Good Friday: The Roman View
In honor of Good Friday, I would like to read again those quotes from Josephus and Tacitus to consider the “Roman view” on the day’s significance. Yes, I consider Josephus a “Roman,” given the nature of his writings and his status among the Flavian household. First, Tacitus:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. [Tacitus, Annals 15.44]
Josephus’ text obviously presents a problem. It is widely acknowledged that what our manuscripts of Josephus say about Jesus are not what Josephus himself said. Christian scribes later inserted little Christian goodies, like about Jesus being the Messiah and raising from the dead. So, I will use one scholar’s (Meier’s) reconstruction of a “neutral tone” version of Josephus’ mention of Jesus.
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And although Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) has not died out. [See J. P. Meier, "Jesus in Josephus : A Modest Proposal," CBQ 52 (1990), 76-103]
Jesus had clearly done something to threaten the Judean and Roman authorities to justify public execution on a Roman cross–an execution method the Romans used for “making an example.” For Tacitus and Josephus, though, this did not quash the movement behind him. The cross was not the end of the story. Going against traditional logic, this movement did not die with its leader but only exploded into a world-wide phenomenon.
Have a blessed and contemplative Good Friday, particularly if you are among the “tribe of Christians” who follow Christ. Remember that “we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:23-24).
“If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.”
Josephus Coined the Term "Theocracy"
Many people may know this already, but I didn’t. I came across Josephus’ use of “theocracy” (θεοκρατία) and the footnote read that Josephus apparently coined this term. I turned to my trusty Logos Bible Software to check for any other reference in any of my Greek sources with a Word Study. Sure enough, only one occurrence in Josephus and nothing in the Septuagint, OT Pseudepigrapha, Philo, NT, or Apostolic Fathers. I went online and checked TLG to find only one other reference elsewhere (not counting Eusebius’ quotation of Josephus). The only other use I found was in Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos’ (905-959) On Virtue and Vice . Interesting.
Of course, when Josephus uses “theocracy” (Apion 2.165), it has a positive connotation–unlike how many use it today as a critique of those Christians who would like the United States to be (even) more intimately tied to Christianity. Josephus uses the term to contrast the other forms of government in the world. This is linked to his discussion on the Jewish legal system. The Greeks change their laws because they have human laws. The Jews get their law from God. For Josephus, Jewish society is founded upon the rule of God and God’s law (and has been for a very long time!). Here is the “theocracy” passage:
To give but a summary enumeration: some peopls have entrusted the supreme political power to monarchies, others to oligarchies, yet others to the masses. Our lawgiver, however, was attracted by none of these forms of polity, but gave to his constitution the form of what–if a forced expression be permitted–may be termed a “theocracy,” placing all sovereignty and authority in the hands of God. To Him he persuaded all to look, as the author of all blessings, both those which are common to all mankind, and those which they had won for themselves by prayer in the crises of their history. He convinced them that no single action, no secret thought, could be hid from Him. He represented Him as One, uncreated and immutable to all eternity; in beauty surpassing all mortal thought, made known to us by His power, although the nature of His real being passes knowledge. [Apion 2.164-167, Thackeray trans.]
We need more umph in scholarly rhetoric…
I’m just reading through Josephus’ Against Apion and read this line:
There is the evidence which Apion should have considered, had he not himself been gifted with the mind of an ass and the impudence of the dog, which his countrymen are wont to worship. [2.85]
Beautiful, especially the last clause there. This statement comes after Josephus’ comment that Apion has not considered the appropriate sources and is ridiculous in his suggestion that the Jews’ have the head of an ass in their temple. Though I have seen some scholarly rhetoric get close to this, it sure would be fun to have people called out as having the “mind of an ass and the impudence of the dog.” Maybe it wouldn’t be very productive, but fun. Perhaps I will work it into my dissertation when I get there.




