Josephus and Jesus

 

In the discussion of the historicity of Jesus, the examination of works written by non-Christian authors is very important. They have an impartiality that Christian sources cannot claim. For that reason, they are carefully examined to see if there is any information contained in them about whether there was a real Jesus and who he was. Among the most mentioned and most controversial sources is Josephus. Many point to him as showing proof that Jesus existed, and providing concrete information about him. But there is much controversy regarding what Josephus may have said, if anything at all.

 

In this paper I would like to discuss four issues:

 

  1. Based on historical documents, was the passage called the Testimonium Flavianum or the passage mentioning James written by Josephus?
  2. Is the Testimonium Flavianum original with Josephus?
  3. What form might the original have taken?
  4. What about the James passage which mentions ‘Christ’?

 

The first part deals with the history of the passage called the Testimonium Flavianum, and the passage about James ‘the brother of Jesus’ and their appearance/non-appearance in apologetic works; in the second section I discuss the parts of TF that have been rejected and look to see what could be left and considered ‘original’. Scholarly consensus is that at least some part of the Testimonium was from Josephus. I believe that the facts show it is doubtful that he wrote it and if he did write anything about Jesus in that passage, it would be impossible to know what he had to say. The most we could say was that he knew of someone named Jesus. In the third part I look at various reconstructions of TF that have been proposed and give one of my own. The fourth part deals with a short sentence about a man named James, which mentions Jesus as Christ, who is said to be James’ brother.

 

Part 1: Was the Testimonium and the James passage written by Josephus?

 

The most serious problem for these passages is that before the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea in the 4th century, the passages were unknown in the Early Christian Fathers. This is the case even when Josephus is mentioned in these writings in other contexts, and even in apologetic works where we could expect that the author would have used it to strengthen his arguments.

 

While arguments from silence are by their nature very weak that is not always the case. For example in a case where it is unimaginable that an author would leave out an event or person that was so important we would expect to find it. Similarly, in apologetic works, where such a source could be used to strengthen an argument it would be unexpected if it is ignored.

 

There were two significant Christian apologists before the 4th century who wrote works aimed at Jews and conspicuous in its absence is any quote from this Josephus passage to support their argument.

 

The first one is Justin Martyr (100 – 165) who wrote one of the first Christian apologetic works aimed at Jews: The Dialogue with Trypho. Here Justin is trying to convince the Jew, Trypho that Jesus is the Messiah. In another of his apologetic works, Justin mentions Josephus with regards to Moses, but in neither this dialogue with Trypho, nor any of his other Apologetic works is this passage mentioned nor does he give any indication that he was aware that Josephus knew of Jesus. While Justin’s arguments with Trypho are either philosophical or from Biblical texts, it is hard to imagine him not using Josephus to counter Jewish claims, as in other places he has used him.

 

What makes this significant is that this is true even though there were places where we would think he would mention this passage, as it would lend support to his arguments. For example in Chapter 69 he says, in regards to Jewish disbelief:

 

And having raised the dead, and causing them to live, by His deeds He compelled the men who lived at that time to recognize Him. But though they saw such works, they asserted it was magical art. For they dared to call Him a magician, and a deceiver of the people.

 

 

Likewise in Chapter 108, Justin says the Jews refer to him as: “Jesus, a Galilean deceiver”.

If Justin had known of this passage it is possible he would have quoted it to counter this view and prove to Trypho that, at least for Josephus, it was a false accusation.

 

These two instances of Justin not quoting Josephus to counter claims that Jesus was a magician indicates that this passage about Jesus ascribed to Josephus was unknown to him and did not exist in his time. This is true even though Josephus’ work was known and used by him in other places. He does not mention James at all in his dialogue, so his not mentioning that passage in Josephus does not tell us anything.

 

Origen (184 – 254) likewise does not appear to know of this passage. In fact he states[1] (bold type added for emphasis):

 

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.

 

This would have been the perfect place for Origen to mention the Josephus passage about Jesus, since he has already mentioned Josephus and the 18th chapter. He mentions John the Baptist and also alludes to the death of James. But he does not mention any passage about Jesus. He apparently never knew it was there.

