These are the notes from a lecture I gave on Josephus and his mention of Jesus when discussing the historical evidence for Jesus outside the New Testament. (Note: A few formatting issues are apparent)
__________________________________________________
Josephus and
Luke:
Parallels
Between the Emmaus Narrative and the Testimonium
2.
Goldberg compares the Testimonium Flavianum in Antiquities
18.3.3 to a section in the Gospel of Luke—the Emmaus Narrative = Luke 24.19-21,
25-27.
3.
He notes coincidences of structure between the two texts.
A computer search of the New
Testament on the vocabulary cluster “Jesus, man, deed” (Ιησοὺς, ανήρ, εργ*),
which are the first three major nouns of the Testimonium, reveals that only
this passage of Luke shares this cluster. Upon closer examination, one finds
this to be only the first indication of a series of location correspondences,
nearly synonymous phrases occurring in analogous positions in each text. One
can best experience this sequence by reading the text of Luke, halting at each
noun or each verb of action, and then looking to the Josephus text for a
corresponding phrase at the same location.
Using this method with the
Greek texts shown in Figure 1, the following phrase-by-phrase outline of
coincident points is produced:
[Jesus][wise man / prophet-man][mighty/surprising][deed(s)][teacher
/ word][truth / (word) before God] [many people][he was indicted][by
leaders][of us][sentenced to cross][those who had loved/hoped in him][spending
the third day][he appeared/spoke to them][prophets][these things][and numerous
other things][about him]
Each of the nineteen brackets
represents a location correspondence and contains the words or summarizes the
meaning at each such point. The order of the brackets strictly corresponds to
the order that the phrases appear in the texts; it is only within each bracket
that the order of two or more words may differ between the two texts. This
strictness of order of sometimes even minor phrases forms what I call the
coincidences of structure. (p. 6)
4.
In light of this Goldberg notes: “Most
interesting is that the two passages of the Testimonium that are often regarded
as inauthentic, ‘if indeed one ought to call him a man’ and ‘He was the
Messiah,’ do not have parallels in the Emmaus passage at analogous locations.”
(p. 6)
5.
Goldberg compares the structure to two other
benchmark texts: Justin Martyr’s First Apology 31 and Acts 10.38-43. Goldberg notes: “the Emmaus narrative
more closely resembles the Testimonium in the phrase-by-phrase outline of
content and order than any other known text of comparable age.” (p. 8)
6.
How do we explain this similarity of
structure? Goldberg answers:
Since Luke probably drew the
Emmaus narrative from an existing tradition, its outline suggests the
possibility that Josephus, if he was indeed the author of Testimonium, drew his
passage from a similar or even identical source. Consider the two possibilities
for Josephus’ construction of the Testimonium.
(1) Josephus created his own
description of Jesus from information he had collected. The description is
dominated by his selection of facts, as determined by his opinions and
reactions to stories about Jesus.
(2) Josephus rigidly adhered
to a pre-existing text that described Jesus, making alterations only to suit
his written style. His text is dominated by a historian’s motivation to
faithfully record a primary source that had come to his attention.
The coincidences with the
Emmaus passage tend to support the second possibility. It seems less probable
that two authors working independently would coincide to this extent, in light
of the benchmark texts; as the Acts speeches demonstrate, even passages by a
single author can take a variety of forms. (p. 8)
7.
Goldberg also notes coincidences of “textual difficulties”—unique features
that are common to both Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative.
a.
“third day”
b.
“our leaders”
c.
Terse presentation of both texts yet
similarities of presentation and vocabulary
i. “deeds”
ii. “prophets”
iii. indictment/sentence/crucifixion
8.
Coincidences of the Arabic Testimonium
a.
Quoted in 10th century work by
Agapius (Arab Christian)
b.
Shlomo Pines’ translation:
At this time there was a wise
man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and his learning
outstanding. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became
his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who
had become his disciples did not abandon their discipleship. They reported that
he had appeared to them three days after the crucifixion and that he was alive;
accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have
recounted wonders. (p. 13)
c. Goldberg
notes the following correspondences:
There are four points that
bear directly on this question of authenticity. Let us examine how these appear
in the Greek Testimonium (abbreviated GT in the following), the Arabic
Testimonium (AT), and the Emmaus narrative of Luke (L).
