Technik_, 1913, pp. 1037 ff. (I have, unfortunately, been unable to
see this, and only know it through Norden’s rejoinder, which seems
conclusive.)
(_b_) For partial interpolation.
Th. Reinach in _Revue des Études Juives_, tom. xxxv, 1897, pp. 1 ff.
P. Corrsen in _Zeitschrift für die N.T. Wissenschaft_, 1914, pp. 114
ff., _Die Zeugnisse des Tacitus u. Pseudo-Josephus über Christus_
(thinks the interpolation has probably replaced a genuine statement
of Josephus about Christ).
(_c_) Against the authenticity of the whole section.
E. Norden in _Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum_, vol.
xxxi, 1913, pp. 637 ff., _Josephus u. Tacitus über Jesus Christus
und eine messianische Prophetie_.
E. Schürer, _Hist. of Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ_,
1898, I. 2, pp. 143 ff. (where the older literature is quoted).
(_d_) For the passages in the Slavonic version of the _B.J._
A. Berendts in _Texte und Untersuchungen_, N. F., Bd. XIV, 1906.
In this much debated passage Josephus appears to speak of Jesus Christ
as one of more than mortal nature, as a wonder-worker and a teacher of
men who receive “the truth” with pleasure, and as gaining many adherents
among Jews and Greeks. Then comes the explicit statement, “This was the
Christ.” The writer proceeds to mention His crucifixion by Pilate “on
the indictment of our principal men,” His resurrection and appearance to
His followers on the third day, and the survival at the time of writing
of “the tribe” of Christians who took their name from Him.
The passage largely accounts for the high esteem in which Josephus was
held by Patristic writers. Since the revival of learning the question of
its authenticity has been the subject of keen controversy. Until
recently few scholars of weight have ventured to maintain that the
paragraph _as it stands_ can have been penned by the Jewish historian;
the point on which opinions have diverged has been whether the whole is
an interpolation or whether a genuine brief statement of Josephus about
Christ has been expanded and emended by a Christian hand. In recent
years the question has been reopened in two ways, by the conversion of
two authorities of the first rank to the rejected view and by the
discovery of new materials. Professor Burkitt in this country and
(following him with a little hesitation) Harnack in Germany have
pronounced in favour of the genuineness of the passage. The existence
has also been brought to light of other passages in the Slavonic version
of the _Jewish War_ relating to John the Baptist, Christ and the early
Christians. The Slavonic matter may be treated independently; it has no
attestation in the Greek MSS, and, whatever its origin, lacks the
authority with which the present passage comes before us. Harnack has
been answered in a masterly article by one of his own countrymen
(Norden), and, notwithstanding the weight attaching to the names of its
recent supporters, the arguments against the authenticity of the passage
(at least in its present form) appear overwhelming. The really decisive
factors in the problem must be sought rather in the relevance of the
passage to its context and in the style than in any subjective
considerations as to what Josephus could or could not have written.
External evidence
The passage, it is true, stands in all our MSS, but this tells us
little, since the oldest of them (Niese’s P) is not earlier than the
ninth or tenth century. Eusebius quotes it (_H.E._ i. 11, cf. _Dem. Ev._
iii. 3. 105 f.), thus attesting its existence in the fourth century. On
the other hand, it is practically certain that Origen in the preceding
century did not find it in his text. He knows the allusions to John the
Baptist in the same book of the _Antiquities_ (§ 29) and to James the
Lord’s brother in the twentieth book (§ 37), but of any mention of
Christ he has no word. Nor are we confined to this _argumentum e
silentio_; his language makes it impossible to suppose that he found the
statement “This was the Christ.” “The wonder is,” he writes, “that,
though he (Josephus) _did not admit our Jesus to be Christ_, he none the
less gave his witness to so much righteousness in James” (_Comm. in
Matt._ x. 17); and again (writing on John the Baptist) “although he
(Josephus) _disbelieved in Jesus as Christ_” (_c. Cels._ i. 47). The
passage about James as cited by Origen differs, indeed, from the normal
text; according to Origen, Josephus regarded the destruction of the
Temple as a punishment for the murder. Prof. Burkitt thinks that Origen
may have “mixed up in his commonplace book the account of Ananus’ murder
of James and the remarks of Josephus on Ananus’ own murder” (§ 45); but
it is difficult to believe, as the Professor appears to suggest, that
his familiarity with the _Antiquities_ was so slight that he could have
missed the statement in XVIII. 63 f. and written as he did if it stood
in his text. The real importance of Origen’s evidence is that it seems
to supply the date when our passage was interpolated by a Christian
reader, viz. towards the end of the third century, between the age of
Origen and that of Eusebius.
