05-10-2009, 11:42 PM
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.
"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.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Andrew Gabriel Roth