Translate

EnglishFrenchGermanItalianPortugueseRussianSpanish

Login

Commentators

Comments

RSS News

  • Thursday, May 17 17 May, 2012
    The copper shell of a nineteenth-century wooden ship has been found in the Gulf of Mexico by scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The wreck, which sits under 4,000 feet of water, was first noticed during a sonar survey conducted by an oil company. A closer look with a remotely operated vehicle spotted a […]
  • Wednesday, May 16 16 May, 2012
    A team of French archaeologists has unearthed an 11,000-year-old farming village on the island of Cyprus. The evidence, including bones and burned seeds, suggests that the Early Neolithic farmers came from the Middle East soon after the rise of agriculture, bringing plants, dogs, and cats with them. They supplemented their diets with wild boar that […]
  • Tuesday, May 15 15 May, 2012
    Engravings at the French rock shelter site of Abri Castanet have been dated to 37,000 years ago, making them at least as old as the paintings of the Grotte Chauvet. The Abri Castanet engravings were carved in the limestone ceiling of the shelter, which was probably used by reindeer hunters. “But unlike the Chauvet paintings and […]
  • Monday, May 14 14 May, 2012
    A Polish oil company worker has discovered a World War II-era Kittyhawk P-40 crashed in Egypt’s Western Desert. The Royal Air Force pilot of the plane is thought to have survived the June 1942 crash because his parachute had been used to make a shelter. No human remains have been found. The Egyptian military has removed […]
  • Friday, May 11 11 May, 2012
    At the site of Xultún in northern Guatemala, a team from Boston University has uncovered the oldest-known astronomical tables of the Maya, which were incised and painted on the walls of a room in a 1,200-year-old residential building. The room, thought to have been a working space for scribes, had been built with a stone […]
«  
  »

Josephus as a primary source for the New Testament

By John, on May 9th, 2010

359px Vespasianus03 pushkin Josephus as a primary source for the New TestamentThere is no history, nor archaeology for Jesus Christ before the second century and we see, in this series of three posts, how:

1. The earliest fragments of the canonical gospels are of the second century (from the rule of Hadrian and written probably in Alexandria, with a Roman publisher). They are post-Josephus.

2. Much of the content of the New Testament is drawn on texts by servants of the Flavian dynasty.

None of this should surprise, not least because authorship and dissemination of publications was a very public business and the secret police of Rome were very effective. The emperors kept an eagle eye on philosophers, religious figures and authors.

Right: Titus Flavius Vespasianus (9-79) founder of the Flavian dynasty. Pushkin Museum

Though authors didn’t need a printer, they needed the full panoply of marketing methods to gain a wide audience and this included gaining a publisher with the means to copy large numbers of books, hold launch parties and distribute copies across the empire. (Scrolling Down the Ages by Mary Beard, professor of classics at the University of Cambridge; The Argiletum and the Roman Book-Trade, Classical Philology, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Jan. 1914), pp77?78.)

As important – if not more so – both philosophising and publishing were strictly controlled by the Roman court. A philosopher needed personal approval and for his works, the publisher must gain approval from the court (if not the emperor himself). (Intelligence activities in ancient Rome: trust in the gods, but verify, Studies in Intelligence Series, by Rose Mary Sheldon, Routledge, 2005; The Roman Secret Service by WG Sinnigen – 1961)

I therefore suggest that it was impossible for any philosopher, much less slave, in this period to write, publish and gain a readership outside the authority of the court. This must be taken into account in considering the authorship of the gospels.

Vespasian was brought (and bought) to power by Alexander Lysimachus, the alabarch in Alexandria, who managed the estate of Antonia Minor, whose slave, Antonia Caenis, was mistress-wife of Vespasian.

He and his son, Titus, kept a very tight rein on his public image and public debate. To help achieve this, they employed a number of agents to produce histories in their favour and it is these documents that become the historical framework around which the tale of Jesus Christ is later woven.

Here is an extract from an essay on the treatment of Josephus as a source for the gospels.