Internal evidence
(1) _Context._—The latest advocates of the authenticity of the statement
have judged it on its merits, apart from its context, from which it
cannot be isolated. As Norden has convincingly shown, it breaks the
thread of the narrative, the framework of which at this point consists
of a series of “tumults” or “disturbances” (θόρυβοι). This framework
seems to have been taken over from an older authority, and so
mechanically that disturbances which occurred at different dates are
treated as contemporaneous. We have:—
First θόρυβος (XVIII. 55-59).—Pilate introduces the Emperor’s busts into
Jerusalem and threatens the Jewish petitioners with death “if they did
not desist from turbulence” (θορυβεῖν 58).
Second θόρυβος (60-62).—Pilate appropriates the Corban money for
building purposes. His soldiers overpower the insurgents (τοὺς
θορυβοῦντας 62), “and so the sedition (στάσις) was quelled.” (See § 25
of the translation for these two θόρυβοι).
[Here (63-64) comes the passage about Christ.]
Third θόρυβος (65-84).—Two scandalous events at Rome leading
respectively to the crucifixion of the priests of Isis and to the
banishment of the Jews (for the second of these see § 27). These
paragraphs open with the words “Now about the same time another calamity
disturbed (ἐθορύβει) the Jews.”
Fourth θόρυβος (85-87) in Samaria, introduced by the words “The
Samaritan race also was not exempt from disturbance” (θόρυβος), while
the next paragraph begins “When the disturbance (θορύβου) was put down.”
It will be seen that this scheme is interrupted by the Christian
περικοπή. The opening of 65 connects the third “disturbance” directly
with the second (62). The mention of Pilate naturally led the
interpolator to insert his statement at this point; but the structure of
the original narrative leaves no room for it.
(2) _Style._—Notwithstanding its brevity (it comprises only three
sentences in Niese’s text) the paragraph is long enough to betray in its
language the hand of the forger. The style is not quite so “neutral” as
Harnack suggests.
Here, again, regard must be had to the immediate surroundings. The style
of Josephus is variable, now easy and flowing, now extraordinarily
difficult. The testimony to Christ is imbedded in a portion of the
_Antiquities_ (XVII. 1-XIX. 275) which contains some of the hardest
Greek in our author. The language throughout this group of nearly three
books is distinguished by some well-marked characteristics, _e.g._ a
large use of periphrastic expressions. The simple verb is replaced by
the combination of the _nomen actoris_ in -τῆς with καθίστασθαι,
γίγνεσθαι, εἶναι or the like (thus κριτὴς εἶ αι = κρίνειν XIX. 217); μὴ
ἀπηλλαγμένος with inf. (_ibid._ “not incapable,” “competent”) is a
similar mannerism of constant occurrence in these books and is based on
Thuc. I. 138. Χρῆσθαι is used with extraordinary frequency in
periphrases. Other peculiarities are the use of the neuter participle
with article as an abstract noun (Thucydidean), of οὐδὲν (μηδὲν) εἰς
ἀναβολὰς for “quickly” (after Thuc. VII. 15), and of ὁπόσος (100
examples in these books) for ῞ὅσος in other parts of Josephus. The
departure from the author’s normal practice extends to the spelling; the
double σ (of Thucydides) in words like πράσσειν in these books replaces
as a rule the so-called “Attic” ττ employed elsewhere in the
_Antiquities_. Imitation of Thucydides, found sporadically in other
parts, here reaches its climax. This practice largely accounts for the
cumbrous phrases and involved periods prevalent in these books. The
style is artificial and imitative and does not lend itself readily to
imitation by another, The sources of this portion of the work are
mainly, if not entirely, Roman, notably the narrative of the accession
and (at quite disproportionate length) the death (XIX. I. 275) of
Caligula; and I can only account for the phenomena by supposing that the
author here handed over entirely to one of his literary _collaborateurs_
or συνεργοί (cp. _Ap._ I. 50), who had hitherto rendered only occasional
aid, the task of translating his Latin authorities. On the accession of
Claudius, when the centre of interest shifts from Rome to Palestine, the
normal style is resumed (at XIX. 276).
Now, the mannerisms of _Ant._ XVII-XIX. 275 recur with wearisome
iteration; it is rare to find a sentence which does not contain one or
more of them. Thus in the paragraphs immediately preceding the passage
about Christ we find three examples of periphrasis with χρῆσθαι (58, 60,
62); in the paragraph which follows two examples of οὐκ ἀπαλλάσσεσθαι
(65, 68). But the passage itself contains none of the really distinctive
features; one phrase alone (ἡδονῇ δέχεσθαι) gives us pause. The
following details may be noticed.
