Did Josephus say that Jesus was called Chrēstos?

[Secret Alias]

I know nothing about this topic and have no expertise to offer. But here are the facts as I see them:

1. an "anointed one" would have struck the ears of Greeks as unusual and would have required some sort of explanation.
2. a "Chrestos" would be a more familiar title and would not have required explanation.
3. Josephus does not explain the terminology to his audience (as best as I can recall).
4. Josephus would not have used nomina sacra, this came from the scribal convention of Christian monks.
5. Josephus might have abbreviated words in the convention of his time. It seems unlikely that "Chrestos" was common enough an epithet to be abbreviated.
6. the earliest Christian gospel does not explain who Jesus is, what his mission is or why he is the Christ.
7. Justin and the Marcionites see concealment as critical for the success of his mission (i.e. his need for "disguise" concealing he is the "man of war" with a meek appearance to secure crucifixion and descent into the underworld to liberate the souls who died without the Law). If Josephus is a Jewish general and the Josephan corpus a development of something written by him, he would not have been interested in concealing the identity of Jesus.
8. if the references to Jesus are secondary, i.e. written by someone other than Josephus, searching for "Josephus's intent" is a waste of time as the forger would only be imitating "reasonable intent" on the part of Josephus.
9. if the forger believed that Jesus was the Christ one could imagine having "Josephus" witness Jesus as the Christ, it would undoubtedly have been abbreviated in the manner of Christian manuscripts and it would have little relevance to a discussion of what first century Christians believed.

I don't know how much further to go with this. But here is an important observation (I hope). At the core of Jewish vs Christian debates about the messiah (the Christ) there is the juxtaposition between "someone like David" i.e. a victorious general and a son of David who is basically a wimp.



The Christian understanding for the "messiah" is impossible. To believe the Christians you would have to assume that Daniel was talking about an actual "anointed one" rather than the chrism disappearing but moreover that "the prophets" as such predicted a failed "anointed one" who dies for some "secret" reason that isn't immediately apparent to the "world rulers." That Josephus a Jewish general matter of factly reported on a stupid interpretation of prophetic writings seems absurd in itself i.e. that he just "let slip through" an implausible belief about a messiah who gets sand kicked in his face in order to die for some secret purpose. The historical Josephus would have laughed or worse been very upset with this formulation.

As I see it there are only one of two possibilities:

1. the references to Jesus were added later and "the Christ" could have been associated with Jesus by an interpolator who presumably was a Christian

or

2. Josephus wrote the reference and he witnessed contemporary beliefs regarding Jesus as the "Chrestos" a title he didn't understand and let pass because he wasn't interested in what Christians had to say about Jesus.

Josephus would have taken issue with the Christian notion of "all the prophecies" leading to a loser.

[Secret Alias]

As a side note. What isn't said often enough is that the Christian understanding of history, developed from Acts, one which posits "Judaism" and "Christianity" as compatible is predicated on the idea that there were Jews who weren't hoping for a "superman" to liberate them from Roman rule. So sure, the idea that Josephus, himself a Jewish "superman" who had likely been anointed and had hopes for the liberation of his people would have matter of factly reported on a "Christ" who represents a passive "untermensch" the exact inversion of superhuman political aspirations of contemporary Jewry, is in fact or can be argued to be the best "advertisement" for the "Chrestos" out there. In other words, le bonhomme https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... mie%20from,)%20and%20homo%20(meaning%20either%20%22 https://books.google.com/books?id=O6wCA ... on&f=false a kind of nice peaceable simpleton. Christians don't see it because they think the "Christ" AS DEFINED BY GOD is a nice lamb. But the reality is that "Christ" as defined by Christians is in reality a kind of "Chrestos." The change of letter is only incidental. Even when Christians says "ChrEYEst" they mean bonhomme.

[Peter Kirby]

I know nothing about this topic and have no expertise to offer. But here are the facts as I see them:

1. an "anointed one" would have struck the ears of Greeks as unusual and would have required some sort of explanation.
2. a "Chrestos" would be a more familiar title and would not have required explanation.
3. Josephus does not explain the terminology to his audience (as best as I can recall).
4. Josephus would not have used nomina sacra, this came from the scribal convention of Christian monks.
5. Josephus might have abbreviated words in the convention of his time. It seems unlikely that "Chrestos" was common enough an epithet to be abbreviated.
6. the earliest Christian gospel does not explain who Jesus is, what his mission is or why he is the Christ.
7. Justin and the Marcionites see concealment as critical for the success of his mission (i.e. his need for "disguise" concealing he is the "man of war" with a meek appearance to secure crucifixion and descent into the underworld to liberate the souls who died without the Law). If Josephus is a Jewish general and the Josephan corpus a development of something written by him, he would not have been interested in concealing the identity of Jesus.
8. if the references to Jesus are secondary, i.e. written by someone other than Josephus, searching for "Josephus's intent" is a waste of time as the forger would only be imitating "reasonable intent" on the part of Josephus.
9. if the forger believed that Jesus was the Christ one could imagine having "Josephus" witness Jesus as the Christ, it would undoubtedly have been abbreviated in the manner of Christian manuscripts and it would have little relevance to a discussion of what first century Christians believed.