–~~~~~~~~~~~~–

No. Josephus The Gospels
Josephus introduces the Jewish War as the worst calamity to have happened until that time: “Accordingly, it appears to me that the misfortunes of all men, from the beginning of the world, if they be compared to these of the Jews are not so considerable as they were; while the authors of them were not foreigners neither.” (Wars, preface, 4) Jesus’ prophetic words, taken to be of the Judgment Day, are read by Atwill to refer to the impending attack upon rebellious Jews and Jerusalem: “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” (Mt. 24:21)
Josephus tells of Herod’s rise to power: “(1) Now Herod did the more zealously pursue his journey into Arabia, as making haste to get money of the king, while his brother was yet alive; by which money … he hoped to prevail upon the covetous temper of the barbarians to spare Phasaelus; … their king, Malichus, sent to him immediately, and commanded him to return back out of his country, and used the name of the Parthians as a pretense for so doing, … while in reality they had a mind to keep back what they owed to Antipater, … (2) So when Herod had found that the Arabians were his enemies, …” (Wars, 1.14.1) “Antony came in, and told them that it was for their advantage in the Parthian war that Herod should be king; so they all gave their votes for it.” (1.14.4) “But Herod’s concern at present, now he had gotten his enemies [i.e. in Jerusalem] under his power, was to restrain the zeal of his foreign auxiliaries; for the multitude of the strange people were very eager to see the temple, …” (1.18.3) “(5) … Herod … went in the forefront of the army, … and invited the Arabians to fight. … so Herod came upon them, and pulled their fortification to pieces, (6) … Herod encompassed these around, and besieged them; and … they had another additional distress upon them, which was thirst and want of water; for the king was above hearkening to their ambassadors; and when they offered five hundred talents, as the price of their redemption, he pressed still harder upon them. And as they were burnt up by their thirst, they came out and voluntarily delivered themselves up by multitudes to the Jews, till in five days’ time four thousand of them were put into bonds; and on the sixth day the multitude that were left despaired of saving themselves, and came out to fight: with these Herod fought, and slew again about seven thousand, insomuch that he punished Arabia so severely, and so far extinguished the spirits of the men, that he was chosen by the nation for their ruler.” (1.19.5-6) Jesus tells the parable: “(12) … A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. (13) And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. (14) But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying,We will not have this man to reign over us. (15) And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, … that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. … (22) Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: … (26) For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. (27) But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (Lk. 19:12-15, 22, 26-27) To be sure, there are significant differences with Herod’s story; e.g. Herod was not king of Arabia at first. On the other hand, not many people had left one kingdom to soon receive another one (as opposed to simply conquering one without first having been granted a kingship), and then return to subjects with whom he was unpopular, where money he had left with them was a big issue. Most kings simply conquered their own territory, and Rome rarely granted kingships. Jesus’ parable must surely have sounded oddly familiar to those who were familiar with Herod “the Great’s” rise. Jesus’ parable is hard to understand, otherwise, in seemingly advocating that a king unpopular with is people could rightly kill them all. Paul, for his part, makes the uncritical statement: “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” (Rom. 13:1) Eisenman proposes that St. Paul was Josephus’ Saul/Saulus, who was a member of the “royal family.” Eusebius says Paul used to go around with a copy of Luke; calling it “his Gospel.” (cf. the oddly worded Rom. 2:16; 16:25 & 2 Tim. 2:8) Peter lumps those who “despise authority” in with other sinners,(2 Pet. 2:10) as per most translations render it, other than the KJV.
“And now Archelaus’s part of Judea was reduced into a province, and Coponius, one of the equestrian order among the Romans, was sent as a procurator, having the power of [life and] death put into his hands by Caesar. Under his administration it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt, and said they were cowards if they wouldendure to pay a tax to the Romans and would after God submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of those their leaders.” (Wars 2.8.1; cf. Antiq. 17.2.4 = 18.1.1) Since Archelaus lost most of his kingdom in 6 CE, this took place then or soon after. “(1) And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (2) (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) (3) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. (4) And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) (5) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.” (Lk. 2:1-5) Cyrenius was appointed governor of Syria after Archelaus lost most of his kingdom. See the below parallel for this passage in Lk. in the Antiq., for more on Cyrenius, and the historical problems this passage poses.
Josephus describes an unnamed ‘Egyptian’ who leads an uprising: “But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was ready tobreak into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him. But Felix prevented his attempt, and met him with his Roman soldiers, …” (Wars2.13.5, cf. Antiq. 20.8.6). There is an unnamed Egyptian rebel leader in the Acts, which Paul is accused of being: “Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?” (Acts 21:38) Paul was arrested during the time of Felix, the procurator (23:4). The “chief captain of the band,” presumably of Roman soldiers, differs with Josephus’ numbers, having 4,000 instead of 30,000 followers, if this is intended to be the same Egyptian. This can be seen as a tendency of the Acts to minimize the numbers of the revolutionaries against Rome. Interestingly, both passages have failed to get the name of this Egyptian rebel, and yet both report him. Mason points out that the phrase “an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former;” signifies that this Egyptian was not one of the Sicarii, whom Josephus had been talking about previously; whereas the passage “four thousand men that were murderers” actually is identifying these men as the Sicarii (lit. sikaríoon). Mason speculates it is because Josephus had just been talking about the Sicarii.
An attack on Cestius and his men by the Jews at Jerusalem began the war with the Romans: “After this calamity had befallen Cestius, many of the most eminent of the Jews swam away from the city, as from a ship when it was going to sink; Costobarus, therefore, and Saul, who were brethren, together with Philip, the son of Jacimus, who was the commander of king Agrippa’s forces, ran away from the city, and went to Cestius. But then how Antipas, who had been besieged with them in the king’s palace, but would not fly away with them, was afterward slain by the seditious, we shall relate hereafter. However, Cestius sent Saul and his friends, at their own desire, to Achaia [Greece], to Nero, to inform him of the great distress they were in, and to lay the blame of their kindling the war upon Florus, …” (Wars 2.20.1) Cestius, at this point, is already in Caesarea. Paul, who used to be called Saul, is accused of stirring up trouble in Jerusalem: “(12) And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city: (13) Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. (14) But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: (15) And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. … (18) Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult.” (Acts 24:12-15,18) The Jews wanted to kill Paul, and had been beating him (21:31-32). He had a pretty large contingent that evacuated him: “(23) And he called unto him two centurions, saying, ‘Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Caesarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night; (24) And provide them beasts, that they may set Paul on, and bring him safe unto Felix the governor.” (Acts 23:23-24) They then give Paul a choice: “But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me? (10) Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. (11) For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar. (12) Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go.” (Acts 25:9-12) The parallels are as follows: Saul was plundering Jerusalem and causing great disorder (see below) / Paul (=Saul) was accused of heresy in Jerusalem, and a crowd of Jews wanted to kill him; Saul is related to the Herods, and is on the side of Rome / Paul may be related to the Herods (again, see below), and claims his rights as a Roman citizen; Saul flees Jerusalem at the same time as many soldiers, after the attack on Cestius / Paul is evacuated from Jerusalem by a suspiciously large contingent of soldiers; Saul travels to Caesarea, and is given a message for Nero, explaining how Cestius is innocent / Paul is held prisoner in Caesarea, and explains how he is himself innocent; Saul carries the message to Nero in Achaea (i.e. Greece) / Paul is brought before Caesar, who, in the time of Festus, should be Nero, in Rome; Josephus does not tell us what happened to Saul, but he seems to have passed the blame on to Florus / Paul is held two years, and set free. I estimate that these events to have been placed approximately two years apart. Eisenman explains that Roman citizens were guaranteed the right to appeal before Caesar; explaining Paul’s evacuation, but not the 470 soldiers escorting him in this time of high tensions between Rome and Jerusalem.