“A doer of wonderful works.” In compiling a Greek index to _Ant._
XVI.-XX. I have not noticed another instance of παράδοξος.
“Men who receive the truth with pleasure.” “The truth” (τἀληθῆ). The
crasis is in the style of Jos., but the phrase is again unexampled,
at least in this portion. On the other hand, “to receive with
pleasure” (ἡδονῇ δέχεσθαι) recurs in XVIII. 6, 59, 70, 236, 333;
XIX. 127, 185 and similar phrases (ἡδονῇ φέρειν, χαρᾷ φέρειν or
δέχεσθαι) elsewhere in this portion of the work. I account for this,
with Norden, by supposing that “the interpolator knew his author.”
He knew him just well enough to employ the crasis in τἀληθῇ and a
phrase which he found twice in the immediate context (59, 70).
“The Greeks” (τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ). The neut. may be paralleled by _B.J._
II. 268, but is not uncommon outside Josephus.
“Our principal men.” Norden notes that, whereas “the first” or
“principal men” (οἱ πρῶτοι) is frequent in _Ant._ XX. (2, 6, 53,
119, 123, 135, etc.), it never has the personal note (“our”)
attached to it.
“Those who first loved (him).” Ἀγαπᾶν in Jos., never, according to
Norden, has the Christian meaning of “love,” but only its classical
sense of “be content”; an instance occurs in the previous paragraph
(60, cp. 242).
“On the third day.” The phrase (τρίτην ἡμέραν ἔχων) is again
unexampled in Jos.; the N.T. yields the nearest parallel (Lk. xxiv.
21, τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει).
“Alive again” (πάλιν ζῶν). Jos. writes elsewhere of a future life
ἀναβιοῦν (_Ant._ XVIII. 14) and γενέσθαι τε πάλιν καὶ βίον ἀμείνω
λαβεῖν (_Ap._ II. 218); he does not use ζῆν or ζωή in this
connexion.
“And to this very day” (εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν). The phrase is foreign to
Jos., who commonly writes ἔτι καὶ νῦν, occasionally καὶ μεχρὶ τοῦ
νῦν and the like, never εἰς ἔτι (Norden).
Jos. is scrupulous in avoiding a harsh hiatus—the juxtaposition of
unelided vowels at the end of one word and the beginning of the
next. The interpolator writes τἀληθῆ correctly, but, as Norden
notes, he has in these few lines introduced three glaring examples
of hiatus: Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο, σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος, Πιλάτου οὐκ.
(3) _Contents._—Our decision must rest primarily upon the arguments
already adduced from context and style. But the whole tone of the
passage suggests a Christian hand. It is the eulogy of a devotee
masquerading under the mantle of the Jewish historian, rather than what
we should expect, the bare chronicle, if not the bitter invective, of
the priestly historian himself. “If one should call him a man”; “this
was the Christ.” Could Josephus have so written? Even Jerome found this
last phrase incomprehensible on such lips and altered it in his
translation to “_credebatur_ esse Christus” (_De vir. ill._ 13). Prof.
Burkitt ventures to uphold the authenticity even of these words. The
passage, he argues, was penned at a time when Christianity had not yet
become a formidable foe to Judaism, and was intended as an answer to
Jewish expostulations on the subject of the coming of Messiah. This is
how he paraphrases it: “Yes, the Christ was to come and indeed did come.
That very estimable person who met with his death some time ago was the
Christ. As in the case of so many other personages in our divinely
chosen nation, there were some wonders and prodigies told about him.
Even now there are some who revere him. They are good harmless folk like
their master. But they are quite unimportant and no danger to the State;
when you hear of ‘Christ’ it is no future Hannibal or Spartacus, but a
good man who is dead and gone” (_loc. cit._ p. 140 f.). The reader must
be left to estimate the value of this interpretation of the historian’s
character and language in the light of the other evidence.
The theory of _partial_ interpolation, held by those who reject the
obviously Christian phrases but believe that Josephus made some
statement about Christ, is unsatisfactory. In so far as it is supported
by any solid arguments, it is based partly on the few phrases for which
parallels can be found in his writings, partly on the assumption that
the other mention of “Jesus who was called Christ” (_Ant._ XX. 200)
implies a fuller statement elsewhere. But the elimination of all that is
suggestive of Christian origin leaves practically nothing behind. We may
well follow Norden in declining to discuss what he calls the
“transcendental” question whether the interpolation may have ousted a
genuine statement of the historian about Christ, now lost beyond
recovery; merely adding that the argument that the paragraph interrupts
the sequence of the narrative is an argument for its spuriousness as a
whole.
