Abstract
Abstract The controversial account of Jesus in Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities 18.63–64, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, has puzzling similarities to Luke 24.18–24, a portion of the Emmaus narrative. This article proposes an explanation based on established research into Josephus’s methods of composition. Through a phrase-by-phrase study, this article finds that the Testimonium can be derived from the Emmaus narrative using transformations Josephus is demonstrated to have employed in paraphrasing known sources for the Antiquities. Precedents are identified in word adoption/substitution and content modification. Consequently, I submit that the Testimonium is Josephus’s paraphrase of a Christian source. This result also resolves the difficulties that have raised doubts about the Testimonium’s authenticity, with implications for the understanding of the historical Jesus.
Highlights
The description of Jesus in Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities 18.63–64, a passage known as the Testimonium Flavianum, a curious series of resemblances with Lk. 24.18–27, a portion of the Emmaus narrative, as I have pointed out in a
Through a phrase-by-phrase study, this article finds that the Testimonium can be derived from the Emmaus narrative using transformations Josephus is demonstrated to have employed in paraphrasing known sources for the Antiquities
Even when expressing similar concepts, the passages exhibit many differences in vocabulary, syntax, and tone. What can explain these correspondences interfused with differences? I observed that they might signify that an inventive Christian forger of the Testimonium was influenced by the Gospel of Luke; or they may be a series of chance resemblances arising from common traditions about Jesus
Summary
The following study asks two questions for each phrase in the Emmaus excerpt: ‘Is this concept represented in a Testimonium expression at a similar position?. Support for an Emmaus influence is that Josephus does have a strong tendency to duplicate the grammatical case of his source in the matter of day periods He does this in all eight instances where he takes ‘day(s)’ from 1 Esdras; for example, at Ant. 11.148, the dative ‘in two or three days’ is an exact copy of 1 Esdr. The combination εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν is not quite characteristic of Josephus;[69] but the text at this point is uncertain, and the earliest codices are representative of his style.[70] it has been questioned whether Josephus would refer to Christians as a φῦλον (often rendered as tribe).[71] But it seems clear φῦλον is the translation of the common Latin term for the Christians circa Josephus’s time, a genus.[72] In. 68 See, for example, the comments on Josephus’s ‘closing notices’ listed in the index of Begg, Later Monarchy, p. The major additions/enhancements are Pilate (C18), Greeks (C12), received truth with pleasure (C10), if one should call him a man, and the closing statement
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