Josephus describes a Roman confrontation with some Samaritans: “Nor did theSamaritans escape their share of misfortunes at this time; for they assembled themselves together upon the mountain called Gerizzim, which is with them a holy mountain, and there they remained; which collection of theirs, as well as the courageous minds they showed, could not but threaten somewhat of war; nor were they rendered wiser by the miseries that had come upon their neighboring cities. … Vespasian therefore thought it best to prevent their motions, and to cut off the foundation of their attempts. For although all Samaria had ever garrisons settled among them, yet did the number of those that were come to Mount Gerizzim, and their conspiracy together, give ground for fear what they would be at; he therefore sent thither Cerealis, the commander of the fifth legion, with six hundred horsemen, and three thousand footmen, … he encompassed all the lower part of the mountain with his army, and watched them all that day. Now it happened that the Samaritans, who were now destitute of water, were inflamed with a violent heat, (for it was summer time, and the multitude had not provided themselves with necessaries,) insomuch that some of them died that very day with heat, …” (Wars 3.7.32) Jesus has an encounter with a Samaritan woman: “(3) He [Jesus] left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee. (4) And he must needs go through Samaria. (5) Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. (6) Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour. (7) There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, ‘Give me to drink.’ (8) (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) (9) Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. (10) Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. (11) The woman saith unto him, ‘Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? … (13) Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: (14) But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. … (21) Jesus saith unto her, ‘Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.’” (Jn. 4:3-13,21) Note that both passages refer to relations with Samaritans, to thirst, and to Mt. Gerizzim (since Sychar was located on Mt. Gerizzim). Atwill posits the linkage of the biblical passage to the Jewish War by pointing out that Jesus’s prophetic remark in v.21 echoes the destruction of Jerusalem as well as the passage at left concerning Gerizzim during the Jewish War.
Jesus, the son of Shaphat is one of the rebel leaders at the Sea of Galilee(Wars 3.9.7); but he is presumably killed in the ensuing fighting. Jesus is the leader of his disciples, which He began gathering at the Sea of Galilee. (Mt. 4:18).
After conquering Gadaea, Jotapata, receiving Josephus’ surrender, and conquering Joppa, Vespasian sends his son Titus to Cesarea (on the Mediterranean) to bring the army back to Cesarea Phillipi. Vespasian camps between Taricheae and Joppa, and Titus defeats the rebels on the shore of LakeGennesareth.(Wars 3.9.7 – 3.10.9) Caphernaum is only mentioned as the name of a spring in Gennesareth (Wars 3.10.8, although it is a village in Vida 72).. In Mt., Jesus begins His ministry in a synagogue in Capernaum (Mt. 4:13,17; Mk.1:21; Lk. 4:31), which Josephus tells us, is in Gennesareth.
There are Coracin fish at the spring near Gennesareth (Wars 3.10.8). Jesus pronounces woe on Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum (Mt. 11:21-23), all of which were in the area of this revolt and reconquest.  While Chorazin (Gk. Chorazin) and Coracin (korakinoi) are not obviously etymologically related. in the book, Atwill seems to think they are, so the strength of this parallel is over- stated. On the other hand, Jesus’ prophesy involves Capernaum and Bethsaida: regions at or near some of the fighting with the Romans during the War. It seems unlikely that he was pronouncing doom upon them for a time future to the present, when few or no descendents of the original inhabitants are still there; or share in their guilt. Jesus’ pronouncement seems to concern the Jewish War anyway.
The Romans had begun routing the Jews who were revolting, who then fled onto boats on Lake Gennesareth. The Romans surrounded the shore, refitted boats for war to pursue them, and defeated them. “And for such as were drowning in the sea, if they … attempted to swim to their enemies, the Romans cut off either their heads or their hands” (Wars 3.10.9). In Mt., Jesus sees Simon (Peter) and Andrew fishing, and says “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” (Matt 4:19) They just up and leave their occupations to do it. In Luke, Jesus is mobbed by crowds, and asks Simon (Peter) to take him a little ways off shore, so he can talk to the crowd. Simon complains he hasn’t caught any fish all night, and Jesus has him cast his net, and he catches a miraculous catch of fish. Luke has Jesus say, “Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men” (Lk. 5:10). After the Sermon on the Mount, and the Miracle of the Loaves and Fish, Jesus stills the storm, presumably on the Sea of Galilee. (Mk. 4:36-39; Lk. 8:22-24) This parallel is not clear-cut, since the Roman action happened in the Lake of Gennesereth, instead of the Sea of Galilee, but we might hypothesize a misreading of one for the other, or a change to partially obscure the satirical parallel. To anyone who had participated in the sea battle, the Gospel story must surely sound suspiciously familiar.
After the battle on the lake, “Vespasian sat upon his tribunal at Taricheae.” (Wars3.10.10) This was in the land of Gennesareth. After stilling the storm, Jesus lands at Gennesaret, He heals the sick and debates the Pharisees and scribes. (Mt. 14:34 ff.; Mk. 6:53 ff.; Lk. 5:1 ff.)
Josephus describes a speech made a Jesus, presumably Jesus the son of Gamalas (Wars 4.3.9), when John of Gischala sent a letter lying about the Jewish establishment in Judea to the Idumeans, to persuade them to assist in his revolt. “Now this exit of the messengers was not known either to Ananus or to the guards, but the approach of the Idumeans was known to him; for as he knew of it before they came, he ordered the gates to be shut against them, and that the walls should be guarded. Accordingly, Jesus, the eldest of the high priests next to Artanus, stood upon the tower that was over against them, and said thus: ‘Many troubles indeed, and those of various kinds, have fallen upon this city, … But now for these men who have invited you, if you were to examine them one by one, every one of them would be found to have deserved ten thousand deaths; for the very rascality and offscouring of the whole country, who have spent in debauchery their own substance, and, by way of trial beforehand, have madly plundered the neighboring villages and cities, in the upshot of all, have privately run together into this holy city. They are robbers, who by their prodigious wickedness have profaned this most sacred floor, and who are to be now seen drinking themselves drunk in the sanctuary, and expending the spoils of those whom they have slaughtered upon their unsatiable bellies.” (Wars4.4.3) Carrington points out that Jesus, son of Gamalas, had been a close friend of Josephus’. (Vida 41) “When the Zealots later killed Jesus of Gamalas, Josephus added the epithet to the event: “And I cannot but imagine that virtue itself groaned at these men’s case, and lamented that she was here so terribly conquered by wickedness. And this at last was the end of Ananus and Jesus.” (Wars 4.5.2) “(15) And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; (16) And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. (17) And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.” (Mk. 11:15-17, cf. Mt. 21:12-13; Lk. 19:46) It is rather odd here that Jesus and His bewildered disciples, in essence, a single commoner, known only by reputation, is able prevent anyone from carrying a vessel through the Temple, when His actions were sure to swiftly draw the attention of the guards. Could it be that the author has in mind that He had Ananus close the gates? Carrington indicates that Jesus here is being made to refer to Jer. 7:11. The Gk. word being used for robberslestAs, in both passages, is typically used of pirates – which seems a bit strong for moneychangers. Perhaps the author of Mk. had something more violent in mind. To a Jewish reader, Jesus’ action might be seen as somewhat sympathetic with the revolutionaries, since moneychangers were needed principally by foreigners wishing to offer sacrifices at the Temple – a practice the Zealots forbade, but which Josephus says had always been tolerated previously. In due course, Titus was to evict the ‘robbers’ Josephus is describing.
Zacharias the son of Baruch is put on trial by the Idumeans and the Zealots for plotting to give their plans away to the Romans. They get 70 citizens, and have them act as a jury, but the jury acquits Zacharias. The Idumeans and Zealots are outraged, and one of them slays Zacharias in the middle of the Temple. (Wars 4.5.4) Jesus says to the Jews, “(33) Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? … (35) That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood ofZacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.” (Mt. 23:35) “Zechariah, the son of Berechiah” (Zech. 1:1) is the prophet Zechariah from the OT, but there is no account of him being killed in the Temple. Jesus’ denunciation of the Jews for killing this Zacharias sounds more like the Zacharias killed by the Zealots in the future Jewish War than the OT prophet. It seems unlikely that Jesus is using the past tense to refer to a future event, so either a later writer has altered or has originated present text, or there was a secret, unknown killing of the Zechariah who wrote the book of Zachariah, in the Temple. If his killing were unknown, why utilize it in a public polemic? Admittedly, the name is slightly different, and the location of the killing was inside instead of outside the Temple, but this could be due to the difference between Josephus’ Roman scribe’s Greek usage and Josephus’ own, and besides, with the OT prophet, there is no record of his being killed in or anywhere near the Temple. After the conquest of Jerusalem, the murder of Zecharias the son of Baruch in middle of the Temple would have been a more likely candidate for inclusion in polemics against Jews than the OT prophet. Either the prophet Zachariah had been slain by the Jews, history does not record the event, and Jesus knew this through spiritual means, but was content to leave the Jews guessing while accusing them of a slaying they knew nothing about; or some other writer is reminding us of the sins of the Zealots here in the midst of Jesus’ denunciation of his own generation; a writer having knowledge of events yet to happen some decades hence.
