publication of the work by the man now considered to be the “Father” of the quest, Hermann Reimarus, it was an accepted fact that a historical Jesus did exist. Over two centuries have passed on by now, and even though the scholarly consensus remains the same, there has arisen a faction of the public that now denies the existence of this first century, Palestinian religious leader, that we know as Jesus Christ, existed. Even in the monumental work, that is now considered a classic on the subject, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, authored by Albert Schweitzer, we see doubt about the existence of Jesus. Regretfully, Schweitzer does little to dispel the idea accept for just brushing it aside.
A brief history of the idea that Jesus never existed, commonly referred to as the Christ-myth theory, is in order. The theory that Jesus was mythical was first proposed by two French Enlightment thinkers; Constantin-Françios Volney (1791) and Charles Françios Dupuis (1794). It was not until 1850-1852 that the Christ-Myth theory arose though, when Bruno Bauer finished his works titled Criticism of the Pauline Epistles (1850-1852) and Criticisms of the Gospels and History of Their Origins (1850-1851).
Recently, the Christ-Myth theory has regained some popularity with the works of such authors as G.A. Wells, Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier, and Robert M. Price. However, it should be mentioned that G.A. Wells has departed from his earlier arguments that there was no historical Jesus.
For this discussion, we will focus on Robert M. Price. Price has set down the traditional arguments of the Christ-Myth theory in The Historical Jesus: Five Views. That is then where we will start.
Price has constructed three pillars to base the Christ-Myth theory upon. Those three pillars that Price have constructed are:
-There is “no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources.”
-”The Epistles, earlier than the Gospels, do not evidence a recent historical Jesus.”
-”The Jesus story, as attested in the Epistles [Gospels?] shows strong parallels to Middle Eastern religions based on the myths of dying-and-rising gods.”
Price’s first pillar is quite damning at first glance. Outside of the New Testament, there are very few first-century sources that mention Jesus.
The first mention we have of Jesus comes from Paul who was writing around twenty years after the death of Jesus. From Paul, very little can actually be known. However, we will deal with that more in depth when we discuss Price’s second pillar.
After Paul, it is not until the Gospel writers that we hear about Jesus. Mark, the first of the Gospels that we currently have, was written around 70 C.E. This Gospel would thus have been written around four decades after the death of Jesus.
Outside of the Gospels, it is not until 93 C.E. that a secular source mentions Jesus. Flavius Josephus, the famous Jewish historian, mentions Jesus only briefly in his work, The Antiquities of the Jews. As with the majority of those who subscribe to the Christ-Myth theory, Price dismisses the Testimonium Flavianum as a forgery, probably fabricated by Eusebius. There is good reason as to why there is doubt surrounding the passage, and the scholarly consensus is that in its entirety, it can not be considered authentic.
Ignoring that passage for just a moment though, there is a second, shorter passage in Antiquities. This second passage mentions Jesus only as an aside, as a mere reference to his brother, James. At length though, the section that this passage is in is dealing more with the Jewish high priest, Ananus, then James. The key passage reads: “Being therefore this kind of person [i.e., a heartless Sadducee], Ananus, thinking that he had a favorable opportunity because Festus had died and Albinus was still on his way, called a meeting [literally, “sanhedrin”] of judges and brought into it the brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah, James by name, and some others. He made the accusation that they had transgressed the law, and he handed them over to be stoned.”
There is little debate as to whether or not this second, shorter passage is a forgery. Nearly universally, the passage is considered to be authentic. We will examine a few of the reasons as to why it has gained this status.
First, we see this passage in all extant manuscripts of The Antiquities of the Jews without any notable variations. However, as Earl Doherty points out in his book, The Jesus Puzzle, we have nothing before the 10th century. The problem we see with this is that it allows a vast amount of time in which a forgery or interpolation could be added to the manuscript. Since there is a tendency for scribes to gravitate to the best known wording or phrasing, it would not be difficult to imagine an interpolation to have the possibility of being so widespread.
Alone then, the fact that we see this passage in the main Greek-manuscript tradition does not prove that it is authentic. However, we can trace this passage to the early third and fourth century.
Origen, writing in the early third century, produced three works that possibly reference this shorter passage of Josephus. Two of the three passages occur in his work Against Celsus. The third reference occurs in Origen’s Commentary on Matthew (10.17). In this particular work, Origen paraphrases Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, and mentions the key idea that Josephus states that James is the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ.
The main problem with Origen’s works is that we see no direct quote. More so, Origen seems to be combining a number of passages of Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews. Origen is seeming to want to partially blame the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple on what happened to James. However, Josephus does not suggest that. For Josephus, James is basically a side note in the larger story of the higher priest Ananus. So even though we can see a reference to the shorter passage about Jesus in the Antiquities of the Jews in the work of Origen, these references are problematic.
Yet, we are not confined to just Origen. The fourth century Christian writer Eusebius does give us a quote of Antiquities 20.9.1. In Ecclesiastical History 2.23.22, Eusebius quotes from Josephus; however, the quote is not entirely accurate.
Much like Origen, Eusebius is of the idea that the fate of Jerusalem was caused in order to avenge James. However, this suggestion is never made by Josephus. Yet, even besides the minor discrepancies in Eusebius quoting of Josephus (the suggestion that the destruction of Rome was cause to avenge James does not appear in the actual quote, but just preceding it), we have a clear reference of this passage going back at least to the fourth century.
If that was all we knew of Josephus passage, there would be a definite problem though. From Josephus even to just Origen, there is a considerable amount of time that had elapsed. During this time, it would not be completely out of the question that someone added a forgery or an interpolation to the text. The reason for this is quite simple once we consider how his writings were transmitted over the centuries.
The writings of Josephus were preserved by Christians. Even though Josephus himself was a Jew, many Jews considered him to be a traitor because of his actions during the First Jewish War.
A quick look at Josephus’s life may be beneficial now. In 37 C.E., to an aristocratic Jerusalem family, Josephus ben Matthias was born. Much like the Hasmoneans, whom his family claimed descent from, Josephus fought to free Palestine from foreign rule; the Romans. However, at Jotapata, in Galilee, Josephus, as a general, fled with his officers and hid within caves outside of the city.
The Romans had been on the verge of overrunning Jotapata, which forced the retreat. However, the romans had discovered that Josephus and his officers had fled and hid from the city. In return, the Romans prepared to starve them out. Instead of facing capture, some of the officers wanted to commit suicide. Unsuccessfully, Josephus tried to dissuade them on the grounds that it was against Jewish las (Josephus was a Pharisaic Jew). Eventually, he proposed to instead draw lots to see who would die first.
Of little surprise, Josephus and one other were deemed to die last. Instead, they surrendered to the Romans. Eventually, Josephus was granted an audience with Vespasian, where he “prophesied” that Vespasian would be the next Emperor. It was on this basis that he was granted freedom and roman citizenship. He finished the First Jewish War as a special aide to Titus, and later retired as a retainer of the Flavians.
It is no wonder why the Jews considered Josephus to be a traitor. At the same time, we are shown a little about what Josephus believed about the divinely inspired ruler of Palestine, Vespasian.
Josephus believed that the apocalyptic and messianic promises were fulfilled in Vespasian. This belief would play a major part in how Josephus would refer to others so-called messianic claimants, such as Jesus. These individuals were frequently referred to as imposters, magicians, or deceivers. More so though, as John Dominic Crossan explains: “It is hardly likely, then, that Josephus would explain too clearly or underline too sharply the existence of alternative messianic fulfillments before Vespasian, especially from the Jewish lower classes.”
With all that in mind, it becomes easier to examine the two passages of Josephus in a critical fashion. Going back to the shorter passage we were discussing, we can see two major reasons as to why the general consensus is that it (Antiquities 20.9.1) is authentic.
The first major reason is that the passages main focus is the high priest Ananus and why he was disposed. As John P. Meier states; “we have here only a passing, almost blasé reference to someone called James, whom Josephus obviously considers a minor character.” What is most interesting about this passage is just how Josephus refers to James. He does so in a matter-of-fact way, as “the brother of Jesus.” This is significant as we see James referenced this way in neither the New Testament writings or those of the early Christian. Instead, we see James, in those passages, references as “the Brother of the Lord.” This distinct difference in which Josephus uses to refer to James adds to the credibility of the passage as it does not square up with how Christians would refer to him. Thus, it makes it less likely that some Christian interpolator added the phrase.