I don't know how much further to go with this. But here is an important observation (I hope). At the core of Jewish vs Christian debates about the messiah (the Christ) there is the juxtaposition between "someone like David" i.e. a victorious general and a son of David who is basically a wimp.

...

The Christian understanding for the "messiah" is impossible. To believe the Christians you would have to assume that Daniel was talking about an actual "anointed one" rather than the chrism disappearing but moreover that "the prophets" as such predicted a failed "anointed one" who dies for some "secret" reason that isn't immediately apparent to the "world rulers." That Josephus a Jewish general matter of factly reported on a stupid interpretation of prophetic writings seems absurd in itself i.e. that he just "let slip through" an implausible belief about a messiah who gets sand kicked in his face in order to die for some secret purpose. The historical Josephus would have laughed or worse been very upset with this formulation.

As I see it there are only one of two possibilities:

1. the references to Jesus were added later and "the Christ" could have been associated with Jesus by an interpolator who presumably was a Christian

or

2. Josephus wrote the reference and he witnessed contemporary beliefs regarding Jesus as the "Chrestos" a title he didn't understand and let pass because he wasn't interested in what Christians had to say about Jesus.

Josephus would have taken issue with the Christian notion of "all the prophecies" leading to a loser.

Thank you! This is great. I agree with all of this, except for some parts I don't necessarily disagree with but need to consider more. Among the things that I definitely agree with:

1. an "anointed one" would have struck the ears of Greeks as unusual and would have required some sort of explanation.
2. a "Chrestos" would be a more familiar title and would not have required explanation.
3. Josephus does not explain the terminology to his audience (as best as I can recall).
4. Josephus would not have used nomina sacra, this came from the scribal convention of Christian monks.
5. Josephus might have abbreviated words in the convention of his time. It seems unlikely that "Chrestos" was common enough an epithet to be abbreviated.

Thank you for saying this explicitly. I'm thinking this too.

8. if the references to Jesus are secondary, i.e. written by someone other than Josephus, searching for "Josephus's intent" is a waste of time as the forger would only be imitating "reasonable intent" on the part of Josephus.
9. if the forger believed that Jesus was the Christ one could imagine having "Josephus" witness Jesus as the Christ, it would undoubtedly have been abbreviated in the manner of Christian manuscripts and it would have little relevance to a discussion of what first century Christians believed.

True. Good point.

6. the earliest Christian gospel does not explain who Jesus is, what his mission is or why he is the Christ.
7. Justin and the Marcionites see concealment as critical for the success of his mission (i.e. his need for "disguise" concealing he is the "man of war" with a meek appearance to secure crucifixion and descent into the underworld to liberate the souls who died without the Law). If Josephus is a Jewish general and the Josephan corpus a development of something written by him, he would not have been interested in concealing the identity of Jesus.

Also good points. I need to consider this further.

That Josephus a Jewish general matter of factly reported on a stupid interpretation of prophetic writings seems absurd in itself i.e. that he just "let slip through" an implausible belief about a messiah who gets sand kicked in his face in order to die for some secret purpose. The historical Josephus would have laughed or worse been very upset with this formulation.

Yes, and this is one of the strongest arguments for interpolation for any reference to Christos with respect to Jesus.

As I see it there are only one of two possibilities:

1. the references to Jesus were added later and "the Christ" could have been associated with Jesus by an interpolator who presumably was a Christian

or

2. Josephus wrote the reference and he witnessed contemporary beliefs regarding Jesus as the "Chrestos" a title he didn't understand and let pass because he wasn't interested in what Christians had to say about Jesus.

That's a bingo.

[Secret Alias]

Even a broken clock tells the time time correctly twice a day.

[Secret Alias]

I was going to write a post (because I hate my job) about how some posters here armed with a better knowledge of facts and scholarship never reveal their actual personal beliefs in the way Giuseppe and various others here do. Let's suppose that at least some of those who happen to defend "normative" positions are themselves believers that Jesus is the Christ. That's cool. My wife does. I know a lot of Christians. They're cool. My experience with Christians is such they take for granted that "everyone" (i.e. members of their clan) suppose that "the Bible" predicted this nice guy to appear who basically got run over by a truck to save humanity and this was "what the Old Testament" was all about. Josephus would have thought people who believed these people were mentally retarded and if they were Jewish in some way, possessed by irrational demons. He would have thought it IMPOSSIBLE to read the Bible in such a stupid way. In other words, he would have treated these posters the way they treat "moronic" posters at the forum.

