The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

“received the truth with pleasure” and as a result Jesus gained followers. Conversely: by the
continuation of the love nothing would be stated about the [276] continuation of the truth to
the uninitiated, and yet that was a presupposition for the existence of the Christians by the
time of Josephus. Another [point] is almost more important in my [opinion]: Josephus
substantiates the problematic phrase by the fact of the resurrection. Now indeed, one cannot
possibly explain the continuation of the “love” by the fact of the resurrection – it is completely
independent of this – from another aspect, however, the resurrection does form an absolutely
essential element of the Christian “truth”. In principle, the relation of the concept of the
Messiah to Jesus seemed to be settled by virtue of the crucifixion; if his followers did not now
stop viewing him as the Messiah after all, as one should actually expect, then this requires a
reason. It is provided by the author – in accordance with the Christian view – by the reference
to the fact of the resurrection. 90 Therefore it is not the continuation of the “love” that is
explained by the γάρ phrase, rather a reason is given for how it comes to be that the disciples
did not stop acknowledging the truth despite the death, i.e. ἀγαπᾶν must factually resume
ἡδονῇ δέχεσθαι from section 63, as we already had to deduce formally. Precisely this meaning,
which we have postulated as inevitable, can be attested in Josephus. When Alexander calls
upon the Jews to take part in the war and guarantees them freedom to practice their religion
in exchange, πολλοὶ τὴν σὺν αὐτῷ στρατείαν ἠγάπησαν (11.339). By contrast, let someone
show us Christian authors who use ἀγαπᾶν in such a sense. Here the case is even more
compelling than the peculiar use of ἡδονή, to which Harnack had referred. If one could
actually still use the excuse here [that] “the interpolator knew his author” then this excuse is
impossible with respect to ἀγαπᾶν, since this usually means “to love” likewise in Josephus.
If traces of his own personal language use appear even here where Josephus ranges
perforce within Christian terminology, then this applies more than ever [277] where he tells
about the appearance of Jesus; in fact, we can demonstrate such a striking parallel to this, that
every objection must fall silent. 91 In a context that is quite harmless for our problem, Josephus
90
Cf. H. Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, vol. 1 2 , page 432: “In the opinion of the
community, the resurrection signifies a cancellation, emanating from God, of the death
sentence passed by men, thus the vindication of the one who has been put to death unjustly.”
This is exactly Josephus’ thinking – Whoever deletes the phrase ἐφάνη γὰρ, disrupts the
context.
91 I am currently concerned only with explaining the passage historically; I [shall] not enter
241