* * * * *
In connexion with the passage in _Ant._, the very curious additional
matter in the Slavonic version of the _Jewish War_ (edited with a German
translation by Berendts, _v. supra_) must be briefly mentioned.
Of the eight passages the first three relate to the Baptist. (1) A
description of “the savage” (_Wilder_) and his baptism, of his being
brought before Archelaus and how Simon the Essene disputed with him; (2)
his interpretation of a dream of Herod Philip; (3) his rebuke of Herod
(Antipas) for marrying Herodias his brother Philip’s wife _after_ the
latter’s death (“for thou dost not raise up seed to thy brother, but
gratifyest thy fleshly lusts and committest adultery, since he has left
four children”), and his abstinence, even from unleavened bread at the
Passover season. Then follows (4) a description of Christ, beginning in
the same way as our passage, “At that time there arose a man, if it is
right to call him a man,” but with much greater detail: his miracles
wrought by a mere word (this is twice repeated); the current belief that
he was “the first lawgiver risen from the dead”; his resort to the Mount
of Olives; his 150 disciples (_Knechten_); and how Pilate, whose dying
wife he had healed, released him upon the first hearing, but was
subsequently induced by a bribe of thirty talents from the Jews (a
curious distortion of the Gospel story!) to deliver him to them for
crucifixion. No. (5) tells of the persecution and dispersion of the
early Christians, who were drawn from the lower classes, shoemakers and
labourers; (6) of an additional inscription round the outer wall of the
Holy Place (cp. _B.J._ V. 5. 2 [193 f.]), “Jesus did not reign as King;
he was crucified by the Jews because he announced the destruction of the
city and the desolation of the Temple”; (7) of the rending of the veil
of the Temple and current views upon Christ’s resurrection, “Some report
that he rose from the dead, others that he was stolen by his friends. I
know not which are right ...”; (8) of the oracle concerning the
world-ruler who was to come from Judæa (see § 50 in the translations),
“Some understood that it referred to Herod, others to the crucified
wonder-worker Jesus, others to Vespasian.”
The actual MSS containing these extraordinary passages are not earlier
than the fifteenth century; the translation can be dated back to the
thirteenth century at latest. The earlier history of the additions is
lost in obscurity; they have left no trace in the extant Greek MSS.
Berendts boldly maintains their authenticity, believing them to be
fragments of the original Aramaic edition of the _Jewish War_ written
for Syrian readers (§ 38), which were eliminated when the later Greek
version, addressed to a wider and more critical circle, was produced.
This daring theory has met with little support; but the origin of the
passages remains a mystery, no final solution of which is possible
pending the publication of a complete text from the Russian MSS. The
remarkable facts about them are their _Jewish_ appearance, their
independence (in part) of the Gospel narrative and the impression which
they make of being derived from oral tradition. Parallels to a few of
the statements (the bribery of Pilate, the healing “by a word”) occur in
the Christian apocryphal _Epistle of Tiberius to Pilate_ (ed. M. R.
James in _Texts and Studies_, vol. V. p. 78, 1899); compare also the
apocryphal _Acts of Pilate_ (Tischendorf, _Evangelia Apocrypha_,
Leipzig, 1853, p. 292), where Joseph of Arimathæa, addressing the body
of Christ, uses the words “if it be right to call thee a man,” recalling
the phrase common to the fourth Slavonic passage and the “testimony” in
the _Antiquities_.
III. Note on § (29). THE FIRST HUSBAND OF HERODIAS
Josephus calls the injured husband simply Herod. The first two Gospels
give him the name Philip (“Herodias his brother Philip’s wife,” Matt.
xiv. 3, Mark vi. 17). The name stands in all the MSS in Mark; in Matthew
it is omitted by the “Western text” (cod. D and Latin versions); in Luke
(iii. 19) it is absent from all the best MSS and in those which insert
it is undoubtedly an interpolation from the other Gospels. It is clear
from Josephus that the first husband of Herodias was not Philip the
Tetrarch, but his half-brother who paid the penalty for his mother’s
complicity in a plot by having his name removed from Herod’s will, and
lived as a private individual, apparently in Jerusalem (cf. _B.J._ I.
