Did Josephus really, REALLY write the Testimonium Flavianum?

Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ by T. C. Schmidt
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

If Schmidt's purpose was to convince people like me of his thesis, it actually backfired.

Could Josephus have written the Testimonium Flavianum himself, including the very Christian-looking ending?

Absolutely, technically and logically. That said, a unicorn could produce baby unicorns by farting fairy dust, too, but I'm not holding my breath over that likelihood either.

So, Josephus himself wrote the Testimonium Flavianum in the Antiquities? That’s the contention of T.C. Schmidt in his new book.

I’m not buying it, and wasn’t buying it by 40 pages into the book, due to tendentious translation, dubious text-critical claims and a variety of special pleadings.

First, as a reminder, from book 20 of the Antiquities, here is that Testimonium Flavianum, per the translation by Schmidt. That part, the end of that sentence, itself needed emphasis:

“And in this time there was a certain Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man, for he was a doer of incredible deeds, a teacher of men who receive truisms with pleasure. [My note: Why “truisms”? EVERY other translation I’ve seen, it’s “truths.” Is this designed to buttress Schmidt’s claims of the “slightly negative” aspect?] And he brought over many from among the Jews and many from among the Greeks. He was [thought to be {My note: Schmidt will claim these are “missing words.”}] the Christ. And, when Pilate had condemned him to the cross at the accusation of the first men among us, those who at first were devoted to him did not cease to be so, for on the third day it seemed to them that he was alive again given that the divine prophets had spoken such things and thousands of other wonderful things about him. And up till now the tribe of the Christians, who were named from him, has not disappeared.”

Schmidt claims that’s backed up by stylistic analysis, and he also claims that the testimony is not nearly as favorable as claimed. I'll challenge that as part of this review.

He also cites Josephus’ own claim to have known people in the trials of the apostles and even that of Jesus, by 51-52 CE. Really?

First of all, Caiaphas died in 46. So the high priest who reportedly condemned Jesus would not have been directly known to him.

Secondly, even at 51/52, Josephus is just 14 or so.

Second main point contra that is that Josephus was a braggart and self-turd polisher. Skipping way ahead in the book, we have:

“What follows is a sketch of six leading families with whom Josephus was familiar and whose members were also likely party to the execution of Jesus. These include the royal family of the Herodians, the rabbinic family of Hillel, and the high priestly families of Camith, Boethus, Phiabi, and especially Ananus I.”

From here, Schmidt goes on to make other statements, that, on the New Testament side, where connected with Herod Agrippa II, treat the last one-quarter of Acts with a hugely unwarranted degree of historicity. Also vis-a-vis Agrippa, Schmidt makes all sorts of reading between the lines and special pleadings on pages 163ff. He also assumes Jesus was “big enough” historically to have members of the House of Herod who would NOT have included Antipas or Agrippa I (both dying when Josephus was a tot) to remember him to Josephus.

Third, Acts is ahistorical enough even in its first half that we should probably largely ignore the “trials of the apostles.” See this piece of mine for a look at Acts' ahistoricity in general, focused on the last one-quarter of the book. Indeed, a 3-star reviewer here notes a relative lack of critical approach to the historicity of both Acts and the Mishnah. It’s been eons since I read the Mishnah myself, but, per the block quote above, it seems like special pleadings in this portion of the book as well. In addition, to move in the NT from Acts back to the gospels, taking every portrayal of Jesus “versus” the Pharisees at face value is also problematic.

Also related? He assumes that Jesus’ revolt, or whatever we should call it, occurred at Passover, and assumes within that that he Synoptics are right against John on what day the Passover was. (In one of his appendixes, Schmidt offers the “solution” [scare quotes!] that John was talking about the whole feast of Passover week with Unleavened Bread. Sure he was. Why haven't more biblical scholars said this, and written in depth about it?)

