Josephus.

Uzalwe e 37 AD kwintsapho yababingeleli, wakhulela eYerusalem, UJosephus watyelela okokuqala eRoma kwiminyaka yakhe yokuqala yama-20 njengommeli wamaYuda wezobupolitika; yaye xa imvukelo yamaYuda yaqalisayo ekuqaleni walwa nxamnye namaRoma. Kodwa, xa yathinjwa nguVespasian, UJosephus wavakalisa ukuba uVespasian wayemiselwe ukuzalisekisa isiprofeto samaYuda samandulo ngokuba nguMlawuli waseRoma.. Xa oku kwenzeka ngokwenene, UVespasian wanika uJosephus inkululeko yakhe waza kamva wamamkela, esongeza kuye igama lentsapho kaFlavius.

Wachaswa njengomngcatshi ngabantu bakhe, akazange aphumelele ukucenga abakhuseli beYerusalem ukuba banikezele; waza wazibonela ngokwakhe ukuwa kwayo. La mava, kunye nokufikelela kwakhe kwimithombo yamaYuda neyamaRoma kwakusisiseko semisebenzi yakhe emibini emikhulu. ‘Imfazwe yamaYuda’, ipapashwe malunga 78 AD, was a history of the revolt, and the ‘Jewish Antiquities’, a 20 volume history of the Jewish people, was published about 93 AD. Two other works by him also survive: ‘Against Apion’, a defence of Judaism against a Roman critic, and ‘The Life’, his autobiography, published in the early second century. It is not known exactly when he died.

Josephus’ work contains a number of references that provide corroboration for the historicity of the gospel records.

UYOHANE UMBUTHO

In Antiquities, 18.5.2, Josephus discusses the ministry of John the Baptist.

“Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, nobulungisa omnye komnye, nokuhlonela uThixo, baze ngokunjalo beze elubhaptizweni; ngenxa yoko ukuhlamba [enamanzi] iya kwamkeleka kuye, ukuba baye bayisebenzisa, kungekhona ngenjongo yokulahlwa [okanye uxolelo] kwezinye izono [kuphela], kodwa ngenxa yokuhlanjululwa komzimba; ecinga nokuba umphefumlo wenziwe nyulu ngenxa engaphambili, ngobulungisa. Ngoku nini [abaninzi] abanye beza kuye bebaninzi, ngokuba bekhwankqiswe kunene [okanye ndonwabile] ngokuva amazwi akhe, uHerode, owayesoyikela ukuba impembelelo enkulu awayenayo uYohane phezu kwabantu inokuyibeka egunyeni lakhe nakutyekelo lokuvelisa imvukelo., (kuba babebonakala bezimisele ukwenza nantoni na abeya kuyicebisa,) ndacinga ngcono, ngokumbulala, ukuthintela nabuphi na ububi anokubenza, kwaye angazingenisi ebunzimeni, ngokuyinqanda indoda enokumenza aguquke kuyo xa sele kusemva kwexesha. Ngako oko wathunyelwa ibanjwa, ngenxa yomsindo kaHerode, ukuya eMacherus, inqaba endikhe ndayikhankanya ngaphambili, wabulawa khona. Ngoku amaYuda ayenoluvo lokuba ukutshatyalaliswa kwalo mkhosi kwathunyelwa njengesohlwayo kuHerode, kunye nophawu lokungamkholisi kukaThixo.”

Isibakala sokuba uJosephus engamnxulumanisi uYohane noYesu ayisothusi njengoko sinokubonakala; Izenzo 13:25 ikwenza kucace ukuba uYohane waqala ukuthetha ngoYesu ngasekupheleni kobulungiseleli bakhe. Ngokufanayo, nangona indlela awayeyiqonda ngayo injongo kaHerode yokumbulala yahlukile kwiingxelo zevangeli; izibakala eziphambili ziyavumelana.

Phantse bonke abaphengululi bayabuvuma ubunyaniso besi sicatshulwa.

