Historians and their problems...

-->
-->

Titus Flavius Josephus’ official dates are ca 37 – after 100 CE.   Josephus claims to have been a commander in the Jewish war, ca 66 CE.  This means he would have been around 30 at the time the war began, and he would have defected around that age.  Josephus accurately interpreted a dream of Vespasian’s to predict that Vespasian would become Emperor.  When the prophecy came true, and Vespasian became Emperor, he rewarded Josephus, freeing him from his imprisonment and eventually adopting him into his family, the Flavians.  Josephus thus became Flavius Josephus.   In 71, he went to Rome in the entourage of Titus, and became a Roman citizen.

In addition to Roman citizenship, he was granted accommodation in conquered Judea and a decent, if not extravagant, pension.  He married 4 times.  Of his surviving sons, one was born in 71, one was born in 73.  

These are the references that Josephus makes to Jesus:

the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James  (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 20, Ch 9, 1)

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,^[9] those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;^[10] as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

(Josephus, Antiquities, Book 18, Ch 3,3, the so-called Testamonium Flavium)

The second reference is inserted between a lengthy discussion of Pontius Pilate and difficulties with Judeans regarding religious images and water distrubuton, and a lengthy discussion of  “shameful practices” that occurred at the temple of Isis, most of which involved delicious court gossip about a Roman noblewoman named Paulina.  Josephus is dedicated to letting Romans know how well connected he was  (as a presumptive heir of a Priestly family).  A five sentence paragraph about a local  teacher,  inserted between two demonstrations of social connectedness, does not make sense.

Other facts about Josephus:  we do not know when or where he died.  Modern scholars have claimed that he was a “law-observant Jew” however, since he acquired Roman citizenship, which means accepted Roman law and Roman cultic practice, it is impossible that he was “law-observant.”  

“Antiquities” was written much later that "The Jewish Wars."  There is no mention of Jesus or Christ at all in "The Jewish Wars."

Historians have "agreed" that Josephus' references to Jesus are "authentic."  Since we have noted that we have no extant text that dates back to the 2^nd century CE, "authenticity" is something of a moot issue.  We know Origen makes a reference to Josephus' writings.  We should not that Origen does not seem to have referred to Tacitus or Suetonius, who also are claimed to have "authentic" references to Jesus.  Scholars claim that the references do not "seem" consistent with non-Christian writings, and do not seem consistent with interpolations that would be expected of a believer.  So, they contend, that means the interpolations "must" be "authentic."

Except, of course, that Josephus had two surviving sons.  Those two sons had a father who had a reputation for knowing what was going on in Jerusalem at the time (even allowing for the fact that the time in question was before Josephus' birth, which was, we recall, in 37.  Maybe.)  It is probable that after the "gospel" documents came out, post bar Cochba, one or the other of Josephus' sons redacted his Antiquities to include references that made his old narrative consistent with "newly discovered" documents which were purportedly from that period.

 As with Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus mention of Jesus in their writings.  Except neither of them mention "Jesus."  Oddly enough, both of them mention "Chrestus/Christus."

Roman Emperor Claudius reigned 41 to 54 AD. Suetonius reports his dealings with the eastern Roman Empire, that is, with Greece and Macedonia, and with the Lycians, Rhodians, and Trojans. 

In Suetonius:

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit.  (Suetonius, Claudius, 25)

 

In Tacitus: 

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, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.  (Tacitus, Annals, 15.44) 

The beginning problems: Claudius succeeded Tacitus.  If both historians’ are writing from their information, then “Christus” was killed under Tiberius rule, and expelled from Rome under Claudius’.  Except, of course, that no narrative claims “Chrestos/Christus/Christ” went to Rome, or that he "instigated" Jews there.  In fact, according to all available narratives, “Christians” did not begin to make noise outside of Judea until after the Pauline mission, which supposedly dates after the crucifixion.

The other problems, which no historian seems to have noted.  Both Tacitus and Suetonius make the same error, calling Christ, “Chrestos.”  It does not make sense that two educated men, both connected intimately to Roman power, would make the same stupid mistake with a Greek word that was undoubtedly familiar to them (anointing was not such a big deal that the word would have been unknown to them), but would misdate the era of the person to whom it referred. 

Suetonius, an Emperor's secretary and a historian, dates "Chrestos" to Claudius, the emperor who succeeded Tiberius.  

Tacitus, a senator, governor and historian under the same emperor, dates "Chrestos" to Tiberius.  

That makes no sense. 

The only way it makes sense is that both Tacitus and Suetonius were writing at the time of the bar Cochba revolt, when the "gospel" narratives came out.  Neither Tacitus nor Suetonius would want to look like they did not know what was going on under Roman rule in the face of new books put out by people who claimed to have previously unknown information about events in Roman Judea.