Josephus on Jesus: Part 4
Conclusion
In just the limited space here, we have seen enough to conclude that the majority of modern scholarship sides with the authenticity of both the James passage and the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews - the James passage in its entirety and the Testimonium with the obvious Christian interpolations removed. Those who advocate for either of the other two options concerning the Testimonium appear to be hamstrung by their horizons. Those who support the com-plete authenticity of the Testimonium appear to do so because they want it to be true in its present form. Likewise, opponents of its authenticity do not want it to be true in its entirety. Why do I say that? There are two things quite telling to me that lead me to that conclusion.
For one thing, I noticed the difference in presentation between at least several of the mythicists and the others. In an attempt to buttress his claim that the entire Testimonium is a forgery, Doherty tells us “a good imitator of Josephus might be expected to avoid making it sound as though the passage is based on the Gospels.”[36] He reaches so far as to claim that some mysterious Christian interpolator studied Josephus’ writing style to the point that he was able to very nearly forge a passage with all the earmarks of authenticity. Wells cannot hold back his disdain for proponents of authenticity when he attacks their arguments by saying “that this kind of reasoning can be offered in all seriousness shows to what straits apologists can be reduced”[37] and “it is beginning to be clear that some apologists are so anxious to establish the authenticity of the [Testimonium] that they are prepared to resort to the flimsiest of arguments.”[38] But absolute contempt for the historicity of Christ comes to us from David Fitzgerald. He calls the Testimonium “blatantly counterfeit” and “entirely fraudulent.” [39] By the time he reaches his conclusion on the Josephan passages, he is practically spitting the words: “It is sobering to realize that in all of recorded history, for the first century the closest we have to historical support for the Gospel’s picture of Christ are an outright forgery, and a single disputed line that in all likelihood refers to someone else entirely” (meaning the James passage).[40] And finally, referring to Christian claims about Jesus, he says, “If true, the events of Jesus’ life really should have been what Christians have always exaggeratedly claimed they were.”[41]
Now, by comparison, look at what Bart Ehrman has to say. Ehrman jettisoned his theology long ago and claims he is looking at the historicity of Christ purely as a historian. He has no dog in this fight as it were. If we believe Habermas, Meier, Evans, et al. are biased toward authenticity and that Wells, Doherty and Fitzgerald are biased toward inauthenticity, then where does that leave Ehrman? Ehrman, to me at least, appears to occupy neutral ground between the two (if you believe the others occupy the “poles” of the argument). And he has been very clear that we have good reason to trust the authenticity of the Josephan passages. Of the mythicists Ehrman says, “Their agenda is religious, and they are complicit in religious ideology. They are not doing history; they are doing theology."[42]
While I cannot speak for him, Ehrman’s words lead me to believe he would agree with Van Voosrt’s assessment that “Josephus has given us in two passages something unique among all ancient non-Christian witnesses to Jesus: a carefully neutral, highly accurate and perhaps independent witness to Jesus, a wise man whom his persistent followers called ‘the Christ.’”[43]
[36] Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle, 207.
[37] Wells, The Jesus Myth, 208 emphasis mine.
[38] Ibid., 212, emphasis mine.
[39] David Fitzgerald, Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed at All (U.S.: Lulu.com, 2010), 52, 53.
[40] Ibid., 62, emphasis mine.
[41] Ibid., 64, emphasis mine.
[42] Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist, 338.
[43] Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 103-04.