the divine prophets having foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things (ἄλλα μυρία
θαυμάσια) concerning him. And the tribe of those called Christians, after him, is not extinct to
this day."
This testimony is first quoted by Eusebius, twice, without a misgiving (Hist. Eccl., I. II; and
Demonstr. Evang., III. 5), and was considered genuine down to the 16th century, but has been
disputed ever since. We have added the most doubtful words in Greek.
The following are the arguments for the genuineness:
(1) The testimony is found in all the MSS. of Josephus.
But these MSS. were written by Christians, and we have none older than from the 11th century.
(2) It agrees with the style of Josephus.
(3) It is extremely improbable that Josephus, in writing a history of the Jews coming down to a.d.
66, should have ignored Jesus; all the more since he makes favorable mention of John the Baptist
(Antiqu., XVIII. 5, 2), and of the martyrdom of James "the Brother of Jesus called the Christ"
(Antiqu. XX 9, 1: τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκαβος ὄνομα αὐτῳ). Both
passages are generally accepted as genuine, unless the words τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦshould
be an interpolation.
Against this may be said that Josephus may have had prudential reasons for ignoring Christianity
altogether.
Arguments against the genuineness:
(1) The passage interrupts the connection.
But not necessarily. Josephus had just recorded a calamity which befell the Jews under Pontius
Pilate, in consequence of a sedition, and he may have regarded the crucifixion of Jesus as an
additional calamity. He then goes on (§ 4 and 5) to record another calamity, the expulsion of
the Jews from Rome under Tiberius.
(2) It betrays a Christian, and is utterly inconsistent with the known profession of Josephus as a
Jewish priest of the sect of the Pharisees. We would rather expect him to have represented Jesus
as an impostor, or as an enthusiast.
But it may be urged, on the other hand, that Josephus, with all his great literary merits, is also known
as a vain and utterly unprincipled man, as a renegade and sycophant who glorified and betrayed
his nation, who served as a Jewish general in the revolt against Rome, and then, after having
been taken prisoner, flattered the Roman conquerors, by whom he was richly rewarded. History
furnishes many examples of similar inconsistencies. Remember Pontius Pilate who regarded
Christ as innocent, and yet condemned him to death, the striking testimonies of Rousseau and
Napoleon I. to the divinity of Christ, and also the concessions of Renan, which contradict his
position.
(3) It is strange that the testimony should not have been quoted by such men as Justin Martyr,
Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, or any other writer before Eusebius (d. 340), especially by
Origen, who expressly refers to the passages of Josephus on John the Baptist and James (Contra
Cels., I. 35, 47). Even Chrysostom (d. 407), who repeatedly mentions Josephus, seems to have
been ignorant of this testimony.
In view of these conflicting reasons, there are different opinions:
(1) The passage is entirely genuine. This old view is defended by Hauteville, Oberthür, Bretschneider,
Böhmert, Whiston, Schoedel (1840), Böttger (Das Zeugniss des Jos., Dresden, 1863).A.D. 1-100.