ABOUT JOSEPHUS' MENTION OF "JESUS" 06-20-98
(and other NT characters)

The purpose of demonstrating that Josephus did indeed write "Jesus" into his
histories (or his histories around the Jesus character), is to show the deception
in the proper context. Josephus created "Jesus" and needed to insert him into
'history' to make his 'story' more believable. The facts that will be shown here
will bear this out. In addition to the proofs shown here, there is also further
proof in the form of correlation's in the works of Josephus that correspond to
the NT texts, themes/subjects, and characters.

The references that will be given are keyed to Whiston's English translation of
Josephus, for the reason that it is one of the most widely available and most
easily accessible. It can even be found on-line. However, the research of the
works of Josephus was not limited at all to Whiston's work, but come from
direct readings of the earliest available copies of text in the Greek language.
Note that the Whiston references are given in two ways; (1) by the actual page
number, and (2) by the exact place in the text by giving 'book', 'chapter', and
'verse' numbers.

Now, some say that "Jesus, the Christ" was a later interpolation or addition to the
texts of Josephus. I wholly disagree and doubt this seriously for the following
reasons. (1) He makes this mention in his other works as well (examples will be
shown later in this text). (2) He DID have reason to write a mention or two of
"Jesus" for the purpose of 'historicizing' him (as he, Josephus, created HIM).
(3) Granted there may have been a copy or two without the "Jesus" reference
in it; it is much easier to 'remove' the mention, than it would have been to 'add'
it. There could be any number of reasons why there might be a copy that exists
without the reference... perhaps a 'Jewish' one, a work copy (copy to 'work'
from), etc. Or such a copy could have been deliberately made for the Kimchi*
logists to see and draw 'logical' conclusions from (i.e. deliberately made by the
church or ally of the church to lead suspicion away from Josephus because of
his mention of "Jesus"). (4) It is not only "Jesus" that is historicized, but other
fictional characters as well, such as "John the Baptist" and "James, the brother
of Jesus" (or was that just to make another mention of "Jesus"?). That ALL of
these characters and mentions were added, is extremely doubtful. As a matter
of fact, after considering all that is going to be shown here, one would have to
reach the conclusion that the entire work of Josephus would have had to have
been re-written in order to pull off the addition of the mention of "Jesus".
(See pg. 382, for "John the Baptist" and pg. 423 for "James, the bro. of Jesus.")

(1) That Josephus wrote such a massive work and that this work was in fact
carefully written and so very detailed, indicates that Josephus DID have much
to say and that he really DID want to 'say' it... to the point that he must have
thought it to be of great importance. (2) That he deliberately writes things in
ways to mislead and wrote things (items) that would mislead and deceive,
indicates that we cannot believe or take his work at face value; but rather that
we must use it very carefully as a guide to the truth as it does contain truth, in
a 'disguised' form.

So, knowing this, where does this leave us? It leaves us in the position of being
obligated to view his writings with a much more critical eye. It forces us to WORK
to find meanings that might otherwise go unnoticed.

In the time in which the NT and the works of Josephus were written, it was much
like the entire known world were being run by the mob; with very little or no hope
of direct truth in anything that was written... for all of it had ulterior motives behind
them, and the idea of all men being equal and free, as well as the concept of free
speech was still a very far-off goal for humanity. For an idea of this, see the actions
of King Herod upon his impending death... he acted like the 'Don' of the Mob.
(See pg. 365, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVII, Chapter VI, 5.)

Here now we will show the several mentions that would have had to have been
added throughout the texts.

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, as wise man..." "He was (the) Christ..."
"and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
(See pg. 379, Antiq. of the Jews, Book XVIII, Ch. III, 3)

The mention of "John the Baptist" on page 382 (Ant. B. XVIII, Ch. V, 2).
And, this indirect mention of "Christ" by speaking of his 'brother'...
"and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,"
(pg. 423, Ant. B. XX, Ch. IX, 1)

There are also those places where he, Josephus, makes it so easy for those
who are not scholars (which in his day, was the entire public excepting for
aristocrats and royalty), and those who think themselves to be, to think that
he could possibly be referring to "Jesus" when he says things like "a certain
Galilean." (pg. 481, Wars of the Jews, B. II, Ch. XII, 3) and also...