Vespasian marches against rebels in the city of Gadara, but many from the city did not support the rebels. The Romans take the city easily, with popular support, and the rebels run to the nearby city Bethennabris, but are not allowed in. The Romans chase the Gadarene rebels to the gate, and then the Jordan river, where many are slaughtered, some are taken prisoner, and a great many are pushed unwillingly into the strong current. A great many were later found to havedrowned. In describing why people followed John, Josephus writes, “… many there were that thought they should be safer themselves, if the causes of their past insolent actions should now be reduced to one head, and not to a great many.” (Wars 4.7.1) To say it another way, in a manner of speaking, the revolt emanated from one head: from that of John the Zealot. (Wars 4.7.3-6) Atwill points out that the rebel leaders John and Simon had been found hiding in caverns at the end of the War, with the bodies of many who had starved to death (Wars6.9.4); such that they had been, so to say, living in tombs. Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man in the country of the Gadarenes, who had been “living in tombs”. Jesus compels him to tell Him his name, and he says “Legion”. He exorcizes the spirits from the man, and the demons leave him to enter a large herd of pigs, which run into the Sea of Galilee and drown. (cf. Mk. 5:1-13; Lk. 8:26-33)  Only Mt. refers to the area as Gadara.  The other Synoptics refer to the area as Geradene.  Keep in mind that ancient Patristic writers always held that Mt. had been published first, but in Hebrew.  Perhaps ‘Gadara’ was the original reading, but Mk. changed it to ‘Geradene’, and Lk. followed; with both incorporating the Q material.  Josephus knows of a Gadara, and in any event, either way, the two locations would be near each other: just east of the Sea of Galilee.
“But the shame that would attend them in case they returned without doing any thing at all, so far overcame that their repentance, that they lay all night before the wall, though in a very bad encampment; for there broke out a prodigious storm in the night, with the utmost violence, and very strong winds, with the largest showers of rain, with continued lightnings, terrible thunderings, and amazing concussions and bellowings of the earth, that was in an earthquake. These things were a manifest indication that some destruction was coming upon men, when the system of the world was put into this disorder; and any one would guess that these wonders foreshowed some grand calamities that were coming.” (Wars4.4.5) Jesus prophesies such earthquakes: ”For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, andearthquakes, in divers places.”  (Mt. 24:7)  Also, there is “For as the lightningcometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” (Mt 24:27)   There are also claims that numerous volcanic eruptions occurred before the destruction of Jerusalem, in addition to the eruption of Vesuvius which destroyed the city of Pompii some years afterwards. These may account for the verse “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, …”. (Mt. 24:29)
Finally, Titus turns toward Jerusalem, and begins its siege: “Thus did the miseries of Jerusalem grow worse and worse every day, and the seditious were still more irritated by the calamities they were under, even while the famine preyed upon themselves, after it had preyed upon the people. And indeed the multitude of carcasses that lay in heaps one upon another was a horrible sight, and produced apestilential stench, …” (Wars 6.1.1) In the one of the same passages as above, Jesus also prophesies these conditions  ”For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.”  (Mt. 24:7)
We see that suckling infants are not immune to the suffering encountered during the destruction of Jerusalem: “She then attempted a most unnatural thing; and snatching up her son, who was a child sucking at her breast, she said, ‘O thou miserable infant! for whom shall I preserve thee in this war, this famine, and this sedition? …’ As soon as she had said this, she slew her son, …” (Wars 6.3.4) Jesus predicts that nursing infants will not be safe either, as well, in the time He is talking about: “But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!” (Mt. 24:19)
During the siege of Jerusalem, a woman named Mary, from Bethezob (meaning “House of Hyssop“) via Parea, who was the daughter of an Eleazar, was being raided for food so regularly by the Zealots who had taken over the city, that she was starving to the verge of death. She finally despaired of bringing her son up in such a world, and with hunger which “pierced through her very bowels,” kills and roasts her son, and eats half the infant. When the Zealots come, they suspect her of having food, and she says she saved “a very fine portion of it for them” – showing them the remaining half her son, but “with some difficulty they left the rest of that meat to the mother“. Josephus has her say, just before she kills her son, “… be thou a fury to these seditious varlets, and a by-word to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities of us Jews.” (Wars6.3.4) While this took place some three months after the Passover, hyssop was used to sprinkle the blood of a lamb on the doorposts at Passover (Ex. 12:7); and v. 9 prescribes the lamb to be roasted, not boiled. Mary’s son Jesus is eaten symbolically as a Passover sacrifice by early Christians (Mk. 14:22-27), and this becomes a ceremony practiced all over theworld. Luke seems to echo the Mary and the piercing language: “(34) And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, ‘Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (35) (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.’” (Luke 2:34-35) The word for soul here is reportedly a synonym for the underlying Gk. word used by Josephus for “bowels”. All the Gospels contain the feast in Bethany (which was nearJerusalem, Jn. 11:18). The Mary and “good portion” language seems to be echoed in Lk. as well: “(40) But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. (41) And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: (42) But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.” (Lk. 10:40-42) It is otherwise unclear why it is “needful” that Mary not be distracted from her food, nor how the issue suddenly became food being taken away from her, rather than whether to help serving the meal or not. The version of this feast in John has Lazarus (Gk. for Eleazar), Mary and Martha’s brother (Jn. 11:2), die and be resurrected by Jesus. Lazarus “… they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.” (Jn. 12:2) John has Jesus say, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; …” (Jn. 6:51) Also, there is “Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.” (Jn. 19:29) Atwill has much to say about parallel cannibalistic Passovers, but other than the village of Bethzebob, there is only the word “roasted” in Josephus’ passage to associate it with a Passover. It does not seem odd to me that Josephus would isolate such an incident to be a “watchword for the world,” since it underscores his theme of the sins of the Zealots. Even if Josephus did not have a Passover in mind, however, the verbal similarities between the two accounts are still striking.
Titus ejects the “robbers” from the Temple: “Yet was the misery itself more terrible than this disorder; for one would have thought that the hill itself, on which the temple stood, was seething hot, as full of fire on every part of it, that the blood was larger in quantity than the fire, and those that were slain more in number than those that slew them; for the ground did no where appear visible, for the dead bodies that lay on it; but the soldiers went over heaps of those bodies, as they ran upon such as fled from them. And now it was that the multitude of the robbers were thrust out [of the inner court of the temple by the Romans,] and had much ado to get into the outward court, and from thence into the city, while the remainder of the populace fled into the cloister of that outer court.”(Jewish War 6.5.1) The bracketed words will be Whiston’s, but they are logical extrapolations from the context. Here is Mt.’s version of the Gospel story: “(12) And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, (13) And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.“(Mt 21:12-13; = Mk. 11:15-17 = Lk. 19:45-46) Note the following detail from the Mk. account: “And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.”