To Andrew: Concerning Josephus

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Rafa,

"A voice from the east and a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and a voice against this whole people!"

Y'shua bar Khanan-Yah, as quoted by Josephus, War Against the Jews

"Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and at the ninth hour of the night so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house that it apeared to be bright day time, which lasted for half an hour."

Josephus, War Against the Jews

The Josephus as Netzari scenario is very complicated and I devote a lot of space in AENT in putting it together. I should say that when I began writing that essay my original intent was to ask the question rather than give the answer. When I started I had no official position either way. But as I delved into certain issues, I changed my mind.

I was looking in a section of "War Against the Jews", book 6.5.3-4. There Josephus told a story set in about the year 62 CE about a rabble rouser that the Whiston translation renders as "Jesus the son of Ananias, a plebean and a husbandman". Knowing of course of Josephus' mastery of Hebrew and Aramaic, I knew the real rendering was "Y'shua bar Khanan-Yah" for the name, and that means "Y'shua, son of our mercies-YHWH" literally, which I took as a code, "son of our mercies, FROM YHWH".

Now, at first I just thought this was just an oddity. Again the original story was set more than 30 years after the resurrection. But then I looked at the rest of that line, "a plebean and a husbandman". Interpreting those words, a "plebean" was a common man or non-aristocrat and a "husbandman" was a gardner, vine-dresser, etc. Putting all that together the full picture emerged as "Y'shua, son of our mercies (from) YHWH, a common man and branch-planter", and this led to NETZER (the branch), "I am the vine, you are the branches" and Nazareth itself.

Looking deeper into Josephus, I basically found his version of the Gospels very cleverly disguised as midrash about this other supposed Y'shua person, and in AENT I put that full "Gospel According to Josephus" together to show everything from his take on the Star of Bethlehem to the to the crucifixion of three men (one of whom survives) to the Ruach haKodesh coming at Pentecost. I also used proof from Josephus' own life that showed why this kind of "artistic license" was an intrinsic part of his personality, in that he had done this type of thing many times before, and why he would also try to hide some of his beliefs but couldn't avoid expressing them in some form. For example, Josephus himself avoids a suicide pact, leading many scholars to think that played a role in his telling of the Masada story. As I said, this is complicated.

I also noted the flattering portraits of James the Just and John the Baptist, whereas many in Josephus' Pharisaic ranks would have strongly begged to differ. Josephus called James' death evil and specifically said that Herod Antipas was vexed by the King of Arabia as punishment for killing John--why do these things as a regular Pharisee? He is trying to persuade through story and example, rather than through direct argumentation, was my answer. That way, if he got push back, he could go, "hey, just relating a story here...". He even scattered some of the details in other parts of his writings---like his personal biographical section, other parts of Antiquities and the Jewish War. But once I caught scent of what was going on, I knew Josephus well enough to know where to look for these clues, but it wasn't easy at all.

I also look at what the Testimonium really most likely said, and how even in "watered down" form it is still a powerful affirmation of faith. It is also my personal belief that when Josephus had become a Pharisee at age 19 he would have come in direct contact with Rav Shaul's preaching in Jerusalem, which may be the source of his secret faith, even as we know Nicodemus also was the same way.

Josephus is almost like two men, with lives that are both inside the Jewish and Roman worlds and outside them. His motivations were to try to please both sides and we know criticism from both sides hurt him deeply, given the lengths he goes to in order to justify himself. And he writes his histories in response to critics like Apion and nameless Jewish detractors while living in Rome for the last 30 years of his life.

As for if he had a leadership position, I would tend to say no, he did not. I think Josephus did not want to wear his faith on his sleeve, but I also think the Christian legend of him as "bishop of Jerusalem" had to have some basis in fact. While the official designation of bishop or "Nasi" was NOT true--we know who ruled the assembly in Jerusalem from James to the time of the Bar Kochba Revolt when the last Jewish leader stepped down--it may be that some Christians did know of Josephus as a believer and perhaps unofficial leader. Otherwise it seems odd that the main impetus to preserve his writings would come from people like Origen and Eusebius. I mean why do this if he didn't believe somewhat in what they did?

I know this is controversial, and I also know that I can't do justice to the full argument here, but the full discussion is in AENT.