 

Some point to this passage as an indication that Josephus knew of James, and that probably he knew of the second passage (being discussed in the fourth part of this paper.) However, Origen claims that Josephus says that the destruction of the temple was as punishment for the killing of James. This does not appear in our copies of Josephus. We see this from a note by William Whiston in his translation[2]:

 

Yet may we discern in his very high character of Artanus the high priest, B. IV. ch. 5. sect. 2, who seems to have been the same who condemned St. James, bishop of Jerusalem, to be stoned, under Albinus the procurator, that when he wrote these books of the War, he was not so much as an Ebionite Christian; otherwise he would not have failed, according to his usual custom, to have reckoned this his barbarous murder as a just punishment upon him for that his cruelty to the chief, or rather only Christian bishop of the circumcision. Nor, had he been then a Christian, could he immediately have spoken so movingly of the causes of the destruction of Jerusalem, without one word of either the condemnation of James, or crucifixion of Christ, as he did when he was become a Christian afterward.

 

It seems there already was forgery involved with the works of Josephus in Origen’s time that included wording indicating that the murder of James was the cause of the destruction of the temple. This would indicate that posthumous editing of Josephus’ work was going on before Origen.

 

Even more, in the following passage from Book 1 Chapter 68 where Jesus is accused of being a Magician, the Josephus passage should have been quoted to answer that charge

 

But then he immediately compares them to the tricks of jugglers, who profess to do more wonderful things, and to the feats performed by those who have been taught by Egyptians, who in the middle of the market-place, in return for a few obols, will impart the knowledge of their most venerated arts, and will expel demons from men, and dispel diseases, and invoke the souls of heroes, and exhibit expensive banquets, and tables, and dishes, and dainties having no real existence, and who will put in motion, as if alive, what are not really living animals, but which have only the appearance of life. And he asks, "Since, then, these persons can perform such feats, shall we of necessity conclude that they are 'sons of God,' or must we admit that they are the proceedings of wicked men under the influence of an evil spirit?" You see that by these expressions he allows, as it were, the existence of magic.

 

The silence of Justin Martyr and Origen is a strong indication that this passage came into existence after their time but before that of Eusebius of Caesarea in the 4th century.[3]

 

One might think that it is impossible to imagine that Christians would actually forge a text to support their beliefs, but that actually is not the case. Here is what Origen says elsewhere[4]:

 

After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodeled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.

 

While Origen claims that only the heretics forge texts, it is not just the opponents of the Orthodox who were involved in forgery. It is well known and accepted, even by evangelical scholars[5] that the longer ending of Mark (Mark16:9-20) and the story of the prostitute in John (John 7:53-8:11) are ‘additions’ not in the original. That means forgeries in simple English. If one can ‘modify’ sacred text for theological purposes, then why not a secular text? In fact, Origen already refers to a passage of Josephus which does not agree with what we have.

 

The only logical conclusion is that the work of Josephus written at the end of the 1st century was lacking these passages until at least the late 3rd century or later.

 

Part 2: Testimonium Flavianum Examined

 

I will now ignore the negative judgment of this passage I came to in the first part and look at the passage and see if any of it could have been written by Josephus. This means we assume that Josephus knew that someone named Jesus lived at some time and wrote about him.

 

The problem then is whether Josephus was the author of the Testimonium[6].  Here is the way it appears in translation from the Greek[7]:

 

3. (63) Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. (64) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day.[8]

 

Because Origen, as we saw above, makes it clear Josephus was not a Christian it is generally agreed that some of what appears in the Greek version cannot be from Josephus. This is the view of scholars including evangelical ones like F. F. Bruce[9] and Darrell Bock[10]. The search for the original version starts by looking at the above text and seeing what appears out of place for someone who was not a Christian. In reconstructing what is called the ‘neutral version’ the text is looked at and the words in bold, that imply Josephus was a Christian, are considered suspect.

 

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day. [11]

 

The reason for removing these words is obvious. It is hard to see someone who called Jesus more then a man, or accepted the resurrection or called him Christ (Messiah) as not being a believer (Christian). For that reason these words are taken out of the Greek version and we have the following as the ‘neutral version’, ascribed to Klausner, of what Josephus said:

 

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

 

With regards to this ‘neutral’ version, Bock[12] is convinced that this neutral version contains the original wording of Josephus and states his reasons for it:

 

Finally, four expressions sound more like Josephus than a Christian author, namely (1) “a wise man” (2) “a doer of surprising works” (3) “receive the truth with pleasure” (probably with an ironic, negative force as is often the sense in Greek), and (4) the designation of Christians with a probably derogatory reference to them as a ‘tribe.”