The second major reason is that Josephus’ account is strikingly different from the standard Christian account of the death of James. According to Hegesippus, c. 170 C.E., James was cast down from the battlement of the Jerusalem temple by the scribes and Pharisees. At that point, they begin to stone him up until a priest intervenes. However, a laundryman finally ends up clubbing James to death. According to Hegesippus, this occurred just prior to Vespasian’s siege of Jerusalem which occurred in 70 C.E. Eusebius informs us that the account by the Church Father Clement of Alexandria also agrees basically with this account.
This account disagrees in a few important instances with what Josephus wrote. According to Antiquities 20.9.1, James was stoned to death based on the orders of Ananus, the high priest, prior to the break out of the Jewish War (early in 62 C.E.). Since these two accounts differ significantly from one another, it is unlikely that a later Christian interpolator added the passage to Josephus work.
In addition to those major reasons as to why the passage is authentic, there are also two minor reason. Both of these minor reasons focus on the phrase “who is called Christ.”
As Morton Smith writes; “Since Josephus’ works have been preserved by Christian copyists and no Christian would have forged a reference to Jesus in this style, the text has generally been accepted as genuine.” However, Smith may be overstepping the issue to a point. Part of the reason for this is based on his translation of the phrase to “ Jesus the so-called Christ.” his translation, which carries a negative overtone, may not be accurate in this case. Doherty points out that the same phrase is used in both Matthew (1:16; 27:17) and John (4:25) where no such negative connotation could possibly be.
That does not mean we can disregard Smith’s point completely though. Because even if the translation Smith uses is incorrect in this instance, he still makes a valid point; the way in which this passage refers to Jesus is non-Christian like. Thus it would be exactly what we would expect from a Jew such as Josephus. As Van Voorst states; “’called Christ’ tends to come from non-Christians and is not at all typical of Christian usage. Christians would not be inclined to use a neutral or descriptive term like ‘called Christ’; for them, Jesus is (the) Christ.” More so though, the time which this passage would have been interpolated (the second century), if it was not original, we see no extra-canonical works that used the phrase “Jesus who is called Christ.”
The second minor reason rests on the title Christ. Josephus does not speak about messianic claimants. Never does he make an attempt to explain this Jewish tradition. The reason being quite simple; for Josephus, as we have seen, the jewish apocalyptic and messianic promises had been fulfilled in Vespasian. However, even in the passage where Josephus shows Vespasian as the fulfillment of the messianic promises, he never uses the term Christ (The Greek equivalent of the Hebrew term Messiah).
The reason for this is that jesus alone was ever referred to as Christ. For Jesus, it becomes a nickname, almost the equivalent of his last name. So widespread and early was this use of the name Christ to refer to Jesus, that we even see Paul using it in his first letter to the Corinthians (53-54 C.E.). More so though, his use shows us that Christ was being used to refer to Jesus even before Paul’s letter. As James D.G. Dun states; “Christ was more or less a proper name (Jesus Christ) by the time of Paul.” Thus, it would not be out of context for Josephus to use this term to distinguish this Jesus (which was a common name during the first century) from the various other ones he mentions.
Looking at all of this as a whole then, it is no surprise then that Louis H. Feldman, the great Josephus scholar, notes; “….few have doubted the genuineness of this passage on James.” In the light of Antiquities 20.9.1 being authentic, we have some ground on to which examine the longer passage in Antiquities 18.3.3.
Recalling Antiquities 20.9.1, we see james being distinguished by his brother “Jesus, who is called Christ.” Since Josephus believes it is sufficient to identify James by his brother, we gain the suggestion that Josephus had earlier discussed Jesus. However, the reference in Antiquities 20.9.1 does not necessitate or demand an earlier mention of Jesus.
There is at least one other example of Josephus identifying an individual by his brother, who is not mentioned earlier in the text. Felix, in Josephus’ Wars of the Jews 2.247, is identified by his brother Pallas. The only other time the name Pallas is mentioned in the Wars of the Jews is in 1.561. However, this must be a different person as this Pallas is a woman.
The difference with this particular reference referring to Pallas thous is that Josephus would have assumed that his audience would have known who this man was. Pallas had been a powerful man during Claudius’ reign.
In the Antiquities of the Jews 20.8.9, Josephus once again mentions Pallas. This time, he tells us that Pallas was in the greatest honor of Nero. More so though, we see Pallas being mentioned in the works of Pliny the Elder, Suetonius, and Tacitus.
It becomes no surprise then that Josephus finds no reason to explaining who this Pallas was. As a man of exceptional honor, who seems to have played a major role in the imperial court’s affairs, he would have been known to the audience Josephus was addressing.
More importantly though, there would have been no reason to go into detail about who Pallas was in the context of theWars of the Jews, as pallas had passed away in 62 C.E., prior to the outbreak of the war, and thus played no part in the event.
In comparison, Jesus made little if any impact on the world during his life time. As E.P. Sanders states; “if we measure the general impact of prophetic figures by the degree of disturbance they caused, we shall conclude that jesus was less important in the eyes of most of his contemporaries that were John the Baptist and the Egyptian.” Thus, we are lucky to have even this much about jesus from Josephus. Considering that Josephus mentions neither John the Baptist, James, nor Jesus in his earlier work, Wars of the Jews, we are lucky that “presumably Christians had become more important in the interval.”
Yet, there is no denying that the passage as a whole is not completely authentic. He is the passage in question: “At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. Fore he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.”
We can see a few problems that clearly stick out. For one, as have already seen, Josephus believed that Vespasian had fulfilled the messianic promises. That being so, it would be highly unlikely that Josephus would bestow upon Jesus the same honor. To the contrary, there is no other indication that Josephus subscribed to the Jesus movement/early Christianity. Instead, all of the writing of Josephus supports the conclusion that he remained a Jew until his death. Thus, it could not be reasonable to assume that Josephus did in fact claim that Jesus was Christ, especially since that messianic idea, for Josephus, would have been reserved for Vespasian.
Seeing that there is clearly a later interpolation or even complete forgery demands a closer look. As an overview, we see that the Testimonium Flavium existent in the three Greek manuscripts of Book 18 of the Antiquities of the Jews that we currently have (the earliest dating to the 11th century). It is also in all of the various manuscripts of the Latin translation, the main manuscript dating to the 9th century, as well as the variant versions in Arabic and Syriac. This passage is also quoted by Eusebius in the fourth century.
Much like the shorter passage in the Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1, we do find that a considerable amount of time has passed between Josephus writing the work and Eusebius quoting it. Thus, there would have been significant opportunity to have added the passage to the manuscript.
It becomes necessary then to explain why, if this passage is at least in part authentic, we see none of the Church fathers, before Eusebius, mentioning the passage. Once we take out the clearly Christian interpolations, we are left with a passage that is neutral, if not ambiguous, in tone. This is how the reconstructed passage would then look, once the Christian interpolations are removed: “At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. Fore he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) has not died out.”
Assuming this reconstruction is correct, it is no wonder that the Church fathers, up to Eusebius, remained silent about the passage. Without the three Christian interpolations, the passage hardly supports the mainline Christian belief, and thus not a useful apologetic tool. More so though, this reconstruction would help explain why Origen claimed, correctly, that Josephus did not believe jesus to be the Messiah. The reconstructed passage, for Origen, would have testified to Josephus’ disbelief. Without this passage, we would be left with the question of what made Origen arrive at that conclusion, and the passage in 20.9.1 simply would not have been enough. In addition though, the passage, as it is reconstructed, would have only served to show that jesus existed. Since, we have no evidence that the historicity of Jesus was being questioned during this time period, there would have been little reason to reference the passage.
If we continue with the assumption that this reconstructed passage is correct, it also solves a separate problem. As the passage stands, it does not fit will with how we know Josephus writes. However, once the clearly Christian interpolations are removed, the grammar and language of the passage fits well with Josephus’ style. For instance, most of the vocabulary within the reconstructed passage is characteristic of Josephus. James H. Charlesworth expands by saying: “We can be confident that there was minimal reference to Jesus….because once the clearly Christian sections are removed, the rest makes good grammatical and historical sense. The peculiarly Christian words are parenthetically connected to the narrative; hence they are grammatically free and could easily have been inserted by a Christian. These sections also are disruptive, and when they are removed the flow of thought is improved and smoother. For example, once the reference to the resurrection is deleted, the thought moves from Christian continuance active after the crucifixion to the non extinct nature of the tribe.”