"...in order to avenge themselves upon one Galilean only." (pg. 482, Wars of
the Jews, B. II, Ch. XII, 5). Note that in both instances, "the Galilean" being
spoken of is "Judas of Galilee."

He, Josephus, speaks of others named "Jesus," mostly those known to us as
High Priest ancestors of Josephus himself. This being the case, makes a great
statement to those who know what is being said here. (See other info on the
ancient royal practice of inheriting names and titles from ancestors) We call
this "inherited name/titles." By which, royals and aristocrats could legally
use 'alias' names to write under and other names to use invent characters with.

An example of the legal use of inherited name/titles and how when decreed by
the Senate, such names and titles could be used even by the person's posterity,
see the footnote on Claudius' (Drusus' son) use of the name "Germanicus", on
page 406, Whiston (at the bottom of the page). Also refer to Suetonius, which is
what the footnote refers to.

Yes, even though speaking of others named "Jesus," he is well aware of the
opportunities that this affords him (Josephus) as the writer. And he made the
most of this by making this powerful statement; "Thus spake Jesus"... even
though, this was another "Jesus" who was being spoken of! (pg. 532, W. of the
Jews, B. IV, Ch. IV, 4).

As we had said, he makes other references in other places that point to him as
deliberately writing "Jesus" into his works for a specific purpose. He makes
joking statements here and there, and he also makes 'disclaimers' subtly
throughout his works. In "Against Apion" he subtly refers to himself as an
'actor'. Though some may say that OUR readings are taken out of context, I beg
to differ in consideration of the rest of the evidence. IF we were just relying upon
those things that would otherwise appear to have been taken by us as "out of
context," there might be a case. However, we have only sought to see more of
what Josephus himself was deliberately inserting HIMSELF in other contexts.
Which, is an entirely different thing. As we were saying, about "Josephus, the
Actor," he writes, "I wrote it as having been an actor myself." And because he
was! (Against Apion, pg. 610)

In "Against Apion," Josephus uses a name nowhere else ever seen, and not
repeated except for its one-time usage; "Cresus." Which, is a combination of
"Christ" and "Jesus." It could be a deliberate misspelling (as he is famous for
doing), of an ancient Greek King, which, I think he also deliberately hints at.
(pg. 628, Against Apion, B. II, 12). Note that with this spelling only a "t" inserted
rightly would produce "Crestus." Also see Suetonius' mention of "Chrestus,"
and our info on their ancestor "Mitheridates Chrestas."**

He uses phrases associated with Jesus throughout his works. "...the light of the
world." (pg. 637, an Excerpt from Josephus' Discourse... concerning Hades).
Herein, he also speaks of "Christ." Example: "... in order to fulfill the will of his
father, shall come as judge, whom we call Christ." (pg. 638, Whiston).

As if this were not enough to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Josephus
did indeed originally make mention of "Jesus" and even that he had done so
for specific purpose, there is still the citations in the Appendix of Whiston's
Josephus (pg. 639). In this section, we have the writer Origen circa 230 CE
specifically stating that Josephus wrote what he did originally about "Jesus,
who was called Christ." And again, also in "Contra Celsus, about 250 CE,
Josephus is mentioned by name as having mentioned all of those who we have
related (John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and "Jesus, who was
called Christ"). Eusebius, circa 324 CE also confirms this. And on and on, up
through history till about 1480 CE.

For more information on the background of Josephus, see the article titled
"Josephus' Deliberate Deception" which is the other half of this article.
For reference regarding the Greek texts, see the Loeb Classical Library
volumes. These are very expensive and may not be purchased by most
persons in their entirety, and may only be available by finding such as local
college libraries or other large scholarly institutions. Again, these are the
best references for Josephus as they also show the misspellings that were
originally in place and were reconstructed with the aid of many fragments
of still extant ancient papyri texts and other archaeological finds.

*Kimchi logists: for more on these see Medieval Jewish Scholars and Rabbis.
We will have more information on Kimchi available at a later date.

**Mitheridates Chrestas. We will show relationship to this person in later
stemma charts and genealogies. Mitheridates Chrestas as ancestor of Nero
was shown previously on our website and may be found by even amateur
genealogists with some effort and good resources.

-----------

Copyright 1999, 2000, The Roman Piso Homepage. All Rights Reserved.

( =)=

(tm)