 

Contrary to Bock, I see nothing non-Christian in the language, and in fact, they may be Christian expressions and one of them is clearly not Josephan. Let me discuss each of them in order:

 

Why would a Christian not use the term ‘wise man’? Bock,[13] in another place, quotes from a philosopher Mari Bar Sarapion, who he says was a contemporary of Josephus[14]. He refers to Jesus as a wise man comparing him to Socrates and Pythagoras. He clearly had no first hand knowledge of Jesus, so it would appear that it was common for Christians when talking to non-Christians to appeal to Jesus’ wisdom. (It should also be remembered that there is a famous ancient forgery of a letter between Paul and the famous Roman philosopher Seneca) I think the third phrase that Bock claims is from Josephus is a variation of this idea. Neither would seem to be outside of what a Christian would say.

 

As to the second phrase, “a doer of surprising works” I do not see why this is non-Christian. How does one explain the miracle working Jesus, to a non-Christian? Language like this would seem appropriate. For these three phrases, there is nothing particularly non-Christian about them, or anything that would make them have to be from Josephus. On the other hand, the Christian forger could have used such a language. The point here is that they are not uniquely Josephan.

 

I have serious problems as to his remarks about the last phrase; the use of the word tribe to refer to the Christians. First, in Josephus, this word is not a negative one at all. It has no negative nuance. It refers to people who are related to one another by family; either the highest level of ‘tribe’ or a sub group like a clan or family. That is in fact why I think Josephus did not write it. Based on context I think he would have used the word ‘sect’, or if he wanted to be derogatory the term ‘superstition’. I think this is a Christian locution. Therefore I have to say there is no reason to believe that any of this passage had to be written by Josephus.

 

Upon consideration, I find myself unsatisfied with the neutral version as it stands. I think that it accepts too much as being Josephan. I would suggest that the words “at the suggestion of the principal men among us” are also a Christian interpolation. I find it hard to believe that Josephus would say that Jews killed someone without giving a rational reason or some type of justification. It should be noted that Tacitus, who I will discuss in another article on non-Jewish non-Christian sources, assigns the death of Jesus to Pilate alone. On the other hand, this reading does fit quite well into the trend in the gospels and later Christian writings to place more and more blame on the Jews for the death of Jesus.[15]

 

There is a second phrase that is problematic: “And the tribe of Christians, so named from him”. This is a non-Jewish statement. I discussed the word ‘tribe’ above. In addition to that problem, the word Christ, as any Jew would know, is not a name, but a title. It is not ‘Christ’ but ‘a Christ’ or ‘the Christ’. However the author here seems to see Christ as a proper name, like Jesus. This leads me to assume the neutral version should be something like this:

 

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him and they are not extinct at this day.

 

As I pointed out above, even this version leaves nothing that a Christian could not have written. On the other hand, there is nothing in it that a Jew like Josephus could not have written. When given the choice of saying a passage was by two authors or only one, we opt for the single author and say the whole passage is of Christian origin.

 

However the problem noted in the first part of this paper still remains. This form of the TJ would still be strong enough that Justin and Origen could have used it to counter accusations that Jesus was a magician. As such, this construction does not help us out of the problems we saw in part one but is an improvement to the language in the Greek versions that we have.

 

Part 3: Testimonium Flavianum Reconstructed

 

After bringing the neutral version, Bruce[16] makes a comment that is very insightful:

 

This attempt to reconstruct what Josephus originally wrote amounts simply to the extrusion of those words which are felt to be Christian interpolations. But if in fact the original text was tampered with, it is possible that the tampering was not restricted to interpolation; it may have included the removal or modification of expressions felt to be offensive.

 

The importance of this comment cannot be exaggerated. While he uses it to introduce his ‘negative’ version which has phrases which he considers as possible additions, the bottom line is that we can have no idea what was really ‘original’ since the text has been tampered with. I showed above that any of the wordings could be Christian, and any of the additions that we see below (including mine) are purely speculative, and may exist only in our imagination.

 

In any case, Bruce[17] has proposed the following reading composed of various modifications and additions:

 

Now there was about this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man, who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews and many of the gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. And when Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him, is not extinct at even today.