Yet, it would also be possible for a scribe, having copied the previous 17 books of the Antiquities of the Jews, to have acquired a knowledge of Josephus’ style. This would explain why even the reconstructed passage may not fit perfectly with Josephus’ style. Steve Mason points out several ways in which the Testimonium Flaviam differs from Josephus’ style. Two examples should suffice.
The first example is that the passage uses words in ways that are not always characteristic of Josephus. For instance, the Greek word in the passage which is translated to doer (“doer of startling deeds”) is the word poietes. This is the word from which we get the English word poet. However, etymologically, it means one who does. Yet in Josephus day, it had special reference to literary poets. This is also the way in which he consistently uses it nine other times elsewhere.
A second example is the use of the phrase “they did not cease,” which has to be finished by the translator as it is left incomplete in the text. What the followers are ceasing to do must be understood from the previous phrase. This construction is, being peculiar in English, is just as much so in the Greek.
It is significant though that Mason also states that “although some of the language in the testimonium is odd, we have no linguistic basis for dismissing the whole paragraph.” Some others though have tried to explain away these problems. For instance, Meier argues that it would not have been considered unusual for a Greek author at the time to use a word in an unusual way. In the case of Josephus, he may have been using s special source, and thus it would not be surprising that a variant usage is found.
As for the peculiar layout of the phrase, “they did not cease,” it has been argued by others that the phrase is in fact characteristic of Josephus style. More convincing though, a study by G.L. Richards shows that the omission of short phrases and words is not uncommon in the textual tradition of the Antiquities of the Jews.
More so though, as Bart Ehrman has pointed out, the only way to copy manuscripts in ancient times was to do so by hand. It was a very slow process as well as one that was not fully accurate. Most of the errors that would occur were purely accidents of one form or another, such as misspelled words, deleting of adding a word, or just slips of the pen. Once those mistakes were made, they ended up being permanent in those manuscripts. The problem was then increased once other scribes made copies of those flawed manuscripts. Additional errors would be made and the cycle continues.
Thus, since these manuscripts were copied by hand, we can expect to see some variants in the work. And that is exactly what we see. Writing just around 30 years after Eusebius, Ambrose (Pseudo Hegesippus), quotes from the Testimonium: “That there was at that time a wise man, if (says he) it be lawful to have him called a man, a doer of wonderful works, who appeared to his disciples after the third day from his death, alive again according to the writings of the prophets, who foretold these and innumerable other miraculous events concerning him: from whom began the congregation of Christians, yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart and his prejudicial intention.”
What is seen in Ambrose may be better considered a paraphrase, but it does begin to show that there were some variants in different texts. Significant here is the seeming omission, from Ambrose text of the Testimonium Flavium, of the statement, “He was the Messiah.” Now, it may have been that Ambrose was aware that Josephus was a Jew who saw the messianic prophecies fulfilled in Vespasian, and thus left out the statement of profession Jesus as the Messiah. Or, more likely, the statement was simply absent from Ambrose’s text. Either way, Ambrose’s quote is inconclusive.
A much better example occurs at the end of the fourth century by Jerome: “At the same time there was Jesus, a wise man, if yet it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of those who willingly receive the truth. He had many followers both of the Jews and of the Gentiles – he was believed to be the Christ. And when by the envy of our principal men, Pilate had condemned him to the cross, yet not with standing those who had loved him at first persevered, for he appeared to them alive on the third day, as the oracles of the prophets had foretold many of these and other wonderful things concerning him: and the sect of Christians so named from him are not extinct to this day.”
In this case it is clear that Jerome is directly quoting the Testimonium Flavium. Again though, we see variants in the text. Most significantly, the statement, “he was the Messiah (or Christ in Greek)” is replaced by the phrase, “he was believed to be the Christ.” the difference is quite considerable. In one, Josephus is professing a faith in Jesus as the Messiah. The other is simply transmitting what others believed about Jesus.
Seeing that even by the fourth century, there were at least two variant texts in circulation, helps convey the idea that changes were made in the text after Josephus authored it. Then it is no surprise if there are some problems with the text today. Yet, this does not mean that we can just dismiss the text as a forgery. As Mason relates: “in the cases of Philo and Josephus, whose writings are preserved in their original language and form, one is hard pressed to find a single example of serious ascribable alteration. To have created the testimonium out of whole cloth would be an act of unparalleled scribal audacity.”
All of this points back to a possible authentic core in the Testimonium. Realizing this, there is only one other statement in the passage that needs to be examined. Josephus ends the passage by stating that “up until this very day, the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.”
Some have argued that it is strange for Josephus to call Christians a tribe. As Josephus usually uses the word to signify “distinct people, races or nationalities….It is very strange that Josephus should speak of the Christians as a distinct racial group, since he has just said that jesus was a Jew condemned by Jewish leaders.” However, at the same time, Mason acknowledges that Josephus used the term to denote gender as well as a swarm of locusts. Thus it is not uncharacteristic of Josephus. Especially considering that by the time Josephus was writing, at the end of the first century, Christians had began to become a distinct people.
In Acts 11:26, we are told that “it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.” More so though, prior to the time of Acts, the term Christian does not appear in any other source. The reason is quite simple; up until around that time, this group who would be called Christians, most likely saw themselves as devout Jews. Even during that time, as well as afterwards, there is evidence that they continued to see themselves as Jews.
Yet, during the time in which the word Christian was first being used, it did not necessarily mean that those Christians were a distinct group separated from the Jews per se, but just that they were partisans or proponents of Christ. But it does show that a distinction was in fact made.
At the same time though, scholars now believed that the term was coined not by Christians, but instead by Roman officials, who would have used it in a derogatory way. It would have been a slur hurled at them by outsiders Either way, we see that a distinction was made.
That distinction became increasingly necessary as the gulf with other forms of Judaism was widening. Increasingly, this movement that would be called Christians were attracting gentiles rather than Jews. This gulf had began “as a fissure in the aftermath of the first revolt, in part as a result of the cognitive shock in seeing Jerusalem destroyed and the subsequent vacuum of religious leadership.”
It was also during this time that the Pharisaic movement began to become the leading voice within Judaism, which would rise into Rabbinic Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism eventually began to become the norm, partially because many of the other sects had been wiped out during the first Jewish War. At the same time, other sects began to be seen as heresies. As as such, Christians began to become less tolerated, especially as Rabbinic Judaism increasingly grew in dominance and centrality.
It was during this time that Josephus was writing, so it is very conceivable that he would have seen Christians as a distinct people during that time.
Other have argued that, since Josephus was writing relatively shortly after Jesus was crucified, it is not believable that he would have voiced some disbelief that Christians were still in existence. However, as the speech accredited to Gamilel in Acts 5:35-39 suggests, it was not uncommon for a group to disband after the death of their leader. In the case of Jesus, Josephus seems to be surprised that after Jesus’ shameful death, anyone would still follow him.
The final main argument against that passage is that the phrase, “Christians name after him,” requires a qualifier explaining Jesus to be called Christ. However, as André Pelletier points out, there is no reason for such a qualifier. There are other instances in which Josephus, as well as other Greco-Roman writers did not find it necessary to explicitly mention who some other person or place is named. The reason being that it would have been considered an insult to the audiences knowledge to spell out something that is taken for granted. And there is little reason to doubt that Josephus audience would not recognize that Jesus’ “second name” was Christ (Christos). In fact, just around two decades after Josephus was writing, we see Tacitus refer to Jesus by calling him simply Christos. And again, if we go back to Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (15:3), even at that time, around forty years earlier than Josephus was writing, Jesus was already being referred to as simply Christ. So there is no necessity to have a qualifier in this instance.
Finally, there is one last point to observe in order to come to a conclusion about the Testimonium Flavium. Does this passage seem to fit better on the lips of Josephus, or some Christian scribe?
There have been those, such as Earl Doherty, that claim that the tenor does not ring true for Josephus. According to Doherty; “in the case of every other would-be messiah or popular leader opposed to or executed by the Romans, he has nothing but evil to say.” For the most part, this is true. However, there are exception. For instance, Josephus’ account of John the Baptist is also similar in tone to the account of Jesus. In fact, Josephus is even close to being sympathetic towards John.
Continuing, Doherty claims that Christianity would have been seen as a danger since the Gospels, and some of the epistles showed that the Christian movement was an apocalyptic one. Whether or not the Christian movement was apocalyptic or not is not necessarily important in this case. How outsiders saw them does matter though.