UYakobi Olungileyo

Okubaluleke ngakumbi nangoku, le yimbekiselo elandelayo yokufa kukaYakobi, umzalwana kaYesu, ukusuka kwi-Antiquities 20.9.1:

“Kwaye ngoku uKesare, akuva ngokufa kukaFesto, wathumela uAlbinus kwelakwaYuda, njengommeli. Kodwa ukumkani wamhlutha uYosefu ububingeleli obukhulu, kwaye ulandelelwano kweso sidima wanika unyana ka-Ananus, owayebizwa nangokuthi nguHananisi. … Kodwa lo Ananus omncinci, I-WHO, njengoko besesinixelele kakade, wathabatha ububingeleli obukhulu, wayeyindoda ekhaliphileyo, kwaye ukhohlakele kakhulu; naye wayengomnye wehlelo labaSadusi, abangqongqo kakhulu ekugwebeni aboni, ngaphezu kwawo onke amanye amaYuda, njengoko sele sibonile; nini, ke ngoko, UAnanus wayekulo mbono, wayecinga ukuba ngoku wayenethuba elifanelekileyo. Ngoku uFesto wayesele efile, kwaye uAlbinus wayesendleleni; ngoko wayibizela ndawonye intlanganiso yamatyala, zaziswa phambi kwabo umzalwana kaYesu, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus … Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, umbingeleli omkhulu.”

Ngaphandle kokuqinisekisa ukuba inkokeli yebandla laseJerusalem, ‘UYakobi Olungileyo’, njengoko waye waziwa, wayehlonelwa kakhulu ngamaYuda (c.f. Izenzo 21:18-24), sinayo apha isalathiso esicacileyo kuye njengo, ‘umntakwabo Yesu, owayebizwa ngokuba nguKristu’.

Abanye abahlalutyi baye bathi ‘lowo wayebizwa ngokuba nguKristu’ yinguqulelo yobuKristu: kodwa,

• • Akukho nto kwisigama, umxholo, njl, ukucebisa ukuba okubhaliweyo kuphazanyiswe ngayo nayiphi na indlela.
  • Ukuba lo yayingengoYakobi umzalwana kaKristu, kuyamangalisa ukuba uJosephus akanikeli enye into ebonisa oko uAnanus wayenako nxamnye noYakobi: kanti ubutshaba kumzalwana walowo wayemgqala njengoMesiya wobuxoki buqondwa ngokulula.
  • Isicatshulwa sicatshulwe ngu-Origen ekuqaleni kwe-c.200 AD. At this time Christians were still a persecuted minority, and therefore did not have control over the content of Roman or Jewish sources.
  • Josephus mentions over a dozen other people called Jesus. There is another at the end of this very paragraph and, njengoko kunokubonwa, Josephus normally provides additional explanations to avoid confusion in such cases.
  • Ibinzana, ‘who was called Christ’, is consistent with a person, such as Josephus, who wished to record the title without endorsing it. But if a Christian interpolator had felt it necessary to add a reference to Jesus, it is highly improbable that he would have used such a non-commital phrase.
  • What motive would there have been for such an addition? Modern sceptics suggest it was to create an illusion of historicity: but all the available evidence indicates that this was accepted as fact by Jews and Romans alike. If the historicity of Jesus had been an issue, why is it that none of these early Christian citations use Josephus for this purpose?

So you say!

Some have even claimed the entire reference is forged: but this is wishful thinking – there is no evidence to support such an assertion. The overwhelming opinion amongst historians of all persuasions is that the passage is entirely genuine.

The Testimonium Flavianum

The text of the Testimonium Flavianum, as it appears in Book 18, Isahluko 3, icandelo 3 of all extant versions of Josephus’ Antiquities, may be translated as follows (possible variants shown in brackets):

Oh no it doesn’t! It’s a Russian forgery!

“Ngeli xesha kukho uYesu, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed (iyamangalisa / emangalisayo) isebenza, kunye nomfundisi-ntsapho wabantu abafumene i- (inyaniso / engaqhelekanga) ngokuzonwabela. Waxhokonxa amaYuda amaninzi, kwanamaGrike amaninzi;. Yena wayenguKristu. Kwaye xa uPilato wamgwebelayo emnqamlezweni, ekubeni wayemangalelwe ngamadoda amakhulu phakathi kwethu, abo babemthanda kwasekuqalekeni abazange bayeke, kuba wabonakala kubo ngomhla wesithathu, ukuba nobomi kwakhona, njengoko abaprofeti bakaThixo babezixele kwangaphambili ezi nezinye izinto ezininzi ezimangalisayo ngaye. Kwaye ukuza kuthi ga ngoku isizwe samaKristu, igama elinjalo kuye, ayipheli.” (Antiquities, Incwadi 3, Icandelo 3.)