(Mk. 11:16) In retrospect, one wonders how Jesus, a man known by reputation alone in Jerusalem at that time, with His twelve bewildered disciples, could have, according to Mt., cast out all who bought and sold in the Temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers; and according to Mk., could have prevented anyone from carrying a vessel through the Temple. Mk. then says Jesus left the city at the evening. It sounds like Jesus would have been out-numbered by irate sellers of sacrifices and money changers, and would have required miraculous means to do so. If we allow that one man with eleven followers could have done such a thing without help, we next should observe that in the Synoptics, this event is narrated immediately before Passover; a time when guards at the Temple would have been gearing up for highest alert. It seems unlikely that there would have been no Temple guards to object to Jesus’ actions, but then hypothetical miracles can rationalize any narrative. Readers of Josephus will recognize that there certainly would have been guards around, who were very wary of disturbances in the Temple, but if they were paralyzed or otherwise incapacitated while Jesus took the time to evict the moneychangers and sellers, and prevent vessels from being carried in the Temple, no mention is made of any such miracle; although a parting of an angry crowd is reported elsewhere. Rather, it seems as if the writers of the Synoptics are not aware that there would have almost certainly have to have been guards present at the time. The word the Synoptics use for ‘robbers’, leston, is a rather strong word to use of moneychangers and sellers of sacrifices, since the most most frequent translation of the word is ‘pirates’. After all, such people must have believed they were helping people to obey God’s law. This is the same word that Josephus uses for ‘robbers’, however. This description is better in keeping with Josephus’ portrayal of the Zealots who had taken control of the Temple, as he describes many of them having come from Idumia (Roman period Edom) or Palestine, and as having looted the Temple.
Josephus describes false prophets before the destruction of Jerusalem: “A false prophet was the occasion of these people’s destruction, who had made a public proclamation in the city that very day, that God commanded them to get upon the temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance. Now there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose on the people, who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God; and this was in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes.” (Jewish War 6.5.2) “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” (Mt. 24:11)
Josephus describes portents of the destruction of Jerusalem: “Thus there was astar resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year.” (War 6.5.3) To Josephus, this was a portent of the coming destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. The wise men see a star in the East (Mt. 2:2), which comes to rest over where Jesus was (Mt. 2:9). Jesus was to prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem. Atwill discusses these two prophesies, but does not seem to explicitly connect them.
Another sign of Jerusalem’s impending destruction: ” … a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Iyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. (Wars 6.5.3) Mt. describes Jesus’ return thus: “(30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (31) And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” (Mt. 24:30-31 = Mk. 13:24-27) The parallel passage in Lk. is usually associated with Jesus’ Second Coming: “(27) And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. (28) And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Lk. 21:27-28) Atwill points out that the Triumval Arch, erected in Rome upon the defeat of the Jewish revolutionaries, featured Titus flying on the back of an eagle.
Another portent of the destruction also sounds familiar: “Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, ‘Let us remove hence.’” (Wars 6.5.3) The veil on the Holy of Holies is torn in two at the instant Jesus dies “And, behold,the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;” (Mt. 27:51, cf. Mk. 15:38; Lk. 23:45) The symbology here is fairly apparent that it is God who rips the veil, and in any event, in Christian theology, the Holy of Holies held no special value to God anymore following Jesus’ death. Thus, it would not be much of a stretch to infer that this is when the Spirit of God which has left the Holy of Holies of the Temple, in both cases.. It is on Pentecost that the Spirit of God enters the Apostles, although admittedly placed at an earlier time: “(1) And when the day ofPentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. (2) Andsuddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.” (Acts 2:1-2)
Josephus reports a Jesus with some of the attributes of the Jesus of the Gospels, in that he begins prophesying Jerusalem’s downfall: “… there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud , ‘A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!’” (Wars 6.5.3) Mt. has a passage that seems to share the same set of metaphors: “For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” (Mt. 24:27) “And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet , and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” (Mt. 24:31) “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.” (Mt. 25:1) Notice that both passages share these key parallel concepts: voice/sound of a trumpet; east, west/east, west; four winds/ four winds; bridegrooms, brides/ virgins, bridegrooms; and almost in the same order. Also, both are prophesies by men named Jesus of the coming destruction of Jerusalem.
Jesus ben Ananus is scourged: “Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, ‘Woe, woe to Jerusalem!’” (Wars 6.5.3) Jesus is scourged: “Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he hadscourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.” (Mt. 27:26=Mk. 15:15=Jn. 19:1) Oddly enough, Origin complains that Barabbas’ full name was Jesus Barabbas, a name which, if translated from the Aramaic, means ‘Jesus, son of the Father’ – a name oddly reminiscent of Jesus Himself
This Jesus ben Ananus’ death is described as follows: “This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, ‘Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!’ And just as he added at the last, ‘Woe, woe to myself also!’ there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.” (Wars 6.5.3) After describing the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds, Jesus says, “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” (Mt. 24:34) Atwill cites Eisenman’s original deduction that this Jesus ben Ananus started prophesying 40 years after the Jesus of the NT would have been starting His ministry. Thus, roughly one generation would pass between Jesus’ prophesies of the coming of the Son of Man, and the death of Jesus ben Ananus during the Roman attack on Jerusalem.
Josephus describes the Roman desecration of the Temple: “And now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus imperator with the greatest acclamations of joy.” (Wars 6.6.1) “(15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) (16) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:” (Mt. 24:15-16)
Josephus denounces the generation that led to Jerusalem’s downfall: “That neither did any other city ever suffer such miseries, nor did any age ever breed a generation more fruitful in wickedness than this was, from the beginning of the world.” (Wars 5.10.5) He also blames them for Jerusalem’s destruction: “And truly so it happened, that though the slayers left off at the evening, yet did the fire greatly prevail in the night; and as all was burning, came that eighth day of the month Gorpieus [Elul] upon Jerusalem, a city that had been liable to so many miseries during this siege, that, had it always enjoyed as much happiness from its first foundation, it would certainly have been the envy of the world. Nor did it on any other account so much deserve these sore misfortunes, as by producing such a generation of men as were the occasions of this its overthrow.” (Wars6.8.5) Jesus also denounces his Jewish contemporaries: “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: (40) For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Mt. 12:39-40) The sign of Jonah was that Niniveh must repent or God would destroy it. Apparently, Jesus was there to deliver just such an ultimatum. Note that Jesus denounces his generation of Jews on the somewhat vague grounds of “evil and adultery”. Was His generation’s sin thus far so much worse than other generations? Perhaps it was its later revolt against Rome: “Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.” (Mt. 12:45) It is primarily the Zealots which Josephus has it were the spirits to be most wary of letting into one’s home. “O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you?” (Mt. 17:17) “Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.” (Mt. 23:36)
Titus recounts how he had asked for Simon, the son of Giora’s surrender before the War, how he had offered to allow them to leave the Temple to preserve it, and then makes the offer that if they will lay down their arms and turn their custody over to him, he will grant them their lives, and act like the mild master of a family. He is refused (Wars 6.8.5), thus making it the third time Simon deniesTitus. Simon Peter denies Jesus three times before the cock crows (John 18:25-27).
The rebel leader Simon, the son of Gioras is slain, but John of is allowed to live: “As for John, he wanted food, together with his brethren, in these caverns, and begged that the Romans would now give him their right hand for his security, which he had often proudly rejected before; but for Simon, he struggled hard with the distress he was in, fill he was forced to surrender himself, as we shall relate hereafter; so he [Simon] was reserved for the triumph, and to be then slain; as was John condemned to perpetual imprisonment.” (Wars 6.9.4) Jesus prophesies the circumstances leading up to Simon Peter’s death, (=Simeon Bar Jona, Mt. 16:17) but hints John might survive: “(18) Verily, verily, I say unto thee, ‘When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.‘ (19) This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, ‘Follow me.’ (20) Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, ‘Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?’ (21) Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? (22) Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.’ (23) Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, ‘He shall not die’; but, ‘If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?’ (24) This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.” (Jn. 21:18-24) Jesus says prophetically, “(31) And the Lord said, ‘Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: (32) But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.’ (33) And he said unto him, ‘Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.’.” (Lk. 22:31-33)