In the literature we have concerning Christians during that time, we do not see any mention of them being a thread. Besides the Testimonium Flavium, there is no other mention about Christians in Josephus. There is a mention by Tacitus; however, he mentions no threat cause by Christians, even though he dislikes them becomes of their “mischievous superstition.” The best example in this case though is Pliny the Younger. Pliny, who had undertook to learn of the crimes being committed by Christians states that all he discovered was nothing but depraved, excessive superstition.
Even more significant is that Christians were being instructed to be in subjection to the governing authority. As Paul states in Romans 13:1-4, the belief was that the authority which exists was established by God. Thus, by opposing the governing authority, one would also be opposing the ordinance of God.
In addition though, Josephus depicted Pilate in a negative light, and believed him to be partially responsible for escalating tensions between the Romans and Jews. Considering that Josephus had no reason to defend Pilate, and that we have no evidence to suggest that Christians were seen as a threat, the passage, as has been reconstructed can be imagined to come from the lips of Josephus.
The same can not be said for a Christian scribe. The first problem we see is at the very beginning of the passage with the referral of Jesus as a wise man. As Geza Vermes points out, we do not see Jesus being referred to in this way in Christian literature of the time. Instead, as we see in the New Testament, the wise are portrayed in a negative light. For instance, Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21 compare the wise unfavorably to babes.
A second example would be in the use of that word pleasure in the statement “receive the truth with pleasure.” As Louis H Feldman explains, “the word [pleasure] in the New Testament and in early Christian writings had a pejorative connotation.” Thus it makes it unlikely that a Christian would have added the phrase.
One final example is the phrase “and he gained a following both among many Jews and of many of Greek origin.” The problem is that it contradicts what we are told in the Gospels. Matthew 10:5-6 makes this point most clear: “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Mark and Luke, not as directly, follow those same lines; that Jesus never has any mission towards the gentiles. The same is true as well for John.
This phrase makes sense coming from Josephus though. As John P. Meier states; “Josephus simply retrojected the situation of his own day, when the original “Jews for Jesus” had gained many Gentile converts, into the time of Jesus. Naïve retrojection is a common trait of Greco-Roman historians.”
When all the evidence is considered, it becomes increasingly difficult to deny the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavium. Especially when, if we assure that it is a forgery, it does little to support the interpolators belief. Geza Vermes is right when he states that it would be meaningless to do so.
Thus, as Paula Fredrikson states, with scholars such as Louis H. Feldman agrees; “Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by a Christian scribe.”
Price’s second pillar, that the Epistle writers show no evidence for a recent historical Jesus, is probably the weakest of his pillars. Before moving into whether or not the Epistles give evidence for Jesus, a brief examination of the Epistles are needed.
There are thirteen letters credited to Paul (at one time, Hebrews was also credited to Paul, but scholars have now abandoned the idea of it being of Pauline origin). Of those thirteen letters, seven are now deemed to be undisputedly genuine; three are debated; and the last three are doubtful. Outside the letter now included in the New testament, we know that Paul had written other letters as well. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul refers to a previous letter he had written to that church.
The reason for Paul writing his letters, for the most part, was to deal with problems that had arisen with particular churches, and were often produced in haste. Because of that, there was little reason for Paul to impart initial knowledge of jesus, especially since that sort of information was presumed to have been known. Interestingly, as many scholars have noted, if Paul had not found a problem with how the Corinthians were practicing the Lord’s Supper, we would have never known that Paul supported or even knew of it. What is important to remember here is that Paul was either addressing Churches he had already visited or were already Christians. Thus, there is little reason to assume that Paul would have had any reason to mention much about the life of Jesus, as those churches would have already been introduced to that knowledge.
Further though, Paul, who believed that the end of this earthly kingdom was near, was more interested in the death and resurrection of Jesus. So it is of little surprise that Paul is rather silent, in general, about jesus. Especially when we considered that Paul is also relatively silent about himself, the other apostles, as well as his meeting with the Risen Christ. However, this is somewhat expected as we see this to also be true with much of the Christian literature during the first few centuries.
However, there are certain things we can learn about jesus from Paul, showing that he did in fact know something about Jesus. According to Paul, like himself (Romans 11:1), Jesus was “of the see of Abraham (Galatians 3:16).” In addition, Paul tells us that Jesus was his countryman, and Israelite (Jew) and that he was born “according to the flesh (Romans 9:3-5).” If there were any doubt of that, Paul had voiced that idea previously as well, stating that Jesus was “born of a woman, born under the law (Galatians 4:4).” More so, we are told tat he is a descendant of David (Romans 1:3). So we can be sure that Paul believed Jesus to have been an actual human being.
Yet, that is not all we are told about Jesus. We see the suggestion that Jesus had been living not to far in the past. In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul tells us that he had met Cephas (Peter) who he identifies as an apostle, as well as James, who Paul calls the “brother of the Lord.” The Greek, in this case, gives us additional information.
Verse 18, as most scholars agree, tells us that Paul went to Peter not to just visit, but for the purpose of inquiry, to gain information about Jesus’ ministry. The very fact that Peter, who was one of the disciples of Jesus, visited with Paul, makes it inconceivable to assume that Jesus had died in the distant path.
Turning to James, a brother of Jesus, we secure the fact that Jesus had died relatively recently. Now, there has ben some debate as to what exactly Paul meant when he called James Jesus’ brother; however, the Greek makes it quite clear. The word used here is adelphos, which in classical and Hellenistic Greek meant blood brother. Thus, there is no reason to assume Paul meant anything else except that James wand jesus were brothers, which is supported as well in the Gospels and Josephus.
The final information that we will examine about jesus, that Paul tells us, is about his death. Most importantly, Paul tells us that Jesus was crucified (1 Corinthians 1:23; Galatians 3:1). This is important as we know that crucifixion was a Roman political method of execution reserved primarily for rebels and slaves. This is important as it places Jesus in a relative time and location.
Yet, this is not a full examination of Paul, such as his reference to Jesus command concerning divorce (1 Corinthians 7:10), but does show us beyond a doubt that Paul saw jesus as a human being who had lived recently.
The Final pillar in which Price describes is a similarity to Middle Easter religious based on dying-and-rising god myths. Out of the three pillars that Price constructs, this is the most difficult point to debate. The reason being that Jesus does in fact share some similarities to various dying-and-rising god-men.
However, the problem is not that there are similarities, but the importance some have bestowed upon those similarities. It is of no major surprise that we witness some similarities. We see many of those similarities attributed to other known historical characters. For instance, if we take a brief look at Augustus Caesar, we would see various similarities as well.
According to some ancient sources, such as Suetonius Augustus 2.94.1-7, that signs and omens occurred around the time of his birth, he was considered to be the son of the god Apollo, and that even as a youth, he showed miraculous power.
A better example is Apollonius of Tyana. Before he was born, a heavenly figure appeared to his mother, informing her that Apollonius would be divine. His birth was accompanied by supernatural signs. As a youth, he was already recognized as a spiritual authority. Then when he became an adult, he left home and engaged in an itinerant preaching ministry. During which, he gathered around him a group of disciples. The disciples in turn believed that Apollonius was the Son of God.
Eventually, his enemies trumped up charges against him. He was tried by the Romans for crimes against the state. After he died, some of his followers claimed he ascended to heaven and others claimed that he appeared to them. Later on, some of his followers wrote about him and these works were later circulated throughout the empire.
As we can see, there is a very distinct similarity between Jesus and this Apollonius. Yet, Apollonius is accepted to be a historical figure. What this shows is that it was not uncommon for ancient figures to have mythological ideas attached to them.
A second problem with the argument of Price’s third pillar is that many over exaggerate the similarities between Jesus and other supposed rising-and-dying god-men. For instance, one of the claimed similarities between Jesus and these others is that they were born on December 25th. The problem with this claim should be quite obvious, as it was only much later tradition that placed Jesus birth date on the 25th of December.
Trying to debunk all of the various similarities becomes a monumental task then. Especially considering that many of the similarities are simply made up. A great example of this is Kersey Graves book The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Or Christianity Before Christ. Even those who subscribe to the Jesus-Myth, such as Richard Carrier, consider the work to be unreliable.
Yet, we see Price still holding onto the idea. In fact, he claims that the church father’s explanation for these similarities was because Satan had counterfeited the story of Jesus and planted it in advanced. Specially, Price is referring to Justin Martyr.