30. 7 [600]). Either then Herod the Great had two sons named Philip (1)
by Mariamne II (daughter of Simon the High Priest), the husband of
Herodias, and (2) by Cleopatra, Philip the Tetrarch, who married Salome
the daughter of Herodias; or, more probably, the name Philip in the
first two Gospels is a primitive error, due to confusion between the
husband and the son-in-law of Herodias. That two sons should have borne
the name Philip is improbable; no argument can be drawn from the
appropriation of the dynastic or family name Herod by more than one
member of the family. The omission of the name Philip by St. Luke, who
shows special acquaintance with the Herodian court, is very significant.
The confusion with Philip the Tetrarch appears elsewhere, notably in the
eccentric account of the Baptist’s denunciation of the second marriage
of Herodias in the Slavonic version of the _Jewish War_ (Note II above).
IV. Note on § (35). THEUDAS AND JUDAS
This passage has been often quoted as convincing proof that St. Luke had
read the _Antiquities_ of Josephus, or at least the twentieth book. On
this view the date of the _Acts_ must be brought down to the close of
the first century. The Evangelist is at the same time accused of the
grossest carelessness.
Gamaliel in his speech in the Sanhedrin adduces two instances of
insurrectionary movements which came to nought in the chronological
order: (1) Theudas, (2) Judas of Galilee (Acts v. 36 f.).
The date when Gamaliel is represented as speaking must have been some
time in the early “thirties.” The revolt of Theudas, according to
Josephus, occurred in the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus (about 44-46
A.D.), at least ten years later. The revolt of Judas in “the days of the
enrolment” was in 6 A.D. Thus the events appear to have been transposed
in the speech and one of them to have been still in the womb of the
future!
The error, if it is one, is commonly explained as due to a cursory
reading and inaccurate recollection on the part of the Evangelist of the
passage in the _Antiquities_ which alludes to the fate first of Theudas
and then of the _sons_ of Judas under the procuratorship of Tiberius
Alexander (about 46-48 A.D.), the latter notice leading to a brief
mention of their father. This view has been supported by Burkitt
(_Gospel History and its transmission_, pp. 106 ff.), Krenkel (_Josephus
and Lucas_), Schmiedel (art. in _Encycl. Bibl._) and many German
commentators. It has been rejected, among others, by Schürer, Blass,
Harnack (_Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, p. 115), Stanton
(_Gospels as Historical Documents_, pt. II, p. 272), and most recently
by Prof. C. C. Torrey (_Composition and date of Acts_, Cambridge,
Harvard University Press, 1916). Cf. also an art. on “St. Luke and
Josephus,” by the Rev. J. W. Hunkin, in the _Church Quarterly Review_
for April 1919, pp. 89-108.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there has been error on the
part of some one responsible for putting the speech into the mouth of
Gamaliel. The attempts which have been made to remove the apparent
anachronism are unconvincing. Either an earlier unknown Theudas is
postulated (but one would expect the person named by Gamaliel along with
the notorious Judas to have been of sufficient importance to be
mentioned by Josephus); or the mistake as to the date of Theudas is
shifted to Josephus; or the name Theudas is regarded as a Christian
interpolation in the _Antiquities_ (Blass).
But that the passage in _Acts_ is to be explained by a casual perusal of
Josephus by St. Luke is highly improbable for the following reasons:—
(1) St. Luke gives the number of the followers of Theudas as “about four
hundred”; Josephus writes “most of the common people.” Clearly St. Luke
had access to some source other than Josephus.
(2) The carelessness attributed to St. Luke in the supposed use of
Josephus is not what we should expect from the professions of the writer
of the prologue to the third Gospel and from the handling of his sources
in the earlier work.
(3) If there has been error, it is older than St. Luke and goes back to
his authority. Torrey in the above-mentioned work seems to have proved
conclusively that Acts i-xv is based on an Aramaic source, to which St.
Luke was “singularly faithful.” “He disliked to alter, even slightly,
the document in his hands, even where he believed its statements to be
mistaken, and where he found himself obliged to contradict them” (p.
40). On the alleged use of Josephus in Acts v., after referring to the
horror which must have been aroused in Judæa by the crucifixion of the
_sons_ of the insurgent Judas, he adds: “Any history dealing with this
period would have been pretty certain to mention Theudas and Judas at
this point, and in this order, although the revolt under Judas really
happened much earlier. From some history of the kind, in which the facts
were not clearly stated, the author of Luke’s Aramaic source obtained
his wrong impression of the order of events” (p. 71).
V. Note on § (45). THE BLOOD OF ZACHARIAS