After this? Schmidt delves into that font of historicity, the Toledoth Yeshu, thoroughly and critically reviewed here, to claim that Ananus II, the guy who reportedly had some James, who may have been either a literal or non-literal brother of Jesus, put to death, was at Jesus’ trial. (Snark aside, the earliest elements of the Toledoth date from the second century CE. It's unlikely, though, that any first-century material is behind it. See Antiquities Book 20, Chapter 9.

Fourth? Schmidt’s claim that the Testimonium is neutral to negative? Only if you accept his one interpolation, that “He was [thought to be] the Christ.” Per Wiki, Schmidt claims these are “missing words” not an interpolation. Really? So, they magically fell out of copies of the Antiquities before its current citation? More on that, re Jerome apparently being the first to have “appeared to be,” here .

He also ignores the possibility that translators inserted these words because they thought “Josephus” looked too blatantly Christian otherwise.

That in turn means we have intellectual dishonesty, as I see it.

He goes on to claim that both Jacob of Edessa and Jerome in translation reflect what he postulates as the original indeed being so:

“Chapter 2 canvasses various western and eastern versions of the TF—in Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Armenian—while consulting several manuscripts and correcting past transcriptions. Most significantly, a certain Syriac text shows that the most suspicious statement in the extant version of the TF, ‘he was the Christ’, instead likely read ‘he was thought to be the Christ’. This reading is found in an important Syriac translation of the TF which new evidence suggests should be traced back to Jacob of Edessa (c.708 ce), a noted translator of Greek works and one of the most educated men of his day. Jacob’s translation is crucially matched by another famous translator, St. Jerome (c.420 ce), who rendered the phrase almost synonymously into Latin as ‘he was believed to be the Christ’. This correspondence indicates that both translators had before themselves a much more ancient Greek text, a text which I argue contained the original wording of Josephus. Such a reading also explains, once again, why Origen and others asserted that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ. And, furthermore, it agrees with Josephan style, thereby giving the reading a ring of verisimilitude. Be that as it may, many Christian readers still do not seem to have read the altered phrase ‘he was the Christ’ (ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν) as a confession of faith. Instead, they simply assumed that Josephus was identifying Jesus with the alternative name of ‘Christ’, much like how many ancient non-Christian writers were quite willing to call Jesus the name of ‘Christ’, without thinking that such signaled faith in him.”

Sounds like half a dozen types of special pleading.

It also, by this point, sounds like systematic theology apologetics rather than exegesis.

Let us also remember that even Jerome is translating 300-plus years later than Josephus, and that he is on the far side of Eusebius, whom I see as a veil of sorts on all things Josephus related to Christian history.

Fifth, how does he deal with Origen? He claims that Origin found it “risky to use.” See my note above on Schmidt’s translation. With Origin, and later, he also says that the “incredible deeds” could be seen as negative, open to the claim that Jesus was performing magic. But, that’s only if you accept Schmidt’s interpolation, which as noted above negates his whole claim. And, contra Schmidt, this will be referred to as “interpolation” and not “missing words” throughout this review. I don’t believe in magic ponies. Beyond that, Josephus uses the same words for Elisha’s miracles.

And, even if true, would this be THAT risky?

With that, let’s dig into the book further. Yes, it's getting crushed further.

When we get into how Origin understood what Josephus thought of Jesus, we face issues similar, in a reverse way, to Tacitus (and the likely interpolation of the Fire of Rome) and Suetonius. Even on the Jesus “who was called Christ” as brother of James, this is simply “Ha-Moshiach” and not a Christian title. Nor does Josephus say that everybody proclaimed him as the Messiah. It should also be noted that, because the term in Greek wouldn’t be understood by most Greeks and definitely not by Greek-speaking Romans that, while Josephus will talk about Vespasian fulfilling Messianic prophecies, he never applies this term to him. He may have had other reasons for not doing that, too. One may have been Josephan religious scruples. The other may have been, having toasted Vespasian and with Domitian now on the throne, talk of “Christ” was no bueno.

From here on out, like Schmidt, I will use TF to save time and space. He says Origen surely knew some version of the TF. If we accept that some portion of it is original, but was later interpolated? That’s not a problem for that theory and Origin offers no support for Schmidt.