[Dawid]

I will endeavor to offer an alternative view of Josephus, and these passages. I make no secret of the fact that I disagree with Akhnu Andrew on this issue.
My beginning point is one of skepticism. My thought is that extraordinary claims require exceptional evidence. Mr. Roth's points are interesting. Even fascinating, but I think they fall short of the phenomenal level that would be necessary to make such a radical claim as the idea that Josephus was a Netzari.

Shlama Akhi Rafa,

"A voice from the east and a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and a voice against this whole people!"

Y'shua bar Khanan-Yah, as quoted by Josephus, War Against the Jews

"Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and at the ninth hour of the night so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house that it apeared to be bright day time, which lasted for half an hour."

Josephus, War Against the Jews

The Josephus as Netzari scenario is very complicated and I devote a lot of space in AENT in putting it together. I should say that when I began writing that essay my original intent was to ask the question rather than give the answer. When I started I had no official position either way. But as I delved into certain issues, I changed my mind.

I was looking in a section of "War Against the Jews", book 6.5.3-4. There Josephus told a story set in about the year 62 CE about a rabble rouser that the Whiston translation renders as "Jesus the son of Ananias, a plebean and a husbandman". Knowing of course of Josephus' mastery of Hebrew and Aramaic, I knew the real rendering was "Y'shua bar Khanan-Yah" for the name, and that means "Y'shua, son of our mercies-YHWH" literally, which I took as a code, "son of our mercies, FROM YHWH".

Hypothetically, this is possible, However, khananyah was also a not-uncommon name in the first century. For example, the Qohen Gadol was name Khananyah. Acts 23:2. And Yeshua is such a common name you can't read a first century Aramaic text without bumping into it. For instance, we have two of them in a very small fragment in Mur 8 ar. (a list of names and rations from Wadi Murabba'at.)
So, while it is an interesting thought that this could mean "son of our mercies, from YHWH" we need more proof before coming to this conclusion. There is no reason I can see to suppose that this means anything but Jesus the son of Ananias.

Now, at first I just thought this was just an oddity. Again the original story was set more than 30 years after the resurrection. But then I looked at the rest of that line, "a plebean and a husbandman". Interpreting those words, a "plebean" was a common man or non-aristocrat and a "husbandman" was a gardner, vine-dresser, etc. Putting all that together the full picture emerged as "Y'shua, son of our mercies (from) YHWH, a common man and branch-planter", and this led to NETZER (the branch), "I am the vine, you are the branches" and Nazareth itself.

Again, this is an interesting thought, except that Galillean plebeians were known for being rebels, as well as prophets. Acts 5:37 is a fine example of this, telling the story of Judas of Galilee. Looking in the Mishnah and Talmud we may also see numerous accounts of such Galilean prophets and rebels. R. Jose the Galilean is the most prominent among these.
Again, it is hypothetically possible that this would mean "a common man and a branch-planter" this is not obvious. We might also note that there is a lot of interpolation that Akhnu Andrew is doing here. We don't know what kind of husbandman Josephus meant. He could have meant a farmer of any kind. So it is difficult to say that he means to refer to a vindresser, and even harder to say he meant to refer to the Netzer. A more likely understanding of this passage is that he is talking about a common man, a farmer, a Galilean named Yeshua the son of Khananyah.

Looking deeper into Josephus, I basically found his version of the Gospels very cleverly disguised as midrash about this other supposed Y'shua person, and in AENT I put that full "Gospel According to Josephus" together to show everything from his take on the Star of Bethlehem to the to the crucifixion of three men (one of whom survives) to the Ruach haKodesh coming at Pentecost. I also used proof from Josephus' own life that showed why this kind of "artistic license" was an intrinsic part of his personality, in that he had done this type of thing many times before, and why he would also try to hide some of his beliefs but couldn't avoid expressing them in some form. For example, Josephus himself avoids a suicide pact, leading many scholars to think that played a role in his telling of the Masada story. As I said, this is complicated.

The story of the men on the crosses is not remarkable. Especially Mr. Roth's appeal to "gave up his spirit" is strained, since this is a Semitic idiom for death that we see used from Genesis to Revelation and in many other Semitic texts. Jacob is described as dying this way, for instance, in Genesis 49:33.
Executions on crosses were also common, and so not remarkable, being mentioned as prominent in the New Testament, Josephus, and the Apocrypha. And that not to mention all of the Roman literature that mentions it.
Every one of these events has a natural explanation. They are, as I have said, interesting thoughts, but without a particular reason to accept them as exceptional, it is difficult to stomach.