Atwill recommends the parallel of Paulinus a governor of Alexandria, Egypt, after the destruction of the Temple, to the Paul of the Christian scriptures: “And as Lupus [the previous governor of Alexandria] died a little afterward, Paulinussucceeded him. This man [Paulinus] left none of those donations there, and threatened the priests severely if they did not bring them all out; nor did he permit any who were desirous of worshipping God there so much as to come near the whole sacred place; but when he had shut up the gates, he made it entirely inaccessible, insomuch that there remained no longer the least footsteps of any Divine worship that had been in that place. Now the duration of the time from the building of this temple till it was shut up again was three hundred and forty-three years.” (Wars 7.10.4) Paul, in the Acts, says “Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings.” (Acts 24:17) However, his accusers said “(28) “… Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.’ (29) (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.) (30) And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.” (Acts 21:28-30) The problem is that the action with Josephus’ Paulinus all took place in Alexandria; unlike the rest of the these parallels, which take place at or near the same locations.
Joseph, a councillor of Herod’s, is accused of an “illegal conversation” withMariamne, Herod’s wife (Antiq. 15.3.9). Herod is at first jealous, and then dismisses his suspicions, but when Mariamne is found to know about Joseph’s orders to kill her should Herod not survive his trip, he concludes they had beensharing secrets, and so kills Joseph, and later, Mariamne. Mary (lit. Miriam), espoused to Joseph, is found to be “with child”, but he has had a vision about the child, and so marries her anyway. (Mt. 1:18-20) In both cases here, there is a hint of a question of the sexual propriety of Mary, but they are innocent. Both have a Joseph who is close to them, but not the father, and both are capable of bearing future kings of Israel.
Josephus narrates how Herod eradicated not only Mariamne and her brother, who were part of the royal Maccabean line, but eradicates the descendants of an earlier, popular king, John Hyrcanus, systematically: “… when the city was taken, and Herod had gotten the government into his hands, and Costobarus was appointed to hinder men from passing out at the gates, and to guard the city, that those citizens that were guilty, and of the party opposite to the king, might not get out of it, Costobarus, being sensible that the sons of Babas were had in respect and honor by the whole multitude, and supposing that their preservation might be of great advantage to him in the changes of government afterward, he set them by themselves, and concealed them in his own farms; and when the thing was suspected, he assured Herod upon oath that he really knew nothing of that matter, and so overcame the suspicions that lay upon him; nay, after that, when the king had publicly proposed a reward for the discovery, and had put in practice all sorts of methods for searching out this matter, he would not confess it; but being persuaded that when he had at first denied it, if the men were found, he should not escape unpunished, he was forced to keep them secret, not only out of his good-will to them, but out of a necessary regard to his own preservation also. But when the king knew the thing, by his sister’s information, he sent men to the places where he had the intimation they were concealed, and ordered both them, and those that were accused as guilty with them, to be slain, insomuch that there were now none at all left of the kindred of Hyrcanus, and the kingdom was entirely in Herod’s own power, and there was nobody remaining of such dignity as could put a stop to what he did against the Jewish laws.” (Antiq. 15.7.10) Herod here is attempting to slay anyone who might potentially rival him with a claim on the throne, except for his own descendants with Miriamne, and succeeds. Herod slays the children in Betlahem and its nearby coasts of two years of age and under (Mt. 2:16); in an attempt to slay a future king of Israel that had been prophesied. Note that in both cases, Herod is, in one case successfully, in the other unsuccessfully, attempting to eliminate rivals from the Jewish royal line. Also note that in both cases, neither kingly line results in any descendents. Herod attempts to slay a potential rival to the throne, and fails. Even so, we are also talking about two different versions of the end of the kingly line in Israel.
“… when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good-will to Caesar, and to the king’s government, these very men [the Pharisees] did not swear, being above six thousand; and when the king imposed a fine upon them, Pheroras’s wife paid their fine for them. In order to requite which kindness of hers, since they were believed to have the foreknowledge of things to come by Divine inspiration, they foretold how God had decreed that Herod’s government should cease, and his posterity should be deprived of it; but that the kingdom should come to her and Pheroras, and to their children. These predictions were not concealed from Salome, but were told the king; as also how they had perverted some persons about the palace itself; so the king slew such of the Pharisees as were principally accused, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one Carus, who exceeded all men of that time in comeliness, and one that was his catamite. He slew also all those of his own family who had consented to what the Pharisees foretold; and for Bagoas, he had been puffed up by them, as though he should be named the father and the benefactor of him who, by the prediction, was foretold to be their appointed king; for that this king would have all things in his power, and would enable Bagoas to marry, and to have children of his own body begotten.” (Antiq. 17.2.4; Pheroras’ death is recorded in 17.3.3.) “(1) Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, (2) Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. (3) When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. (4) And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of t hem where Christ should be born. (5) And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea:… (16) Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.” (Mt. 2:1-6,16) In both cases, we have a prophesy of a future king of Israel; and Herod is slaying those who, in one case, subscribed to the prophesy, although his rival was just sent to rule a tetrarchy, and in the other, the children to whom the prophesy applied.
Josephus mentions an inventory Cyrenius of Syria commanded by Caesar Augustus: “So Archelaus’s country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people’s effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus.” (Antiq. 17.2.4 = 18.1.1) Since Archelaus was exiled in 6 CE, this took place then or soon after. We find earlier in Josephus that this was indeed a taxation that at least included Galilee.(Wars 2.8.1) “(1) And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (2) (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) (3) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. (4) And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) (5) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.” (Lk. 2:1-5) There are numerous problems with this passage. Mt. has Jesus being born when Herod was still alive (Mt. 2:1, while Lk. only says Mary was told she would conceive at about this time), but Herod died at least more than five year before Cyrenius became governor of Syria (nine by most chronologies); and Jesus’ birth would be taking place during it. To solve the problem, fundamentalists appeal to a hypothetical earlier governorship under Cyrenius; but this is unlikely, as Archaelaus and Herod “the Great” appear to have controlled the territory previously. Also, this appears to be the taxing Judas led a revolt in, thus precluding the possibility of an earlier taxation.(Acts 5:37) Either the chronology of Lk./Acts is mistaken, or that of Josephus is; but the story of Judas and his sons is tightly woven into Josephus’ narrative; vs. Lk.’s passing mention. Furthermore, journeying to Bethlahem because Joseph was from the line of David is unlikely, since no such census requiring one to travel to the district of one’s ancestors is known, and would be quite inconvenient for many. Why would the author of Lk. date this event in terms of a Syrian governor, when he could have related it to a Caesar, or a Herod, such as Archelaus, unless he had Josephus in mind?