In Justin Martyr’s work, Dialogue with Trypho, Justin states: “For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter’s] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? “
As we see, Justin is not claiming that the story of Jesus was copied. Instead, he was stating that, in fact, the Greeks had copied from Hebrew scriptures. The claim was that the Hebrew belief predated the Greek myths, as well as that the devil inspired some of the Greek myths. Taken out of context, it definitely can be used to support Price’s claim; however, if looked at as a whole, it is clear that Justin was not claiming that the story of Jesus was copied.
Even more interesting, Justin goes on to say in his next chapter that the mysteries of Mithras were distorted from the prophecies of Isaiah and Daniel. Thus it becomes increasingly clear that Justin’s motive was to show how the Greeks had in fact copied from the Hebrews; not the other way around.
Price’s strongest argument for similarities between Jesus and other rising-and-dying god-men is the mythic hero archetype compiled and delineated by Lord Raglan, Otto Rank, Alan Dundes, and others from the hero myths. Below are the twenty-two recurrent features; the ones italicized are those that Price claims appear in the gospel story of Jesus.
1. mother is a royal virgin
2. father is a king
3. father related to mother
4. unusual conception
5. hero reputed to be son of god
6. attempt to kill hero
7. hero spirited away
8. reared by foster parents in a far country
9. no details of childhood
10. goes to future kingdom
11. is victor over king
12. marries a princess (often daughter of predecessor)
13. becomes king
14. for a time he reigns uneventfully
15. he prescribes laws
16. later loses favor with gods or his subjects
17. driven from throne and city
18. meets with mysterious death
19. often at top of a hill
20. his children, if any, do not succeed him [i.e., does not found a dynasty]
21. his body is not buried
22. nonetheless has one or more holy sepulchers.
As we see, Price claims that Jesus scores a nineteen on this chart. Yet, a closer look would show that in some cases, Price is really stretching to make Jesus conform with ideas. We will start at the beginning and examine each point in which Price claims Jesus scored on.
Number 1, mother is a royal virgin. The first problem is that Mary was not of a royal line. The Gospel stories show her as a peasant, and really put upon her little importance for the most part. As for being a virgin, only Matthew and Luke claim that to be true. As we have already seen though, Paul claimed that Jesus was born of the flesh, of a woman. Paul makes no mention of the idea that Mary was a virgin, and in fact, implies the opposite. By saying that Jesus was born of the flesh, the implication is that Jesus was born naturally.
Number 2, father is a king. As with the above, we have no suggestion that Joseph is anything other than a peasant. In fact, we are told that Joseph is a tekton, which is generally translated to carpenter. Either way, we clearly see that Joseph was not a king.
Number 4, unusual conception. This is true to a point. Matthew and Luke do claim that Jesus had an unusual conception. However, again, Paul states otherwise. In the case of Matthew and Luke though, we see a unique characteristic for Jesus. The virginal or with-no-intercourse conception we see with Jesus to be different from any Jewish or Greek predestined child. For Jews, the norm was the birth of a child to either aged or infertile parents. For Greeks, it was the intercourse between a human and a divine being. As we see, Jesus’ conception is unique.
At the same time though, having an unusual conception does not imply a mythological figure. As we saw above as well, Augustus Caesar, as well as Apollonius of Tyana both were claimed to have unusual conceptions. Yet, both are accepted to be historical figures.
Number 5, hero reputed to be son of god. Again, this one is true. Matthew and Luke make this claim most clearly. However, as with the point above, this does not imply a mythological figure. Again, both Augustus Caesar and Apollonius of Tyana were considered to be the son of god.
Number 6, attempt to kill hero. This one is a little more debatable. The attempt to kill Jesus is found only in Matthew’s nativity story. There, we see that King Herod supposedly tried to have Jesus killed. Yet, interestingly, there is no mention of this event anywhere else. Even in the nativity story of Luke, we see no mention of King Herod trying to kill Jesus. In this regard, we can definitely see that a myth entered into the story of Jesus.
Number 7, hero spirited away. Much the same as the above, this is only recorded in Matthew. Luke records no such event as Jesus being taken to Egypt. For Luke, Jesus never leaves Galilee except to go to Jerusalem. Thus, we can again see that in fact, some myth did enter the story of Jesus.
Number 8, reared by foster parents in a far country. For this point, Price has to actually split the point in to two different parts. More so though, Jesus was never reared in a far away country. As with the two above point, Matthew is the only source for this story. However, Matthew does not imply that Jesus was in Egypt for long at all. Instead, the suggestion is that it was for only a relatively short time before Jesus and his family returned to relocate in Nazareth.
Number 9, no details of childhood. Here, we see a contradiction. Price is aware of the story of Jesus’ birth, Herod’s attempt to kill Jesus, Jesus being spirited away, and according to Price, Jesus being reared in Egypt. By what Price tells us, we have at least some details about Jesus’ early childhood.
However, it is true that we have little information about the early life of Jesus in the Gospels (later, various other Gospels, such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which claim to give recollections of the childhood of Jesus). This is what is expected though. Even with Augustus, we are given little details about his early life.
Number 10, goes to future kingdom. This is simply not true. The kingdom that Jesus was preaching was the Kingdom of God. This Kingdom was never seen during the time of Jesus. The reason being that the Kingdom of God was meant to replace the earthly Kingdom, which was at the time being ruled by the Romans. Since the Kingdom never came, it would have been impossible for Jesus to go to his Kingdom. More so though, the Gospel of John has Jesus stating that his kingdom was not of this world.
Number 13, becomes king. Again, this never happened. There is no suggestion that Jesus ever became king. We are told that the charge against Jesus, which was inscribed on a tablet, was “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.” However, this does not imply that Jesus was considered the King of the Jews. The Jews simply were not aware that he was King. Instead, this suggests that the charge against Jesus was of a political nature.
Number 14, for a time he reigns uneventfully. As we saw above, Jesus was never truly considered to be the King of the Jews. Since he was not the King, there is no way he could have reigned uneventfully. This is one more example of Price stretching to make Jesus fit into these points.
Number 15, he prescribes laws. As far as we can tell, Jesus was a Jew. Thus, he followed the Jewish laws. There is no suggestion that Jesus ever meant to create new laws. Instead, in Matthew, we are told that Jesus did not even come to abolish the law. In fact, Jesus states that one should follow the laws even more strictly than the Pharisees. There is no reason then to believe that he prescribed any laws.
Number 16, later loses favor with gods or his subjects. This point is not clear cut. We are not told that Jesus ever loses favor with God. We are told that Jesus felt as if God had forsaken him, but we are never told that he loses favor with God. As for his subjects, it is not quite sure who Price is referring to. Jesus does not loose favor with his disciples. He does loose favor, according to the Gospels, to some Jews. But we can not assume that they were his subjects as Jesus was never a king or a leader.
Number 17, driven from throne and city. Again, this point is based on the idea that Jesus was a king. However, there is no suggestion that he was. Having not been a king, he could not be driven from his throne and city.
Number 18, meets with mysterious death. There was really nothing mysterious about the death of Jesus. We are told that he was crucified by the Romans. It was not an uncommon means of death during that time, especially for Jews who were religious leaders.
Number 19, often at the top of a hill. This one can be given to Price.
Number 20, his children, if any, do not succeed him [i.e., does not found a dynasty]. There is no doubt that this point is definitely stretching the lines. Especially considering that even if Jesus had children, they would not have founded a dynasty as Jesus was never king.
Number 21, his body is not buried. Again, this is stretching. The reason being that Jews did not bury their dead per se. We are told that Jesus was placed in a tomb, as was the Jewish custom. So in a sense, Jesus was buried.
Number 22, nonetheless has one or more holy sepulchers. First, we are not told about this in the Gospel stories. More so, since the idea is that Jesus ascended into heaven, it is doubtful that Christians were create sepulchers for Jesus. Either way though, the point really is moot as it deals with the followers of Jesus and what they decided to do, and not what Jesus himself did.
In summary, we see that of the nineteen points that Price claims, only a handful (between five and seven, depending on how liberal one wants to get) actually fit. In order to get his nineteen, Price has tried to fit a square peg in a round hole. Upon even a little investigation, it is clear that Price really has no case here.
More so though, there is no reason to see Jesus as a rising-and-dying god. Simply, the resurrection of Jesus had nothing to do with the idea of rising and dying. As we see with Paul, the resurrection of Jesus announced that the general resurrection had began. The resurrection was no special privilege reserved for Jesus. Because of that, Jesus does not fall into the category of being a rising-and-dying god.