[Secret Alias]

But my point is the same. The Christian "Christ" is a bonhomme. "Christ" is "Chrestos" and he isn't even anointed (really) in the gospel. Why do people persist in this nonsense? Why do they defend the idea that "the Scriptures" written by Jews somehow had a meaning that Jews would never have given them, i.e. the idea that God, through the Holy Spirit sent a message to the prophets including Moses that a "nice guy" was going to sit there and passively be "run over by a truck" to save humanity? Why do we have seriously consider something moronic? How did anyone ever read the Jewish scriptures and come to this idiotic interpretation? Josephus didn't pass over without comment a stupidity like this. Impossible. If it existed he would have said "these guys are stupid" or something to that effect.

[rgprice]

Ken Olson is correct. I'm not trying to argue for authenticity. In the OP, I'm trying to understand what we're arguing against. What's the most plausible interpretation of the data, if the passage were authentic? And, how does that change the discussion of the passage, given that a reading of Chrestos has generally not been considered?

My argument has long been that it originated as a marginal note.

Mine too.

passage uses nomina sacra because it was originally written with nomina sacra

Is that a general rule of evidence, for you, or are you applying it to passages in Josephus, in particular?

If it's a general rule: why? If it's for the Antiquities in particular (and other particular cases): also, why?

I'm aware of the original question. But I don't really see it as very useful.

ΧΥ is a black box. Might what was originally under the box have been Chrestos? Maybe, but we'll never know.

I don't think this really changes anything, because even if we DO assume it was Chrestos the TF isn't plausible. It is not as if Chrestos is the only objection.

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Chrestos. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

I mean really? Does that make this more plausible? And what about the tribe of Christians? Did the scribes all change that too?

The other problem here is that the "surprising deeds" come from the Gospels and are ahistorical. All of the miracles ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels can be traced back to scriptural references, such as being based upon the story of Elijah and Elisha. In other words, those miracles aren't something that was passed on from "oral traditions" they are the invention of the first Gospel writer who was crafting his story from the scriptures. And the story he crafted was all based on the use of scriptures to show the Jews followed the actions of their ancestors in the lead up to the First Jewish Roman War resulting in the destruction of the Jews by the Romans following the pattern of the destruction of the Israelites by the Assyrians and Babylonians.

The story is patterned on Elijah and Elisha because the ministry of Elijah and Elisha was the prelude to the destruction of northern kingdom by the Assyrians, which was shortly followed by the destruction of the southern kingdom by the Babylonians.

In other words the idea of these miracles is entirely dependent upon the allegorical references the first Gospel writer was making to the First Jewish-Roman War, which means that such tales of miracles aren't something that would have dated to the period being discussed by Josephus, or likely even to the time of Josephus, SINCE teh evidence indicates that the writer of the first Gospel used the works of Josephus!

But ahh, you might say, then maybe the writer of the Gospel got this idea FROM Josephus!

But no, because the MIRACLES are the invention of the Gospel writer based on scriptural exegesis.

So now we must ask, why would Josephus mention this person if he weren't a miracle worker? What about his wisdom? But the "wisdom" of Jesus in the Gospels all comes from the Pauline letters, where the Jesus character is made to spout Pauline teachings. Thus this "wisdom Jesus" is again an invention of the Gospel writer.

So, why is Josephus, who knows nothing of the Gospel stories presumably, writing about this person to begin with? What cause does he have to mention him? Just because he was crucified? Thousands of people, Jews and non-Jews were crucified in the first century.

If the real Jesus wasn't a miracle worker and didn't actually rise from the dead, then why would anyone have paid attention to him? His teachings? If he had teachings then why doesn't Paul pass any of his teachings on? If he had teachings then why are all of the teachings attributed Jesus in the first Gospel sourced from the Pauline letters? If he had followers then why do all of the other Gospel writers copy fake details from the first Gospel?

There just is no real plausible explanation for why Josephus would have written anything about "Jesus the Chrestos". The ideas about Jesus Christ that we find in the Gospels are all fictional inventions. And it is those fictional inventions that drive the anecdote in the TF. Strip those inventions away and you are left with nothing and no reason for Josephus to even mention this person.

[Peter Kirby]

I'm aware of some of the issues, although the above is one of the weakest presentations of them I've ever seen.

[rgprice]

I'm aware of some of the issues, although the above is one of the weakest presentations of them I've ever seen.

Well, it is just a forum post after all.