He wraps up his first section with this, about the TF’s reception in Greek Christianity, namely, why weren’t the parts about the resurrection, testimony of the prophets, miracles, played up more?

“In the present book I suggest a solution to this puzzling reception history. I argue that those statements in the TF which sound so extravagantly suspicious to our modern ears seemed quite different to most ancient and medieval writers who read them as not only ambiguous, but as also quite similar to other non-Christian reports about Jesus. This explains why so many never bothered to make use of the spectacular details in the TF; for to them, the TF did not have anything spectacular about it. Instead, the TF merely presented a neutral, ambiguous, or even vaguely negative account about Jesus that was of little benefit for their purposes. Yet, that very ambiguity allowed a minority of writers—most of whom only summarized or even manipulated its content —to interpret the TF in a way that promoted various Christian claims about Jesus.”

This too sounds like special pleading.

I remain unconvinced, wholly unconvinced. The “believed to be,” to riff on Schmidt, may have been original, and removed by whomever surely interpolated the last one-third:

“He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

The idea that Josephus wrote that himself is laughable. And, the “tribe of Christians,” if Acts is right about Christian self-naming, and when it might have happened, if Acts has an early second century dating, also puts this as post-Josephan.

Early Christian Writings still has the best roundup of evidence, above all based on it interrupting narrative flow, for the whole thing to be an interpolation. It also has a good refutation of some of Schmidt’s stylistic claims, above all the “principal men” issue, and other things mentioned above.

Per ECW? Perhaps the original version of Josephus had calamities or similar attached to his Jesus story, if he was the original author, and that what we have today is more than a partial editorial interpolation, but rather, to invent a word, even more an editorial exterpolation. On this idea, Josephus would have called Jesus a messianic pretender, like others. The calamities, per other events in Chapter 18 (same link as above), so this wasn’t originally interrupting the flow of that book, might have been inflicted by Antipas rather than Pilate, albeit with some pushing by Pilate. Per Luke, yes, Antipas maybe would have seen Jesus as John the Baptizer redivivus — as a Zealot.

Also per the link, on Section 3, the Jesus passage, note how short it currently is, as well as missing any "calamities." 

Under my theory, Josephus would eventually have written something like this:

Some time after this, there arose in Galilee a man named Jesus. He was acclaimed a wise man by his growing followers. Many cited the wondrous deeds he performed, and as proof of his wisdom, though others said he performed these things by sorcery or magic.

Some of his followers eventually talked about his as the Messiah. Perhaps in reaction to this, he went to Jerusalem during one of the festivals. The procurator Pilate, as well as Antipas the tetrarch of Galilee, who had already had experience with John, feared that he might start a tumult and even proclaim himself the Messiah.

They both interrogated him, then Pilate checked with the priesthood to make sure there would be no troubles if he were executed. Assured of their cooperation, he crucified this Jesus.

After the festival was done, Antipas searched throughout the Galilee and the Decapolis, knowing of past uprisings in this area, and brought many punishments down on the chief cities and villages of his followers.

Obviously, that would have been editorially mutilated by a combination of interpolation and extirpolation.

One big problem with this theory, though?

Celsus.

We already know Origin doesn’t reference the TF as stands as a tool against Celsus. Had the original been a highly negative narrative like this, Celsus, not Origen, would have cited it and Origin would have moved heaven and earth to refute it or try to.

My conclusion? While I don’t believe in a literal version of Bayes Theorum, because I don’t believe you can in general put precise percentage numbers on belief system probabilities, I’ll play along on the idea on this.

Before reading Schmidt’s book, I would have offered 3 percent for Josephus substantially writing the TF (MINUS the ending; if you make me include that, I’m at 1 percent); 67/69 percent that Josephus wrote some core kernel but it has moderate to extensive editorial interpolation; and 30 percent that most to all the passage is an interpolation.

