Jayrok

In Wars of the Jews, Book VI, Chapter V, para III, Josephus writes about Jesus, the son of Ananus. Jesus, a few years prior to the Jewish/Roman war, was in Jerusalem when the city was in a time of peace. During the time of the feasts this Jesus began wailing woes unto Jerusalem and its people.

From source:

He is turned over to the Procurator and flogged until his bones were laid bare. All the while Jesus remained silent and didn't make supplication for himself or shed any tears. This part of the story sounds eerily familiar by the way!

I'm wondering about the parallels between this Jesus and the gospel Jesus. I mean the parallel from Josephus' point of view.

Of Jesus of Nazareth, Josephus mentions a few lines. Even calls him the "Christ". Of course many believe this is an interpolation of a later writer. But suppose that it is genuine...

Jesus son of God -- He utters woes to Jerusalem and predicts the city's destruction as recorded in the gospels. He speaks to his followers to be on the look out for the "abomination that causes desolation". He speaks of the world coming to an end and the kingdom of God being ushered in, etc.

Jesus son of Ananus -- He utters woes to Jerusalem, etc. Gets scoured and dismissed as a madman.

Josephus spends 125 words on Jesus the messiah in between paragraphs where it doesn't seem to fit well. He spends approx 532 words on Jesus son of Ananus.

Josephus talked about false prophets in Wars. Whether he thought Jesus was the Christ or not, he wrote about his wonderful deeds and being the prophecied Messiah. But it is only a small blurb in one paragraph.

He pens much more about the other Jesus: the madman. Assuming both Jesus son of Ananus and Jesus the Christ existed, would it seem odd that Josephus would write more about the madman than the Christ?

He writes about what happened to the madman Jesus when he was sent to be flogged. He writes in detail how he didn't utter a word or shed a tear. Jesus Christ also went before the Procurator (or Prefect) and was scourged. A crown of thorns was placed on his head and he was mocked by the Romans and spit upon by all the on-lookers. Then crucified. But Josephus doesn't write any details about this. He writes about the other Jesus because it fit in with what led up to the Jewish/Roman war and the destruction of Jerusalem.

But Jesus Christ also talked about the destruction of Jerusalem. As such, wouldn't his story also fit in well with Josephus' agenda for Wars of the Jews?

If Jesus Christ existed, would Josephus not have written more about him in his research about Jewish history? Instead, he writes about another man named Jesus who was deemed a madman for talking about Jerusalem's fate.

Why would he pick this madman's story over the promised Messiah's story if they both would have served basically the same purpose for this portion of his writing project?

Toto

Ted Weedon has written extensively about this parallel. Check this thread: LINK

Jayrok

Thank you for that, Toto. That is the first discussion I've heard about this issue. I think Weedon's thesis has merit and Jesus ben Ananus may have at least been a point of reference for Mark.

However, seeing that the parallels are there and have been discussed before, my question goes beyond just the parallels of the two men named Jesus.

Josephus used Jesus ben Ananus to illustrate a man, some called a madman-some may have called a prophet (after Jerusalem was ransacked). While Jesus the Christ purportedly did basically the same 40 years earlier. But this Jesus went beyond just lamenting for Jerusalem. This Jesus performed many miracles, raised the dead, etc. Josephus even called him the Christ and said he raised from the dead. That is, of course if the TF is genuine.

In Wars, when Josephus inserted a source (JbA) to predict the destruction, he used JbA, an otherwise common man who might have ended up saying "I told you so!" after the war.

Why wouldn't he use Jesus the Christ as a person predicting, successfully, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple?

My point is that, in my opinion, if Jesus the Christ did exist and was who he said he was, Josephus would have talked about him in more than just one small paragraph in TF. Such an important figure would have been referred to elsewhere, particularly in Wars where Josephus describes the Romans destroying the Temple.

Could it be that since Josephus used a common man instead of the "Christ" here that the Christ really didn't exist? Also, could this same scenario lend more support to the idea that the TF was a forgery?

aa5874

I actually think the authors of the Gospels used the works of Josephus with the Septuagint to fabricate Jesus Christ.

The works of Josephus contain the core of the Jesus story:

• John the Baptist, Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2.
• Jesus, the son of Ananus, Wars of the Jews 6.5.3.
• The crucifixion of three, and one survived, The Life of Josephus 75.

Jayrok

If, during Wars of the Jews, Josephus would have written about Jesus (Christ) and how he predicted the destruction of the Temple during his ministry in the Temple back in circa AD 30, would it not have been difficult to question the historicity of Christ?

Instead he uses Jesus ben Ananus who cried woes on Jerusalem and makes no mention of Jesus Christ's lamentation, trial and execution.

Toto

Or it is possible that if there were a historical Jesus who lived in the first part of the first century, he never prophesied the destruction of the Temple, and that this was added to his biography much later.

This leads to the same discussion about how close this historical Jesus has to be to the gospel Jesus to qualify as "the" historical Jesus.

andrewcriddle

Josephus' account of the prophecies Jesus the son of Ananus is a back story to his death at the critical point of the siege of Jerusalem. It occurs in a list of ominous things happening during the siege, and is making a point about the refusal of the Jews in Jerusalem to recognize the signs of coming doom occurring all around them .

I don't think a generation ago prophecy would have served the same function in Josephus' narrative.

Andrew Criddle

Minimalist

If, indeed, he even did that!

Jayrok

Could it not have lended any weight to his point of his narrative?

It seems if Josephus wrote about Jesus (JbA) predicting woes unto Jerusalem it would have jogged his memory of another Jesus (Christ) also stirring up the town with his rantings in the Temple and before Pilate. Jesus the Christ, as Josephus allegedly called him, serving as a precursor (one generation removed) to the very events JbA was ranting on about in Jerusalem. Specifically, the destruction of the very same Temple... if it happened that is.

Jayrok

I could see this being a part of the gospel creation. Paul's Christ movement was in swing leading up to AD 70.

Perhaps Paul has died and after the destruction of Jerusalem people began to wonder what it all means. The author of Mark steps up and pens his narrative using the OT and perhaps parts of Josephus. He writes his gospel to try and explain why the Temple was destroyed and Jerusalem was attacked.

Jesus son of Ananus is an historical figure written about by Josephus. A man who warned Jerusalem of the coming doom. Paul's Christ movement named Jesus as son of God. It doesn't seem a stretch to take some details from Josephus' work to fill in where the OT doesn't go into much detail. Mark had the suffering servant of Isaiah and could have added details of Jesus ben Ananus remaining silent during his "Striping/scourging" by the Romans.

The link of parallels that Toto linked above shows the comparison of the two Jesuses. Mark could have put a human face and biography to Jesus the Christ by using real life examples from people like Jesus ben Ananus. It's possible, maybe even likely.