Concerning Agrippa, Josephus says, “On the second day of which shows [i.e. a festival] he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theater early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out … that he was a god; and they added, ‘Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature.’ Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. But as he presently afterward looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings … and fell into the deepest sorrow. A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner.” (Antiq. 19.8.2) Agrippa would soon die from this malady. “(21) And upon a set day Herod [Agrippa], arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. (22) And the people gave a shout, saying,It is the voice of a god, and not of a man. (23) And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.” (Acts 12:21-23) Note that the owl has become an angel. The author of the Acts does not give his source on this detail. It does not seem as if he knows this through historical means. Note also, that the Acts has him die immediately, not five days afterwards, that it is on his throne, not a theater, and the writer mentions Agrippa’s royal robes without further reason, as if he has Josephus’ story in mind.
“Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, …” (Antiq. 20.5.1) “For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.” (Acts 5:36) For whatever reason, the mention of Theudas in the Acts occurs before Paul’s conversion, and so is about a decade earlier than Josephus’ narrative would allow.
“And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. ” (Antiq. 20.5.2) “After this man [i.e. Theudas] rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.” (Acts 5:37) The author of the Acts here disagrees with Josephus as to when Judas the Galilean first began revolting: He says it is after the time of Theudas, who was defeated in the time of Fadus (44-46 CE), whereas Josephus describes his onset in the time of Coponius and Cyrenius (ca. 6 CE, Wars 2.8.1). The writer of the chief priest’s speech in Acts may have easily thought from reading the passage without the previous passages on Judas, that Judas had been leading his sons in revolt, with all present in the time of Fadus; but the end of this Judas is not explicitly given. One would think the chief priest after the time of Fadus would know that Judas had begun the “fourth sect” of Jewish philosophy with his revolt four decades ago. We never hear of Judas himself after this initial revolt, in Josephus. To consider the reverse possibility, Josephus would not have been following the Acts here, since he would not derive the previous account of Judas from the Acts’ account alone – the only time Judas of Galilee is identified as such in the NT.
“But as for Bernice, she lived a widow a long while after the death of Herod [king of Chalcis], who was both her husband and her uncle; but when the report went that she had criminal conversation with her brother, [Agrippa, junior,]she persuaded Poleme, who was king of Cilicia, to be circumcised, and to marry her, as supposing that by this means she should prove those calumnies upon her to be false; …” (Antiq. 20.7.3) The Roman satirist Juvenal seemed to take it as a given that Agrippa and Bernice had committed incest: “Then in the winter time, when the merchant Jason is shut out from view, and his armed sailors are blocked out by the white booths, she will carry off huge crystal vases, vases bigger still of agate, and finally a diamond of great renown, made precious by the finger of Berenice. It was given as a present long ago by the barbarian Agrippa to his incestuous sister, in that country where kings celebrate festal sabbaths with bare feet, and where a long-established clemency suffers pigs to attain old age.” (Juvenal, Satire VI) Juvenal wrote in the late First and early Second Centuries. Since Jewish law does not forbid marriage to one’s niece, it seems likely that it is not Bernice’s previous marriage to her uncle that Juvenal was talking about. Paul describes Agrippa II as an expert in Jewish customs: ” (23) And on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and was entered into the place of hearing, with the chief captains, and principal men of the city, at Festus’ commandment Paul was brought forth” (Acts 25:23) “(1) Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself:(2) I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews: (3) Especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews:wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.” (Acts 26:1-3) The trial of Paul here seems to be somewhat of a farce, since he is praising Agrippa II as an expert in Jewish customs, when incest between Agrippa and Bernice seems to be something of a joke in Roman circles, and certainly would be a considerable breach of Jewish law. If the author of the Acts was aware of Josephus, as seems likely, although not certain, why does he have Paul praise Agrippa II as expert in Jewish customs, when he simply could have had Paul describe him as ‘more familiar’ with them, or some such? Would he not have heard the rumors, in any event? One possible motive would be to whitewash at least some of the Roman client kings and tetrarchs.
“Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us.” (Antiq.20.9.4) This appears to be the same Saulus as is mentioned in the Wars, to judge by his military/banditry relationship with Costobarus; who had been pleading Cestius’ innocence to Nero in starting the incident that sparked the War. In either case, he would still be one of the Herodians, i.e. descendents of Herod “the Great”, since this was the “royal family” of the region. Eisenman points out that Paul apparently was one of the Herodians himself. He is related to someone with the Herod name, at a time when many Jews despised many of the Herods: “Salute Herodion my kinsman. …” (Rom. 16:12). The closing of Philippians, “All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar’s household .” (Phil. 4:23) occurs after a statement referring to Paul and his fellows, and could be read as Paul being related to the Caesars, or else that the chief Christian leaders of the time were in Caesar’s household. Some of the Herodians were intermarrying with the families of the Caesars. We also know that the Flavian household at a later time included many early Christian leaders, including arguably the first Pope and Dormthe first purchaser of Christian catacombs for burial. Then we have the easy way, as above, Paul got a large military escort upon appealing to Caesar, as was the right of Roman citizens; not to mention the congenial treatment given him by Agrippa, who is almost persuaded by Paul’s ideas (Acts 26:27-31), although this last is not telling. Even so, Josephus’s Saul/Saulus, apparently like the Acts’ Saul/Paul, is indeed related to Herod royal family.
Josephus narrates: “And now it was that the temple was finished. So when the people saw that the workmen were unemployed, who were above eighteen thousand and that they, receiving no wages, were in want because they had earned their bread by their labors about the temple; and while they were unwilling to keep by them the treasures that were there deposited, out of fear of [their being carried away by] the Romans; and while they had a regard to the making provision for the workmen; they had a mind to expend these treasures upon them;for if any one of them did but labor for a single hour, he received his pay immediately; so they persuaded him to rebuild the eastern cloisters.”(Antiq.20.9.7) “(1) For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. (2) And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. (3) And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, (4) And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. (5) Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. (6) And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? (7) They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. (8) So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. (9) And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. (10) But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. (11) And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, (12) Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. (13) But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? (14) Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. (15) Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?” (Mt. 20:1-15) These accounts appear to be related, but chiefly by the concept in common of getting a day’s pay for an hour’s work. If they are, Mt.’s seems to be the more verbose and expanded. If Mt. is following Josephus, events from Josephus’s works are being placed into Jesus’ parables without notification.
Josephus has an interesting version of a familiar tale: “Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law.” (Vita 2) Luke tells a strikingly similar tale: “(42) And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. (43) And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. (44) But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day’s journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. (45) And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. (46) And it came to pass, that after three daysthey found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. (47) And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.” (Lk. 2:42-47)
Josephus writes: “And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.” (Vida 75) Note that Josephus is the son of Matthias; a name when rendered into Aramaic, is Yosheph bar Matthia. Jesus is crucified between two thieves, and reportedly dies, albeit after only several hours on the cross. Then, “(43) Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. (44) And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead. (45) And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.” (Mk 15:43-45, cf. Mt. 27:57-59; & Lk. 23:50-53) Jesus revives, but the two thieves presumably die. Joseph of Aramathea can be rendered Yosheph b’Aramathea in Hebrew. Atwill asserts that there is a medieval Gospel of Barnabas which gives his name as “Barimathea”, but at least one online version renders it “Abarimathia”. This place-name does exist, since Ramoth, is rendered ‘Aremoth’ in the LXX, and ‘-ea’ is a common place-name suffix. However, just because Aramathea is a valid place-name, does not mean that Joseph of Aramathea did not start out as either a corruption of “bar Matthia’ via Aramaic, or as a deliberate pun on Yosheph ben Matthia.