In the end, only one conclusion can we come to. Jesus did in fact exist. We saw that Josephus mentions Jesus twice in his works, that Paul was aware of a recent historical Jesus, and that Jesus did not share many similarities with rising-and-dying god-men. Yet, as the Christ-Myth theory is gaining popularity, one can not simply brush it off as Albert Schweitzer had done over a decade ago.
The Crucifixion is one of the foundational beliefs of Christianity. For me, it is one of the most interesting aspects of the life of Jesus. It is also one of the events of the life of Jesus that we can be sure that actually happened.
One can be certain that the crucifixion occurred for a few reasons. The first is that we have multiple independent attestation to the event. The four canonical Gospels all include the event. In addition to the Gospel accounts, we have Paul mentioning the crucifixion of Jesus as well.
More convincing though, in my opinion, is that the crucifixion story is embarrassing. Crucifixion, as according to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, was considered a curse. This is a belief that was also held by Jews in the first century as well. We know this from Paul, Galatians 3:13, who makes the belief clear: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree‘ [emphasis mine].
In addition, Jesus being crucified, and thus dying, ruled him out as being the Messiah. Before Christianity, the idea of a suffering Messiah that would die for the sins of others, as far as we know, had no place in the Jewish belief. Jesus dying ruled him out as the Messiah. Since he did not overthrow the Romans, and could not since he died, for most Jews, it was beyond laughable, and was blasphemy towards their God, to call Jesus the Messiah.
Even though the crucifixion is agreed to have occurred though, the circumstance surrounding the actual event are not fully agreed upon. The first discrepancy we see is on the day in which Jesus was crucified. We will start first with the event as described in the Gospel Mark.
According to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus was crucified on the day of Passover. This is the account that Christians have taken to be accurate, and for the most part, is the only one they are aware of. In Mark 14:12, we are informed of Jesus’s disciples questioning him as to where they are to prepare the Passover meal. This tells us that the day in Mark 14:12 is the Day of Preparation for Passover, the day before Passover. In the following verses, we are told that the meal is prepared, and is eaten. The meal was eaten on Passover day. We are later told, in Mark 15:25, that Jesus is crucified, and died, on that same day, which was Passover day.
The Gospel of John relates the events a little differently. John tells us specifically what day Jesus was crucified on. John 19:14 tells us that the day in which Jesus was crucified, and died, was the Day of Preparation for Passover. Unlike Mark, John does not have Jesus sitting down with his disciples and partaking of the Passover meal. The reason is quite simple, as according to John, Jesus was crucified the day before Passover.
The reason for this discrepancy is theological in nature. The author of John was trying to convey a message, that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb that would take away the sins of this world. We see two accounts in John that we are told this; John 1:29 and John 1:35. It is logical for the author of John thus to change the date of the crucifixion of Jesus; by having Jesus crucified on the Day of Preparation for Passover, the same day that the sacrificial lamb was slaughtered, John was trying to convey the idea that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb for the world. Seeing the theological overtones in this account, we can say with little doubt, that the account in John is less accurate.
As a prelude to the crucifixion, we are told by the authors of Mark, Matthew, and John that Jesus was flogged (Mark 15:15, Matthew 26:27, John 19:1). Luke on the other hand does not mention this event during its passion narrative. However, that should not be taken that the author of Luke is suggesting it did not happen. The reason for this is that we see in Luke 18:31-33 (Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.”) that it was already stated that flogging would be a precursor to the death of Jesus.
Flogging was a common precursor to crucifixion. This may be another reason that Luke did not feel it necessary to state specifically that Jesus underwent flogging. People during the time that Luke wrote his account would have known that flogging was a precursor to crucifixion.
We are not told much about the flogging of Jesus. It has been assumed that he received thirty-nine lashings as the Jewish practice was to give forty lashed minus one (Deuteronomy 25:1-3; 2 Corinthians 11:24). There is no suggestion that this was true in the case of Jesus though. Instead, we know that Jesus was flogged by the Romans. Under the Romans, there was no limit as to how many lashes could be administered. This was left up to the decision of those who administered the lashings; the lictors (typically there were two lictors, but there are some accounts of up to six lictors). Normally, the lictors were not suppose to kill the victim; however, we do know that in certain cases, death did occur as a consequence.
As to the severity of the flogging of Jesus, we can not be completely sure. There is a reasonable chance that is was quite severe though. This would explain why Jesus died after only a relatively short time on the cross. However, we do have little to go on as Mark, Matthew, and John only tell us that he was flogged, and do not expand on that.
After the flogging, Jesus would have been expected to carry the cross to the place that was designated for crucifixion, Golgotha (Mark 15:21-22, Luke 23:26, Matthew 27:32-33, John 19:16-17). Contrary to popular depictions though, Jesus would not have been expected to carry the entire cross. Instead, only the crossbeam was carried.
In the accounts of Mark, Luke, and Matthew, (Luke and Matthew most likely having borrowed from Mark), we are told that a man named Simon from Cyrene was forced to carry the cross for Jesus. If Jesus truly had a severe flogging, this may have been a possibility as Jesus would have been weak. To support this idea, tradition has been created which states that during the journey to Golgotha, Jesus fell three times. However, this is not attested to in the Biblical account, and is later tradition.
The account in John tells us that Jesus carried the cross himself. Various apologetics have tried to reconcile the two differentiating accounts by explaining that Jesus first carried the cross, was weak from the flogging, and thus fell. After that, the Romans forced Simon to carry the cross. Since John does not actually state this, we can not assume that to be the case.
It is possible that Simon would have been forced to carry the cross of Jesus. The brief excerpt that we have of the instance (Mark 15:21- A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross) gives us little reason to assume that it was added for any specific reason.
As mentioned above, only the crossbeam would have been carried to Golgotha. Popular depictions of Jesus have shown him carrying the entire cross; however, that would be highly unlikely. A full cross would weigh well over 300 pounds. Even for a person who had not undergone flogging would have had difficulty carrying the mass of an entire cross. In contrast, the cross beam would have weighed between 75-125 pounds, which would have been manageable.
Once Jesus arrived at Golgotha, he would have been crucified (Mark 15:24, Luke 23:33, Matthew 27:35, John 19:18). In all four accounts, we are simply told that Jesus was crucified. During the first century, Roman crucifixion did vary slightly depending on the individuals performing the crucifixion.
Of the thousands of crucifixions that happened under Roman authority, only one victim’s remains have been discovered. We have been lucky enough that his remains were taken from the cross and placed in an ossuary. This individual’s (Yehohanan) remains were found in a cave at Giv’at Ha-Mivtar. From his remains we have learned some interesting facts. What was noticed was that his legs had not been broken, and that his arms had not been pierced by nails. Instead, he had his arms tied to the crossbeam, and his heels had been nailed separately to the cross.
Yehohanan’s remains can suggest to us aspects of the crucifixion of Jesus. It is very likely that Jesus had his arms tied to the cross. If the individuals crucifying him were exceptionally cruel, nails could have been hammered through his hands or wrists. The only reason this would have been done would have been to increase suffering in the victim. However, the account of the crucifixion never states that his hands were pierced. Mark and Matthew are silent about the wounds to Jesus’s hands/wrists. Luke briefly mentions Jesus having wounds in his hands (Luke 24:39), while John mentions them slightly more (John 20:20; 20:25; 20:27).
The mentioning of wounds to Jesus’s hands only comes up in regards to the resurrection. As to whether or not Jesus truly had his hands/wrists nailed to the cross then is not for sure. We do know from Josephus that some victims did have their hands/wrists nailed to the cross, so we know that it is possible in the case of Jesus. Yet, we can not be completely sure.
Upright beams would have been in place at Golgotha as crucifixions were quite common place in Palestine. It was more economical, as well as simpler to have the upright beams in place. Once Jesus was attached to the crossbeam, it would have been raised and attached to the upright beam. At that point, Jesus’s heals would have been nailed, possibly separately, to the upright beam. By doing so, it allowed Jesus some support in which to lift himself up, allowing him to expand his lungs, facilitating the breathing process.
Crucifixion was designed to be a form of execution that first tortured the victim, as well as humiliate them. Death from crucifixion could take days. In the case of Jesus, we see a relatively short period of time before death. Mark relates that the time was so short that Pilate was surprised that Jesus was already dead (Mark 15:44). Whether or the incident with Pilate is factual, the message it relates is valid. The author of Mark wanted to convey that Jesus truly did die, even though it was in a relatively short time.
