Josephus' source for his information on Jesus and James

[utunumsint]

So I’ve just found out that Josephus was a contemporary of Agrippa II, the son of Agrippa I who had killed James, then died at Caesarea. Agrippa II had also heard Paul’s defence just before Paul was sent off to Ceasar to hear his defence against the Jews of Jerusalem. According to some sources, Agrippa II lived until at least 94 AD. From what I understand, Josephus got a great deal of his material for his Antiquities and the Jewish Wars from Agrippa II . Could Agrippa not be Josephus’ source for the parts of the Antiquities and the Jewish Wars that many scholars believe are interpolations? If Agrippa related the information about Jesus in the way it was explained to him from Paul, could this not explain Josephus’ almost Christian tone when describing the life of Jesus? Where hear from the book of Acts that Agrippa was impressed by Paul’s testimony…

To make a long story short, is it not possible that the passages about Jesus that scholars believe are interpolations have their source in Paul through Agrippa II?

Just some thoughts and some speculations.

I’d like to know what others thinks.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Found it in Josephus’ Vita in paragraph 65.

But if thou art so hardy as to affirm, that thou hast written that history better than all the rest, why didst thou not publish thy history while the emperors Vespasian and Titus, the generals in that war, as well as king Agrippa and his family, who were men very well skilled in the learning of the Greeks, were all alive? for thou hast had it written these twenty years, and then mightest thou have had the testimony of thy accuracy. But now when these men are no longer with us, and thou thinkest thou canst not be contradicted, thou venturest to publish it. But then I was not in like manner afraid of my own writing, but I offered my books to the emperors themselves, when the facts were almost under men’s eyes; for I was conscious to myself, that I had observed the truth of the facts; and as I expected to have their attestation to them, so I was not deceived in such expectation. **Moreover, I immediately presented my history to many other persons, some of whom were concerned in the war, as was king Agrippa and some of his kindred. Now the emperor Titus was so desirous that the knowledge of these affairs should be taken from these books alone, that he subscribed his own hand to them, and ordered that they should be published; and for king Agrippa, he wrote me sixty-two letters, and attested to the truth of what I had therein delivered; two of which letters I have here subjoined, and thou mayst thereby know their contents: - “King Agrippa to Josephus, however, when thou comest to me, I will inform thee of a great many things which thou dost not know.” So when this history was perfected, Agrippa, neither by way of flattery, which was not agreeable to him, nor by way of irony, as thou wilt say, (for he was entirely a stranger to such an evil disposition of mind,) but he wrote this by way of attestation to what was true, as all that read histories may do. **And so much shall be said concerning Justus (24) which I am obliged to add by way of digression.

So based on this we have evidence that Agrippa II wrote sixty-two letters to edit and correct the content of Josephus’ works and to explain to him “a great many things which thou dost not know.”

Could this not have included information on James and Jesus? Paul himself says in Acts 26:26 26 “The king knows about these matters and to him I speak boldly, for I cannot believe that (any) of this has escaped his notice; this was not done in a corner.” Would not Agrippa have related this kind of information to Josephus?

God bless,
Ut

 

[NotWorthy]

Found it in Josephus’ Vita in paragraph 65.

So based on this we have evidence that Agrippa II wrote sixty-two letters to edit and correct the content of Josephus’ works and to explain to him “a great many things which thou dost not know.”

Could this not have included information on James and Jesus? Paul himself says in Acts 26:26 26 “The king knows about these matters and to him I speak boldly, for I cannot believe that (any) of this has escaped his notice; this was not done in a corner.” Would not Agrippa have related this kind of information to Josephus?

God bless,
Ut

I believe historians such as Josephus have become historians such as Josephus because of the validity of their writings. In other words, they cross-checks facts more strenuously than others.

If you are implying that Josephus wrote much of his writings based on the rather subjective opinions of Agrippa, than I would doubt it.

But if you are saying that Agrippa was one of the sources that Josephus used, either for confirmation or information to be confirmed, than that’s a valid statement (IMO).

 

[utunumsint]

I believe historians such as Josephus have become historians such as Josephus because of the validity of their writings. In other words, they cross-checks facts more strenuously than others.

Agreed.

If you are implying that Josephus wrote much of his writings based on the rather subjective opinions of Agrippa, than I would doubt it.

The passages that have to do with explicitly Christians claims on the divinity of Christ could have had their source in Agrippa who had heard Paul’s testimony for his faith in Christ. That and the fact that Agrippa II’s kingdom, although marked with the destruction of Jerusalem, was bigger than that of Herod the Great. He would have had detailed knowledge of the events recorded by Josephus. He may even have had access to some of the Gospels. My point is not that Agrippa is subjective, but a very strong possible non Christian witness to the events described in Acts, as well as a first hand witness to the preaching of Paul.

But if you are saying that Agrippa was one of the sources that Josephus used, either for confirmation or information to be confirmed, than that’s a valid statement (IMO).

Yes. This is what I’m saying. And I think he would have been uniquely placed to have a great deal of first hand information on the activities of Christians in his realm. So I think he would be a very good source.

The arguments given against the authenticity of the passages refering to Jesus is that they are far too Christian sounding. Only a Christian could have written like that, refering to Jesus as not just a man, but God himself. My point in bringing up the Agrippa connection is that Agrippa could have described to him what Paul was saying about Jesus. He could have had access to some of the Gospels. Maybe even Luke’s Gosple. Josephus could have included it with little edits, since his editor was King Agrippa II himself. It also makes for interesting reading, since Josephus’ audience were his patrons, Emperor Vespesian / Claudius / Titus.

God bless,
Ut

 

[annem]

And I think he would have been uniquely placed to have a great deal of first hand information on the activities of Christians in his realm. So I think he would be a very good source.

The arguments given against the authenticity of the passages refering to Jesus is that they are far too Christian sounding. Only a Christian could have written like that, refering to Jesus as not just a man, but God himself. My point in bringing up the Agrippa connection is that Agrippa could have described to him what Paul was saying about Jesus. He could have had access to some of the Gospels.

Fascinating! I had not heard about the connection between Josephus and Agrippa before. In fact, all I have ever read, over and over, from dozens of secular writers, is that,* of course* the passages about Jesus must be later interpolations. The only question, usually, is how much was changed.

But this is really a remarkable piece of information.

God bless, Annem

 

[roanoker]

Josephus is accepted by almost all church scholars as being an execellent historian. We can split hairs about how he did his research, but rest assured he did it properly and thoroughly.

 

[utunumsint]

Fascinating! I had not heard about the connection between Josephus and Agrippa before. In fact, all I have ever read, over and over, from dozens of secular writers, is that, of course** the passages about Jesus must be later interpolations. The only question, usually, is how much was changed.

But this is really a remarkable piece of information.

God bless, Annem

I think this is what frustrates me so much about declarations from historians. Unless you go through their thought processess and deciding for yourself based on the same evidence they have used or not used, you have no way of knowing if their statements are valid or not.

I have been in the same boat, strongly doubting the authenticity of the Josephus passages relating to Christianity until now. Having done some investigating, I now realize how many possible sources of Christian doctrine and information that Josephus could have had access to in order to produce the passages on Christ, James, and John the Baptist. It is very exciting for me.

God bless,
Ut