Oku kuhle kakhulu ukuba kube yinyaniso! Ngubani ngaphandle komKristu obenokubhala iinxalenye ezibonisiweyo? Inyaniso, esi sicatshulwa sicatshulwe okokuqala nguEusebius ekuqaleni kwenkulungwane yesi-4; kanti uOrigen, 100 kwiminyaka ngaphambili, utsho ngoJosephus ukuba, ‘ngoxa engazange amamkele uYesu ngenxa kaKristu, nangona kunjalo wanikela ubungqina bokuba uYakobi wayeyindoda elilungisa.’ (Amagqabantshintshi ngoMateyu, 10.17.)

Ngokucacileyo, ke ngoko, Josephus’ umbhalo wokuqala uye itshintshiwe. Umbuzo ngulo, kagakanani?

Lo ibingumbandela oxutyushwa kakhulu ngabaphengululi. Abanye bathi yonke le ndinyana ayiyonyani; kodwa kukho izizathu ezivakalayo zembali zokuyigatya le mbono.

• Abanye abahlalutyi bathi isicatshulwa 'asikho emxholweni'. Isahluko siqala ngokubalisa ngeengxabano ezimbini phakathi kwamaYuda noPilato, enye iphezu kwemifanekiso kaKesare ize enye isebenzise kakubi imali engcwele kwiprojekthi yamanzi. Emva koko sinoYesu, egwetywe nguPilato. Oku kulandelwa yinkcazo ende yehlazo kwitempile kaIsis eRoma, ngenxa yoko yatshatyalaliswa, babulawa ababingeleli bayo, yaye ekugqibeleni ngengxelo yelinye ihlazo elabangela ukugxothwa kwamaYuda eRoma. Ukuba nayiphi na kwezi ‘yayingekho emxholweni’, kuya kuba sisiganeko se-Isis, engenanto yakwenza ngqo nemicimbi yamaYuda; kodwa akukho mntu uthandabuzayo ukuba uJosephus wabhala oku, ngokuba ezo zinto ziqhagamshelwe ngokukhululekileyo ziqhelekile kwisimbo sakhe.
• Nangona kunjalo, Umxholo wesi sicatshulwa ubonelela ngengxoxo enamandla ngakumbi ngokuchasene ibe luphawu lobuKristu, ngayo eyandulela ingxelo kaYohane umbhaptizi, evela kwizahluko ezibini kamva, ngaphakathi 18.5.2. UJosephus akalandeli ubalo-maxesha olungqongqo, kwaye ubona uYohane kuphela njengomshumayeli wobulungisa; ngoko wanelisekile kukukhankanya uYesu’ ukufa, ngoxa bexoxa ngoPilato, kwaza kwalandela ukufa kukaYohane, kwingxoxo kamva ngoHerode. Kodwa ngokwembono yobuKristu, le yindlela engalunganga ngokupheleleyo, njengokuba uYohane wayenjalo umphambili kaYesu; a Christian simply would not have chosen this point to insert such a comment.
  
  

  Cunning, wasn’t he?
• Josephus’ reference in the passage on James, to ‘Jesus, who was called Christ,’ itself implies that he has previously mentioned this particular Jesus. The Testimonium Flavianum does precede this reference and is the obvious explanation for Josephus’ allusion.
• Consider also Origen’s comment that Josephus ‘did not receive Jesus for Christ’. How did he know? If Josephus’ only reference were, 'UYesu, who was called Christ,’ this would seem too bland a reference to explain the certainty of Origen’s statement.
  
  

  Josephus’ original reference was probably much less complimentary!
• Since Josephus plainly acknowledges the existence of Jesus by describing James the Just as his brother, why would he not have made at least some mention of him?