According to Mark, we see that Jesus was on the cross for six hours (Mark 15:25; 15:33-34). A death from crucifixion in six hours is possible though. If Jesus had a severe flogging, a relatively short amount of time on the cross would be possible.
The cause of death from crucifixion is debated to a point. It has long been held that the cause of death was from asphyxiation (a condition arising when the body is deprived of oxygen, causing unconsciousness or death; suffocation). However, experiments conducted by Dr. Frederick Thomas Zugibe suggests that is not the case. Death from crucifixion can most likely be attributed from a combination of causes ranging from infection to dehydration.
Since crucifixion was also intended as a warning to other potential criminals, as well as a means of humiliation, a crucified body would usually remain on the cross well after the victim had died. This would be quite an effective deterrent for other potential insurrectionists or criminals. The body would later be left to be devoured by scavenging dogs and birds.
In the case of Jesus, the Biblical account differs from what normally occurred. Instead of his body being left on the cross, and later being devoured by dogs, we are told that a man named Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate and requested the body of Jesus. We are told that he placed the body in a tomb (Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, Matthew 27:59-60, John 19:42). Whether or not the Biblical account is accurate can not be said for sure. There is a logical reason as to why the account would have been created though. It would have provided Jesus with an honorable burial.
Over time, the birth narratives as described in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, have slowly combined into a mega birth narrative. This mega narrative has similarities with both the birth narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke; yet, at the same time, has taken on an originality all to itself; becoming something that neither of previous birth narratives were. For many Christians, this is perfectly acceptable. It is not particularly the details that are important for them, but the message that the narratives are portraying.
From a historical perspective though, this mega birth narrative is not acceptable. Instead, it provides interesting problems. Separating the two narratives, a reader begins to see the vast differences that are present in the stories. When all is separated out, one is left with only the very minimal similarities: Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary, in the city of Bethlehem, and his Earthly father was suspected to be Joseph. With those similarities out of the way, we discover two stories that differ quite substantially.
We begin to see this in the genealogy that are accredited to Jesus. The genealogies as seen in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke have one of the same basic purposes. That is to show a connection between Jesus and King David. This was done so since there was an expectation for the Messiah to be descended from Israel’s favorite king: David. However, this was not the primary purpose of either genealogy. Taking a closer look at either of the genealogies, one can see ulterior motives behind each. We will start with Matthew’s version.
Matthew separates his genealogy into three sets of fourteen (or thirteen in the case of the final set). In order to achieve these three sets of fourteen, Matthew had to erase certain individuals out of his genealogy. For instance, in Matthew 1:8, Joram is said to be the father of Uzziah. However, checking this with the source Matthew most probably used, the Hebrew scripture, we are informed that Joram was instead Uzziah’s great-great-grandfather (1 Chronicles 3:10-12. In this case, Uzziah is called Azariah; however, we can be certain that they are the same person by crosschecking 2 Chronicles 26:1 with 2 Kings 14:21).
Because Matthew felt the need to delete individuals in order to make his three sets contain fourteen individuals each, some scholars have come to the conclusion that the number fourteen was significant in this case. Out of the variety of different explanations created as to why Matthew would have chosen the number fourteen, two interesting ones stand out. The first is the idea that numbers had special meanings. One of the most important numbers was seven, which was the symbol of perfection or divinity. The conclusion then is that the number fourteen is double the number seven, and thus in cultures that subscribed to such ideas, fourteen would have been a doubly perfect number.
A second explanation that ties in more closely with the emphasis of the genealogy in Matthew, revolves around the idea of letters of the alphabet to a numerical value, which various ancient cultures subscribed to. Since Hebrews did not use vowels, David’s name would be spelt DVD. Interestingly enough, a d equaled four, and a v equaled six; which adds up to fourteen. Both explanations have some credibility; however, without having more information, neither one can be said for certainty.
As with the number fourteen, the sequence of three sets, as stressed in verse 17, also has a symbolic meaning. The genealogy in Matthew places a cataclysmic event at the end of each set. Starting with Abraham, the father of the Jewish people, the first set ends with the greatest king Israel has ever seen: King David. The second set ends with the greatest catastrophe the nation of Israel has ever seen: the deportation to Babylon. The final set ends with Jesus, the ultimate savior of the Jewish nation. Thus we see Jesus firmly being placed into the history of the Jewish people, and actually being the culmination of it.
From the beginning then, we see Matthew stressing a few points. The first, by tracing Jesus back to Abraham, the father of the Jewish people, Jesus is seen firmly as a Jew. The second, since Jesus is descended from King David, he fulfills Messianic expectation. Finally, by creating specific and evened sets of individuals from one cataclysmic event to the next, Jesus is intimately connected with the history of the Jewish people, and is ultimately their promised savior.
Luke takes on a different strategy in his genealogy. As with Matthew, Luke does trace the genealogy of Jesus back through King David and Abraham. However, Luke takes the genealogy of Jesus even further back into history, to Adam, who is called the son of God. This is most likely due to one of the major themes that appear through the works of Luke and Acts. For the author of Luke and Acts, one of the messages that was important to convey is that the message of Jesus, the salvation that was procured in his death and resurrection, was meant not just for the Jews, but for all of mankind. By tracing the genealogy of Jesus back to the supposed originator of humankind, the author of Luke is trying to convey the idea that the message of Jesus is for all.
Continuing with the genealogies, we begin to see some other major differences as well. Even though both claim to be genealogies going through Joseph, and include King David, neither completely agree with the other. Asking who is Jesus’s grandfather, we can clearly see that the genealogies differ; as in Matthew, Jacob is listed to be the grandfather while in Luke, Eli is. Even through which son of King David the line goes through differs; for Matthew it is David’s son Solomon that the line is traces, while in Luke it is through Nathan. In addition, the genealogy in Luke, while tracing the lineage from Kind David to Jesus, is over twice as long as that in Matthew.
However, comparing the genealogies from Abraham to King David, we see a remarkable similarity between the two. This similarity gives us a clue as to why there are so many differences in the later part of the genealogy. The portion of the genealogy that runs from Abraham to King David can also be found by looking through the Old Testament. However, the same can not be said to be true for the portion that runs from King David to Jesus. We can find in the Old Testament who were the sons of King David, and the descendants for a few generations after that. Yet, we have no record of a genealogy going all the way through to Jesus, or even to Joseph. The genealogy in the Old Testament ends generations before the time of Joseph, and thus the authors of the Gospels, as far as we can see, did not have a definite genealogy to work from.
That being the case, each author had to rely on their own separate sources, or their imagination, in order to fill in the empty gaps. In the case of Luke, we probably have a more accurate genealogy in the terms of how many descendants would be needed in order to span the time period from King David to Jesus. However, seeing that we can detect an ulterior motive as to why the genealogies were created (as to make a connection between Jesus and King David), that Matthew differs from Luke, and that we have no other attestation to such a genealogy, it is fairly certain that neither genealogy is historically accurate.
Moving from the genealogies, to the birth narrative itself, we see a differentiation between the two Gospel stories. As to who the angel appeared, Matthew claims it was Joseph; Luke states Mary. This has led some to make the argument that the genealogy in Luke actually descends through Mary. However, since Luke, as well as Matthew, both clearly state that the genealogies are traced through Joseph, and that would have been the manner in which ancient societies would have traced descent, there is little reason to subscribe to such an argument.
As to what city Joseph and Mary were from, Matthew and Luke also can not agree. For Luke, we are told that the couple live in Nazareth, and later have to travel to Bethlehem in order to register for a census that was taking place. However, this can hardly be a historical recollection. The first problem we see is that the census is said to have taken place close to the time of the death of Herod the Great, which was around 4 B.C.E. However, we know from other sources that the census conducted while Quirinius was governor of Syria did not occur until 6 C.E.
This census though was not as the Gospel of Luke states. We have no record of any worldwide census during the reign of Augustus, or any other emperor. More so though, a census in which everyone had to return to their ancestral homeland would have been a bureaucratic nightmare. Considering that between King David and Jesus, Luke claims that there were 42 generations separating the two, it would have been near impossible for anyone to know where to go, not to mention that it makes little sense for an emperor to ask for such.
In addition, since Nazareth was in Galilee, which was operating to a point independently of Rome, such a trip for Joseph and Mary would not have been necessary as the census would not have effected that area. Since ancient census were used for tax purposes, and Galilee would not have been taxed by Rome as it was not under direct Roman control, there would be no reason for a Galilean couple to participate in such. Not to mention, no other author mentions such an event.