I also noted the flattering portraits of James the Just and John the Baptist, whereas many in Josephus' Pharisaic ranks would have strongly begged to differ. Josephus called James' death evil and specifically said that Herod Antipas was vexed by the King of Arabia as punishment for killing John--why do these things as a regular Pharisee? He is trying to persuade through story and example, rather than through direct argumentation, was my answer. That way, if he got push back, he could go, "hey, just relating a story here...". He even scattered some of the details in other parts of his writings---like his personal biographical section, other parts of Antiquities and the Jewish War. But once I caught scent of what was going on, I knew Josephus well enough to know where to look for these clues, but it wasn't easy at all.

Josephus was also a remarkably bad Pharisee, and is generally denounced as a Hellenist. Not to mention that he notes that most of the people disliked what was done to James.
Note also Josephus' exact words. "now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God." He is merely expressing a general opinion of the people. We know that even the religious leaders were not opposed to John. Else why did they all come down to him at the Jordan?

I also look at what the Testimonium really most likely said, and how even in "watered down" form it is still a powerful affirmation of faith. It is also my personal belief that when Josephus had become a Pharisee at age 19 he would have come in direct contact with Rav Shaul's preaching in Jerusalem, which may be the source of his secret faith, even as we know Nicodemus also was the same way.

We have good reason to believe that his statement was actually somewhat weaker than what appears in his writings in their current form. Scholars agree, and not without reason, that his statements that "Jesus, called the Christ" were late interpolations, not authentic statements of Flavius Josephus.

Josephus is almost like two men, with lives that are both inside the Jewish and Roman worlds and outside them. His motivations were to try to please both sides and we know criticism from both sides hurt him deeply, given the lengths he goes to in order to justify himself. And he writes his histories in response to critics like Apion and nameless Jewish detractors while living in Rome for the last 30 years of his life.

As for if he had a leadership position, I would tend to say no, he did not. I think Josephus did not want to wear his faith on his sleeve, but I also think the Christian legend of him as "bishop of Jerusalem" had to have some basis in fact. While the official designation of bishop or "Nasi" was NOT true--we know who ruled the assembly in Jerusalem from James to the time of the Bar Kochba Revolt when the last Jewish leader stepped down--it may be that some Christians did know of Josephus as a believer and perhaps unofficial leader. Otherwise it seems odd that the main impetus to preserve his writings would come from people like Origen and Eusebius. I mean why do this if he didn't believe somewhat in what they did?

Because it was a good history, which the early Christians were extremely interested in. They also seem to have altered it somewhat to fit their means, inserting statements about Yeshua being Messiah, and about the resurrection. This would automatically give them a vested interest in this book.

I know this is controversial, and I also know that I can't do justice to the full argument here, but the full discussion is in AENT.

When I began reading the article in the AENT, I was open to the idea that Josephus might have been a Netzari. Given enough evidence I could have easily swayed either way. After reading this article, though, I became convinced that, if this is the best evidence that exists for Josephus being a Netzari, it is not possible that it is true.

[Dawid]

I believe you Andrew. I mean, Josephus knew Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic perfectly. In a society where something like ninety percent of the population was illiterate that makes him a genius, so its perfectly feasible that he "coded" his beliefs in his writings (using his mastery Hebrew) for future generations to discover. That description of the bright light, that is no "sword"...that's a cross! I know Josephus wasn't the Bishop (Nasi) of Jerusalem obviously, I was thinking maybe that he hinted that he was an informal leader like you said. Thanks for communicating this research here to me, very interesting. Should I look in the "Antiquities" for most of the clues?

If it was a cross, why didn't Josephus say so? With the number of executions by cross that were done in those days it would have been no kind of give-away. Not to mention that Roman swords did not have the dramatic hilts of later Medieval swords, and so a Roman sword would not resemble a cross very much at all. This calls to mind more the "Messiah" Bar-Kochba than Rabbeynu Yeshua HaMashicah.
He could have coded his works. True. But I thought that Netzarim weren't supposed to disguise our beliefs.
Knowing multiple languages didn't make him a genius. It made him a member of the privileged elite, and what's more it made him looked down upon among his people, who despised Greek learning. He had opportunity to learn Greek, not a special ability.

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

Yes, you made no secret of your disagreement with me some months back. I was only anwering Raphael's question. I was explaining my reasons, not trying to convince you.