More

«»

Page : 1 2ALL

Related posts:

  1. Josephus as a source: difficult and dangerous
  2. Flavian Midrash Sources of the New Testament
  3. Private: The Royal Library of Alexandria in the first century
  4. Private: The Gospels According to Hadrian (part one)
  5. Private: The Gospels According to Hadrian, Part III: The Aelian Canon and the Main Hand of God
  6. Archaeology of a first-century wizard
  7. Private: Acts of the Chresmologoi: the Role of Oracles and Chronicles in the Creation of Divine Men
  8. Mani and Authorship of the Canonical Gospels
  9. Romans at Stonehenge: from standing stones to cosmic pillars
  10. Private: An army of divine men and the secret army of Mithras

Pages: 1 2

May 9th, 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Category: Roman Empire, The History of Antiquity, Theurgy

  • Pingback: Josephus as a source: difficult and dangerous « History Hunters International

  • Anonymous

    The context for the New Testament is the political tumult within Judea which gave rise to a series of Jewish-Roman wars, the first being also a revolt against the Herodian monarchy (more like a satrapy of Rome). The setting of the gospels is the build-up to the First Jewish-Roman War (whether or not the gospels deal with history). Just one writer who is contemporaneous to these events attempts to provide us with a more-or-less complete, chronological account and this person is Josephus. These introductory remarks by me are, I think, generally accepted as correct.

    The writers here identify numerous characters of the New Testament as historical characters and, not surprisingly, these same people also appear in the accounts by Josephus. Josephus knew many of them personally, for he both a leading participant in the events he describes and, as the houseguest of the Flavians in Rome, afterwards, socialised with other leading participants -- Roman, Judean and Herodian, and members of the provincial royal families neighbouring Judea. This is all well-known and generally accept as fact.

    I find very remarkable the major difference between the accounts of Josephus, which include numerous characters of the New Testament and various others who had been their contemporaries in the events he describes, with those accounts known as the gospels. We have  two sets of accounts, often treating the same people, yet the accounts of Josephus fail to provide a history of early Christianity.

    The life of Josephus begins in 37 and -- of course -- his career as an adult began somewhat later, shortly before the First Jewish-Roman broke out. His life therefore does not overlap at all with that of the Jesus of the gospels. It is important to note this fact, for it tells us that Josephus was never in a position to provide us with a contemporaneous account of this Jesus, if he had been historical.

    That is the very opposite of the situation when he describes his many contemporaries who also appear in the New Testament. He knows Saul and his family, and numerous of Saul’s colleagues. Even if one refuses to accept this, it is undeniable that Josephus knows many others.

    How is it possible for Josephus to have ignored early Christianity? How do his chronicles not describe the Christian movement? He treats the various political and religious factions in detail, yet he never treats Christianity. Even if one accepts what many describe as an interpolation, this is not a treatment of Christian history.

    Josephus lived into the reign of Domitian, towards the end of the first century. Where are the Christians? Where is their history, their politics, their relationship with imperial Rome? If Christian tradition for the 1st century is to be believed, Christians and their faith were well-known to the imperial court -- where Josephus resided and worked.

    When one weighs Josephus against the New Testament, one set of chronicles for Judean history in the 1st century versus the other, Christianity is found wanting. The Christian accounts for the same period and people are fantastic, without historical weight, in the manner of Greek literature.

    To my mind, Josephus disproves Christian claims to historicity.