For Matthew, the suggestion is that Joseph and Mary had already been living in Bethlehem. In the narrative, there is no mention of any travel to Bethlehem. Instead, we are told that Jesus was born, and that when visited by the Magi, they found him in a home. Since there is no suggestion that the house is anything except the house of Joseph and Mary, the most probable conclusion is that was their house. In addition, when Herod decrees the “Slaughter of the Innocents,” which happened perhaps months or even years after the birth of Jesus, it is in Bethlehem that this occurs, giving us the suggestion that that is where Joseph and Mary are still there. Even when an angel appears to Joseph and states that it is safe to return home, Joseph and Mary’s first inclination is to go back to Bethlehem (which is ironic as the reason they do not return to Bethlehem is because one of the sons of Herod is now ruler or Judea; however, by deciding to move to Nazareth, they still move into a region ruled by a son of Herod). This again suggests that Joseph and Mary had lived in Bethlehem when Jesus was conceived and born.
The similarities in both accounts do stick out though. The need to have Jesus born in Bethlehem suggests a Messianic expectation. When looking back into the Old Testament, we find that Kind David’s home town was said to be Bethlehem, and thus it would be expected that a future leader would also be from the town of King David. Because of that expectation, we see both Gospel writers trying to conceive of a way in which to bring the birth of Jesus to that town, and thus we see two differentiating ways.
A more important similarity though, one that we can be fairly certain to be historically accurate, is that Jesus was known to have been from the town of Nazareth. From current records, as well as archeological excavations, we can be certain that Nazareth, in the first century, was a hamlet. Since this was the case, there is little reason to assume that this fact was invented by the Gospel writers. For them, it would have been much easier to just have Jesus be born in Bethlehem, where a Messiah would be expected to have originated from, instead of a hamlet that is not even mentioned in any records from that time outside of the New Testament.
Besides Jesus being from Nazareth, one of the few other historical facts that we can garner from the birth narrative stories is that Jesus was most likely born around the year 4 B.C.E. This is based on the account in both Matthew and Luke that places the birth of Jesus around the time of the death of Herod the great, which occurred in March of 4 B.C.E. Since the birth of Jesus was attached to such an event, we can be quite sure that Jesus was born sometime around this time period.
As for the historical birth of Jesus, the accounts in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are most likely more fictitious than factual. But we do get clues as to what most likely happened. As we saw above, Jesus was most likely born in Nazareth around 4 B.C.E. Historically, it would be impossible to prove that Jesus was born of a virgin, as it would be by definition, a miracle. Miracles, by definition, are the least likely occurrence.
Without the virgin conception, there are two options that are most popular among scholars. The leading option is that Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage, and conceived a child in the natural way. This is what Paul most likely believed considering what he wrote in Romans 1:3-4: stating that Jesus was born according to the flesh. Since both genealogies trace Jesus through Joseph, he is the most likely candidate for being the father of Jesus.
The second option suggests that Jesus was conceived through adultery. We know from Celsus in the second century, there was a rumor being circulated that said that a Roman soldier was the actual father of Jesus. So we know that the idea was around from an early time. We may even see suggestions in the Gospels that would point towards a Christian polemic against such a rumor.
The first suggestion is in Mark 6:3 where Jesus is designated as the son of Mary. In Jewish usage, this phrasing carried a negative connotation as a man was not regarded as his mother’s son. Matthew later takes this verse and changes it by removing the derogatory remarks, which suggests that he was aware that they were in fact negative. This could be a clue that the birth of Jesus was less than honorable, or at least was in question during his life time.
The second clue is in the genealogy of Matthew. There we see something that is somewhat of a surprise; the inclusion of women. More importantly, each of the four women (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba) were all involved in sexual activities that were viewed as scandalous. Mary as well was thought to have engaged in illicit sexual activity, which is why Joseph is said to have contemplated divorcing here quietly.
Since Mary was thought, at least, to have been involved in adultery, it would be a logical move to include other women of ill repute who were used by God from something much more. It would have been a way to improve the reputation of Mary among the Jews, as they would definitely have noticed the connection. More so though, it suggests that there was some rumor circulating that needed to be refuted; that the conception of Jesus was not an honorable one, possibly because of adultery.
At most, we can simply say that there was a rumor circulating that Matthew felt a need to refute. To further that position would be difficult as even though there was rumor that Jesus was born of adultery, and it seems to have been widely known, we do not have enough evidence to say one way or another. Yet the virgin conception would have been an ideal refutation to such an idea.
The virgin conception itself is an interesting piece of literature. We see similarities in pagan works. Augustus was said to have born of the union between a god and a woman, as were other emperors. Alexander the Great also had a miraculous story attached to his life. However, within Jewish culture, such a birth would have been completely foreign. Instead, we see throughout the Old Testament, as well with John the Baptist in Luke, that important figures who were given miraculous births were done so through the conception of a barren or older woman.
At the same time, the birth story accredited to Jesus was different from that of those attributed to Pagan individuals. Instead of the physical union between a god and a woman, Jesus was said to have been conceived from Mary simply being shadowed by the Spirit of God. There is no physical union suggested in the account. So we do see a uniqueness attributed to the birth of Jesus in the accounts.
As to the reason as why the story was added to the life of Jesus, it is difficult to say. At the most basic level, it was probably to show that Jesus was in fact the physical son of God. For Luke though, it could have been a way in which to relate to the pagan audiences who were familiar with similar pagan stories. For Matthew, I would suggest it was part of his polemic against the rumor of Jesus being born of adultery. Yet, it also shows an important idea that Matthew subscribed to; searching the Old Testament to verify Jesus being the Messiah.
The virgin conception is one of the best examples of this as Matthew cites Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy for the virgin birth. However, looking at Isaiah 7:14, we can see that it referred not to a virgin, but a young woman. More importantly, the prophecy had nothing to do with the messiah, but had already been fulfilled many years prior to the birth of Jesus.
The reason Matthew does so is not because he is trying to manipulate the Hebrew scripture, or be dishonest; but that it was a common practice. For Matthew, as well as other Jews during the first century, it was believed that God had planned it all, and thus gave signs of what he would do. In order to find these, Matthew searched the Old Testament to find portions that he could fit into the life of Jesus, showing that he was in fact chosen by God.
Along with that idea, Matthew saw the greatest of the prophets of God, Moses, being rekindled in Jesus. From Jesus having a tyrant (Pharaoh for Moses, King Herod for Jesus) trying to have them killed at birth, to being supernaturally protected in Egypt, to coming from Egypt to save their people (as stated in Hosea 11:1 referring to Israel as a whole). Yet, it is not just in the infancy narrative that Jesus is related to Moses. Such as both Jesus and Moses going up on a mountain to give their people laws. For Matthew, Jesus was the Moses (which in the first century, there was expectation among some Jews that the Messiah would come in the form of a great prophet such as Moses).
On the other hand though, searching the scriptures was not important for the writer of Luke. Instead, he used his narrative to help foreshadow rest of his Gospel, and even partially the book of Acts. As with his longer narrative, we see in the birth narrative the idea that Jesus is first brought to the Jews, and later the whole gentile nation. This is done by focusing the beginning of the life of Jesus, and his conception around the Temple. It is in the temple that the birth of Jesus’ forerunner is revealed to Zechariah. Shortly after he is born, he is brought into the Temple and recognized as the Messiah. It is also in the Temple where we have the only story of Jesus in his youth. This is significant as for Jews, it would have been in the temple that God would first announce his salvation.
So we see Jesus being born first for the Jews. Yet, as we move on, we get to the genealogy, and there we have the suggestion that Jesus is not just for the Jews, but for all of mankind. This is the same theme we see throughout the larger narrative of Luke and Acts. Throughout the lifetime of Jesus, he goes first to the Jews (where he is rejected on several times, such as at his hometown, which is more foreshadowing to what will eventually happen) and only after his death, does a mission to the gentiles (all of mankind) takes place. Thus for Luke, we can see his birth narrative as a foreshadow to his larger work.
As we see, both the authors of Matthew and Luke had certain motivations and tasks that they wanted to achieve with their work. In order to achieve this, they relied on different traditions, and were influenced by varying factors, from their audiences to their backgrounds. Each wrote for different reasons, and for different religious reasons. Each taken separately, a lot can be learned historically, and as a scholar, or historian, that should be the method used. However, for religious purposes, combining the two stories does have its benefits as it gets across the message that is wanted.