Kwelinye icala, if we simply delete the obviously suspect portions, we get this:

“Ngeli xesha kukho uYesu, a wise man. For he was one who performed (iyamangalisa / emangalisayo) isebenza, kunye nomfundisi-ntsapho wabantu abafumene i- (inyaniso / engaqhelekanga) ngokuzonwabela. Waxhokonxa amaYuda amaninzi, kwanamaGrike amaninzi;. Kwaye xa uPilato wamgwebelayo emnqamlezweni, ekubeni wayemangalelwe ngamadoda amakhulu phakathi kwethu, abo babemthanda kwasekuqalekeni abazange bayeke. Kwaye ukuza kuthi ga ngoku isizwe samaKristu, igama elinjalo kuye, ayipheli.”

The Greek word ‘paradoxos’ can be translated as either ‘surprising’, or ‘wonderful’. Christian translators would naturally assume the latter, whereas Josephus may well have meant the former. The word translated, ‘truth’, is ‘talethe’; but it is often suggested that this should have read, ‘taethe’ (engaqhelekanga). The phrase, ‘did not desist’, is variously rendered as ‘did not cease (to love him)', '… (to cause trouble)', njl, depending on the translator’s viewpoint; kodwa, since the bracketed words do not actually appear in the text, I have confined myself to a more literal rendering.

Ke, if we now review the arguments for and against the authenticity of the remaining text, we find:

• • What remains is more consistent with the work of a non-Christian Jew than it is with that of a Christian.
  • It explains why Origen would have been quite sure Josephus did not accept Jesus. No Christian would be satisfied with such an ambiguous and non-commital statement, that offers no criticism of the Jewish leading men’s actions (unlike the stoning of James) and appears mildly surprised that Christians aren’t yet extinct.
    
    

    So if the passage did exist, why doesn’t Origen mention it?
  • Textual analysis shows that, quite unlike the deleted portions, the vocabulary and style are entirely consistent with that of Josephus elsewhere in his writings. This would be a considerable feat even for a modern scholar. As John P. Meier, one of the foremost authorities on this subject comments:

“The comparison of vocabulary between Josephus and the NT does not provide a neat solution to the problem of authenticity but it does force us to ask which of two possible scenarios is more probable. Did a Christian of some unknown century so immerse himself in the vocabulary and style of Josephus that, without the aid of any modern dictionaries and concordances, he was able to (1) strip himself of the NT vocabulary with which he would naturally speak of Jesus and (2) reproduce perfectly the Greek of Josephus for most of the Testimonium – no doubt to create painstakingly an air of versimilitude – while at the same time destroying the air with a few patently Christian affirmations? Or is it more likely that the core statement, (1) which we first isolated simply by extracting what would strike anyone at first glance as Christian affirmations, yaye (2) which we then found to be written in typically Josephan vocabulary that diverged from the usage of the NT, was in fact written by Josephus himself? Of the two scenarios, I find the second much more probable.” (Meier, ‘A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus’)

The basic issue of the authenticity of the Testimonium is frequently clouded by misquotations and confusion with other Josephan passages (such as the story of the crucifixion of Menachem), as well as by speculations about other possible lost references. Josephus may have said a little more about Jesus, as is implied by the “Kitab al-‘Unwan” document: kwelinye icala, he may have been less complimentary. Recent computer analysis has revealed some intriguing similarities between the Testimonium and parts of ULuka 24, suggesting both authors may have had access to an earlier source containing an account of Jesus’ ukufa nokuvuka. But again, though this may influence our opinion as to the precise wording of Josephus’ umbhalo wokuqala, it doesn’t alter the fact that it is there.

Our view will in the end always be subject to our opinion of what Josephus could reasonably have been expected to say: but the probability is that the recension cited above represents its basic framework. Yeyethu, unlike Origen, the chief issue is the historicity of Jesus Christ; and a reference along these general lines (complete with amendments by indignant Christian commentators!) is precisely the type of external corroboration that a historian would expect to find.

Inyaniso kukuba, Iingxelo zamandulo zamaYuda zazimchaza uYesu njengomntwana oyimigqakhwe, umvukeli kunye nomkhafuli!

Buyela isihloko main.