Was Jesus an Historical Figure?

Recommend (4) Comments (5)

The primary argument against the use of Josephus’ testimony is the charge that his work has been interpolated, that is, that Christian scribes added some material.

In the case of the shorter text, there is no evidence for this.  The designation of James as the "brother of Jesus" contrasts with Christian practice of referring to him as the "brother of the Lord" or "brother of the Savior." (as in Gal. 1:19 in the NT and Eusebius in later history). The emphasis of the passage is not on Jesus or even James, but on Ananus the high priest and the turbulence he caused. There is no praise for James or Jesus. This is not what we would expect if this were an interpolation. Josephus' account of James being stoned is different from the account given by the church historian Hegesippus, who has James being thrown from the roof of the Temple.  This would be an unlikely move for an interpolator.  Finally, neither this passage nor the larger one connects Jesus with John the Baptist, as we would expect from a Christian interpolator.

The larger passage is a different story. Let’s look at it again, a different way, as it actually appears in Josephus:

Antiquities 18.3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

That there are interpolations here is seldom questioned; very few scholars hold that the entirety of the passage is genuine. The items in bold are what are considered interpolations. The remainder is widely considered genuine by Josephan scholars.

I will consider objections to genuineness of specific parts of this as they are presented. In close here, a worthwhile question is: how did these questionable phrases get into the body of the original text? Some suggest duplicity by Christian scribes, but it need not be so horrid. Much as certain people scribble "replies" in the margins of their books, so some scribe(s) perhaps added the questionable phrases as commentary - and then they were later carelessly incorporated into the text. This is a known phenomenon of textual transmission.