 

Here Bruce has four emendations and he explains them as follows:

 

The first one, suggested by Robert Eisler, is the addition of the phrase ‘a source of further trouble’ in the first sentence. This links the paragraph more naturally to what has gone before, for Josephus has been narrating various troubles which arose during Pilate’s governorship. The second one, suggested by H. St. J. Thackeray, is the reading ‘strange things’ (Gk. aethe) instead of ‘true things’ (Gk. alethe). To Josephus, Christianity was certainly more a strange then true. The third one, suggested by G. C. Richards and R. J. H. Shutt, is the insertion of ‘so called’ before Christ. This brings the expression into line with Josephus’s language in his reference to James the Lord’s brother.  Some reference to our Lord’s designation ‘the Christ’  is required at this point; other wise Josephus’s readers might not understand how in fact the ‘tribe of Christians’ got its name from Jesus. The fourth is not an emendation in the same sense as the others. Josephus says that Jesus’s disciples ‘did not cease‘ and we need to ask ‘did not cease to do what?’ The answer will be in accordance with the context, and in the kind of context we envisage ‘did not cease to cause trouble’ makes good sense.

 

I would like to discuss Bruce’s reasoning here and use that to introduce my reconstruction. In my reconstruction I have taken into consideration some of the points that Bruce makes here, but not all. One significant difference between us is that Bruce starts his reconstruction from the Greek version, and not from the ‘neutral version’ reconstructed by Klausner. I start from a modified neutral version that I proposed above and then add things that I believe Josephus could have written and a Christian would have felt needed to be removed.

 

The first point I agree with and accept it as a possibility. It is included in my reconstruction.

 

The second one I partially agree to but I have a modification of the sentence so that it no longer appears.

 

The third one assumes a reading rejected in the ‘neutral’ construction. I see no need to add it back in. In fact by adding it he again makes a problem with Origen. Whether Josephus said, ’Christ’ or ‘so-called Christ’ either wording would contradict what Origen had said about Josephus’ disbelief.

 

Bruce seems to need this wording because of two things: 1. support for the James passage reading. 2. as an explanation of the name Christian.  The first reason I find a circular argument as I will explain in the next section. The second seems weak as the explanation is already there, it comes from his name. The source of the name Christian was a problem for non-Christians as we see from the Christian reference from Seutonius, who associates it with a person called Chrestus. In any case, since it is not part of the neutral version, clearly Klausner did not see a problem here, nor do I.

 

The fourth point is also valid, but I have a different wording that gives the same idea.

 

In my reconstruction I have added some derogatory statements made about Jesus, which certainly would have been expunged by a Christian editor. They are ones that were common at the time. Here is my reconstruction:

 

Now there was about this time a source of further trouble Jesus, whose father was a Roman guard who had made his mother pregnant. He was a doer of startling deeds through incantations and magic and other forbidden arts, and a teacher of foolish men. He gained a following among many ignorant Jews and gentiles. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross for his dangerous and false pretentions, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; they are not extinct at this day and continue to be a plague to Jews and Romans.

 

Here we can see my modified neutral view, which has been modified based on some of the points made by Bruce. There are two major changes, which are based on rumors about Jesus that were common by the end of the first century and the beginning of the second which Josephus ‘might’ have heard of. First, is the question of his birth and second, the view of him as a magician.

 

To summarize let’s look first at the Greek version and compare it to my reconstruction of the text:

 

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day.

 

 

Now there was about this time a source of further trouble Jesus, whose father was a Roman guard who had made his mother pregnant. He was a doer of startling deeds through incantations and magic and other forbidden arts, and a teacher of foolish men. He gained a following among many ignorant Jews and gentiles. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross for his dangerous and false pretentions, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; they are not extinct at this day and continue to be a plague to Jews and Romans.

 

If one had to make a claim as to what Josephus wrote, I believe that this last version is closer than the others. Because of the references to the negative traits Jesus is accused of, it might explain why Justin did not quote it. However, I am not sure with Origen. He quotes a passage claimed from Josephus about James, and does criticize it. I do not know why, if he had a passage such as this one, he would not do the same with this.

 

However, one point should be clear from this whole exercise, we have no idea if Josephus wrote anything here about Jesus or not and if he did what it could have been. It is fun to try to make a reconstruction, but we cannot seriously lay claim to having discovered anything that we can call ‘the original version’. As I pointed out in the previous section this passage is unknown before the 4th century and most likely that is because that is when it first was written by some Christian.

 

Part 4 Was the James passage written by Josephus?