1.
The GT “if indeed one can call him a man” has no parallel in either AT or L.
2.
The GT “he was the Messiah” has no location parallel with either AT or L.
3.
The AT has “They reported that he had appeared to them”, instead of the GT assertion that Jesus did appear to them. L here is
indeterminate, since
it itself is a dramatization of the
report; compare, a few verses later,
Luke 24:35, “they related the things
in the highway.”
4.
The AT “accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah:”
(a) The doubtful “perhaps”
has no parallel anywhere in GT. Oddly enough, L does frame a doubt, albeit
rhetorically, at this point: according to the prophets, “Was it not necessary
for the Messiah to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?”
(b) In the GT, the word “the
Messiah (ο χριστὸς)” appears earlier, not at this location in the text. But L
does employ it here, and nowhere else. This seems quite a surprising
coincidence.
In
regard to these four points, then, the Arabic Testimonium is actually closer to Luke than it is to
the Greek Testimonium. This tends to support the theory that Luke’s narrative
resembles the original version of the Testimonium, a resemblance that a later
editor disrupted with interpolations. (pp. 13-14)
9.
Conclusions
a.
Coincidences: structural, linguistic, and Arabic
Testimonium
b.
Explaining the coincidences:
Three
explanations for these coincidences have been considered.
(1) They could be due to
chance. But this would seem to gainsay the three independent forms of evidence
listed above. In particular, it is difficult to ignore that the only two known
examples of the ”third day” as a participial phrase appears in texts with so
many other structural resemblances. Some common literary milieu seems
mandatory; the question is the form it took.
(2) The coincidences may be
due to a Christian interpolator who altered the Testimonium, or forged it
entire, under the influence of the Emmaus narrative. This proposal has the
weakness of supposing that a writer capable of imitating Josephus’ style and
daring enough to alter his manuscript would at the same time employ non-Josephan
expressions and adhere rather closely to a New Testament text. A forger of the
required skill should have been able to shake free of such influences.
(3) Josephus and Luke may
have used similar or identical sources in composing their passages. This
explanation appears to be the simplest. It not only explains the series of
coincidences, but it also goes a long way toward solving a number of mysteries
that have bothered commentators of the Testimonium. What does Josephus mean by
calling Jesus a wise man? What was the nature of the accusation by the leaders?
If the passage is authentic, why does it approximate to a Christian creed? All
these questions fall away if it were true that Josephus did little but rewrite
a concise narrative that had, so to speak, crossed his desk. He may have known
more about Jesus, or he may have known nothing but what was in his source; in
either case, when it came to composing his own passage, it would have been
easier and more accurate for him to adhere to a reliable source rather than to
piece together secondhand knowledge.
(p. 15)
10. Goldberg’s
proposal for what the original Testimonium said:
[T]he original form of the
Testimonium as written by Josephus, without the later interpolations, may now
be more identifiable. If Luke indeed is similar to Josephus’ source, and if the
Arabic Testimonium of Agapius is not too corrupt, then we should be able to approximate
the original by a simple “Majority Rule” methodology: accept as authentic those
elements that appear in two out of the three texts, Josephus, Luke, and Agapius.
Here is one proposal for the authentic text derived using this Rule:
About this time there was Jesus, a wise man. He was a performer of
many Jews and many of the Greeks. And when, upon the accusation of the
principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to death on a cross, those who
had first come to love him did not cease. They reported he appeared to them
spending a third day alive again, and accordingly, that he was perhaps the
Messiah, for the prophets of God had prophesied these things and a thousand
other marvels about him. And the sect of the Christians, so called after him, has
still to this day not disappeared.
This reconstruction differs
from that of many commentators in that it retains the entire sentence
describing Jesus’ resurrection appearance and the declarations of the prophets.
That sentence had been doubted because it was a core Christian belief that
seemed impossible for Josephus to assert. Yet it is found in all three of our
texts; when cast in the above form, as a report not an assertion, it is not
implausible; and, furthermore, it explains why the Christians “did not cease”
and have still “not disappeared.” (pp. 15-16)