But, if those other issues aren't convincing, because maybe you (or whoever) thinks that maybe these claims about how the Gospels were written aren't valid, then here is the real clincher:

"for the prophets of God had foretold these things"

Now anyone has to understand that the idea that these thing were "foretold" MUST come from the Gospels! This is an orthodox claim.

This claim is driven by the relationships between the Gospel texts and the Jewish scriptures, which means you need the Gospel texts in hand before the idea can come about that this person's actions were foretold. In other words, the idea that the actions of Jesus were foretold is an explicit result of how the Gospels were written. Such an idea is not independent from the Gospels. And indeed, even many early Christians would have denied it. Even Marcion would have agreed about much in the TF, but he wouldn't have agreed with that, because that claim is an explicitly orthodox claim.

And that claim originates with the use of the Jewish scriptures to create the Gospel narratives.

So that statement, that "the prophets of God had foretold these things" is the dead give away that this is a late Christian addition. Now, I still contend that it was not a matter of "fraud", but rather the innocent incorporation of a marginal note. When you combine that statement with the use of the nomina sacrum, all signs point to Christian origin.

[Ken Olson]

The question about whether it's plausible to think that Josephus wrote chrestus rather than Christus in Ant 20.200 probably deserves further consideration, but my immediate reaction is that the reading chrestus is not significantly more plausible. This is largely because I think Josephus would have to have known that chrestus was a misnomer for Christus and that his Jewish readers (whom he talks about for the Jewish War and would presumably have had for the Antiquities as well) would probably know that too. So I don't think that the reading chrestos really avoids the difficulties of the reading Christos.

Some have argued that του λεγομενου Χριστου in Ant. 20.200 means 'the so-called' or 'alleged" Christ and that Josephus is deliberately casting doubt on the claims of Jesus' followers that he was the Christ, but he does not use the word λεγομενος elsewhere (there is sometimes claimed to be a possible exception in Contra Apionem, but it does not stand up to scrutiny) and in Josephus and Greek in general it just means 'called' or 'has the name" and that is admitted by most scholarly proponents of authenticity. So there is a problem there because Jesus was definitely not called Christ among non-Christian Jews. All the evidence we have suggests that Jews objected strenuously to Jesus being called Christ, and even that there were in some cases punishments for Jews who did.

Defenders of the authenticity of the received reading have suggested that Josephus did not mean Jesus was called Christ among Jews, but was addressing his Greco-Roman readers and saying, in effect, "Jesus, the one you have heard of as Christus'. This presumes both that his Greco-Roman readers would have known who the one called Christ was (the only further explanation the Antiquities offers is in the Testimonium), and that Josephus laid aside his Jewish sensibilities and those of his Jewish readers. The former proposition is sometimes defended on the theory that Josephus was a sell out to the Romans, as evidenced by his recognition of Vespasian as the Messiah. I find this reading of Josephus extremely superficial. His works are a defense of Jews and Judaism throughout and he does not apply the word Messiah to Vespasian. What he says is:

But what more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle, likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. The oracle, however, in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian, who was proclaimed Emperor on Jewish soil. (Jewish War 6.5.4)

Josephus says that an event that actually happened - Vespasian becoming ruler - was foretold in scripture, but he doesn't identify the specific scripture.

So I think there are difficulties with the notion that Josephus simply meant 'the one called Christ by you Gentiles' in Ant. 20.200.

Is the reading 'the one called Chrestus' (by you Gentiles) significantly more plausible? I don't think so because, as I said, Josephus would have known that chrestus was just a misnomer for Christus..

Tacitus, writing twenty years or so later, seems to have known this. I take Tacitus Annales 15.44 to be authentic and to have read:

ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat;

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, (Text and translation from Wikipedia: Tacitus on Jesus)

The point I want to draw attention to is that Tacitus says the group was called Chrestians (with an e) by the populace (or 'the crowd") but the person from whom the name originated was Christus (with an i). He is implicitly correcting the crowd - a group of followers or partisans of someone named Christus should be Christiani, not Chrestiani. The crowd got it wrong.

That Chrestianos and Christus are the words in the manuscript is established in this thread (pay particular attention to Kunigunde Kreuzerin's posts):

viewtopic.php?p=141049#p141049

I think we have to assume that Josephus, who was resident in Judea, was better informed about events in Judea than Tacitus was. If he knew that the man put to death by the High Priest Ananus in Ant 20.200 was the brother of Jesus called Chrestos, it seems he would have to have known that the Christians were claiming Jesus was the Christ foretold in the Jewish scriptures.

I suppose one could argue that he did know, but decided to pretend he did not. He suppressed his Jewish sensibilities and disregarded those of his Jewish readers - or he thought they would grasp the subterfuge, or would not be offended because he wrote chrestos instead of Christos even though they probably understood the origin of the word. That is a possibility, but I don't find it a very satisfying one.

Best,

Ken