 

In Book 20 Chapter 9 of Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews we read (emphasis mine):

 

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others…

 

We have numerous problems with this passage. The first problem is that it would appear from Origen, who does not know of the other passage, that there may have been a forgery of this passage in his time claiming the death of James as a cause of the destruction of the temple. Since it does not appear in the Josephus we have, it must reflect a tampered version that Origen had seen.

 

Next, the problem here is primarily about the words ‘who was called Christ’. In this passage there is no problem in saying the brother of Jesus. It could be a reference to the Jesus mentioned later in this section who became high priest after Ananus or someone else who we do not know. The problem with the ‘Christ’ reference can be seen when we read what Bock[18] wrote with regards to this passage:

 

Josephus’s use of “the brother of Jesus the one called Christ” to identify James is significant because it suggests a well-known figure who needs no further description. Josephus mentions him in such an indirect manner that it lacks the look of a later insertion. Christ’s bare mention here suggests that this figure has already been discussed by Josephus earlier. Thus the reference here looks back to the earlier fuller treatment of the Christ. It supports the claim that the earlier passage about Jesus is an authentic part of Josephus’s work.

 

The whole argument is circular. Bruce included the words ‘the so-called Christ’ in TJ to support this passage, and Bock supports the words here based on those words in TJ.

 

Also, if the earlier passage is a forgery, then the words ‘who was called Christ’ here are also, as they cannot be used to refer to something that does not exist. But, the other passage does not appear to be original because it does not appear before the 4th century.

 

Next, the neutral reconstruction which was to shed the passage of Christian additions doesn’t have the words used to support this passage. Bruce’s addition of it is basically to support this passage and not because it needs to be there at all. Bock is pointing to a wording that does not exist.

 

We might also add that Bruce, in the TJ passage I quoted above, opens the door to a possibility of not just additions of words but censoring of words. From Origen it appears that tampering had been going on with this passage. There may have been some words clarifying who this James was, which did not indicate Jesus. This would mean that the original was something like:

 

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, (censored description), whose name was James, and some others…

 

Or possibly:

 

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them James (censored description) and some others…

 

For these reasons the proper reading here should remove any reference to ‘Christ’ and possibly any reference to a person named Jesus.

 

To conclude, the Testimonium needs to be judged as a forgery, most likely a late addition from sometime in the late 3rd or early 4th century. There is a remote possibility that there may have been some original reference to Jesus, but as to what it might have been, there is no way to know, and we could only at best say that Josephus was aware of Jesus, but that we don’t know what he knew. Everything else is at best speculation. The second James passage needs to be changed to exclude the words referring to Christ.

 

© Moshe Shulman 2012 http://www.judaismsanswer.com

For more information, questions answered, or help with missionaries you can reach Moshe Shulman at outreach@judaismsanswer.com.


 

[1]  Origen Contra Celcum Book 1 chapter 47.

[2]  Josephus, War of the Jews tr. William Whiston, Book 2 Chapter 20 #5 note c.

[3]  It is possible that he was the forger, but that is not knowable.

[4]  Origen op cit chapter 27

[5]  For example: James R, White in The King James Only Controversy  pages 255-260, 262 and Darrell Bock and Daniel B. Wallace, Dethroning Jesus, chapter 1, pages 62-64, 70.

[6]  In the next section I will ignore the results of this section, and consider possible reconstructions.

[7]  There is a Slavonic version that appears in the Wars of the Jews, which is much longer then the text discussed here. However I know of no serious scholar, or non-scholar for that matter, who has claimed that it is original. Therefore I will ignore it. It can be found in the work of F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1974, chapter 3 page 42-51.

[8] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3, translation by William Whiston.

[9]  Bruce op cit pages 36 – 41

[10]  Darrell Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, Baker Academic, pages 55 - 57

[11]  This appears in Bruce op cit page 38 and is a version suggested by Joseph Klausner in his book Jesus of Nazareth (London 1929)

[12]  Bock op cit page 55.

[13]  Ibid page 53

[14]  Even were he not a contemporary of Josephus, that many early Christians were philosophically inclined is see from Justin Martyr, who came to Christianity from philosophy.

[15]  We see this trajectory as the Gospel of Peter in the second century has the Jews totally responsible and eventually Pilate is sainted by the Ethiopian Church in the 6th century,

[16]  Bruce op cit page 39.

[17]  Ibid.

[18]  Bock op cit page 54