Schmidt actually lost me. I’m now at 2/0 percent on Josephus writing substantially all, 58/60 percent on option THREE, and 40 percent on option TWO, flip-flopping those. That comes after pondering the “negative Josephus later exterpolated” idea and rejecting it. And, going directly against his alleged elimination of him, I’ll finger Eusebius as the most likely interpolator. He was well-read in both secular and Christian history within the Empire, was at the right hand of Constantine, and had motive.

As for comments about Josephan style and the author’s stylistic analysis emphasis and claims? We’re not talking about 300 lines of text or even 300 words. The TF as received, without the “believed to be” conjecture? Just 84 words in Greek. Someone as well-read as Eusebius could have done a reasonable imitation no problem.

Let's compare it to something else that I thought of after posting to Goodreads.

That's the likely interpolation in Tacitus about the Fire of Rome and Neronian persecution of Christians for it. That interpolation, for those of us who accept it as such, contra Chris(sy) on r/AcademicBiblical and others, was likely by Sulpicius Severus. Even though it's more than half again as long as the TF, I've never seen arguments against this being an interpolation lead off with Severus (or whomever else) failing to do a halfway adequate imitation of Tacitus' style.

I'll move on briefly to other items.

First, if the TF is an interpolation en toto (I won’t follow Schmidt on the “forgery” word) then the James “the brother of Jesus” in Antiquities Book 20 is an insertion, or “gloss” as a better term, for obvious reasons. Eusebius again is most likely, especially given some questions about "where he saw" the TF within the Antiquities. And, I disagree with Schmidt here, claiming this passage as authentic is an ambiguous to negative portrayal of Jesus, just like he does with the TF. Early Christian Writings, and other sites, address this in more detail. As for the use of “brother”? Paul repeatedly uses it in a non-literalistic sense.

More on that?

Alice Whealey, cited widely by the author? Her claim that the shorter passage on James and Jesus in Antiquities Book 20 cannot be an interpolation because Jesus having a brother had been rejected by Christians in general in the second century is laughable. (Wheatley is also where Schmidt gets his “Missing Words” idea from. Indeed, she believes that they were dropped only after Jerome, and that he saw them in Eusebius’ quote — and that Jerome didn’t read the manuscripts directly.) See this site for more. Whealey also is a historian and not a biblical scholar or related. The "brother" is refuted indirectly on one grounds, above. Other grounds for the Whealey-Schmidt claims are some version of argument from silence.

Speaking of, it seems much of Schmidt's argument really isn't original but is lifted from Whealey in many ways.

Sixth, The Amateur Exegete, where I found the link, included a video interview of Schmidt by the often odious Tim O’Neill of “History for Atheists.” I'm not watching the video any more than I would listen to his podcast, contra his pleadings years ago. I suspect O’Neill likes the book because it’s contrarian and anti-mythicist if nothing else.

If my guess is correct, then he’s fallen to general Gnu Atheist level. Just as, contra atheists in general and Gnus in particular, I don’t have to be a mythicist to be an atheist, so, too, do I not have to accept these claims about the TF to be an anti-mythicist.


View all my reviews

LCMS prez Matthew Harrison headfakes, then dives back into full wingnuttery.

Harrison, the president of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the US's largest fundamentalist (you are) religious body, is trying to thread his theological and denominational camel's body through the eye of the Charlie Kirk needle with his official statement on Kirk's killing.

I had originally titled this post that he had backed off slightly from being a full wingnut, but a follow-up piece in an official publication of the denomination shows that's not true. I'll get to that below. 

It says it's about 15 years in the president's seat. Most of it backs off his previous nuttery and actually talks about assisting immigrants.

That said, besides the Charlie Kirk paeans that ignore his racism, etc., let's unpack something else.

That's Harrison officially stating that on one thing, he's unchanged, and that he's a Samuel Huntington type cultural Christianist. This:

I think it’s vital to retain Western Christian influenced culture and its wonderful blessings. But we Lutherans do not exist to “Christianize the state.” Our Augsburg Confession says the state and church are not to be “mixed.” I worry, frankly, about Muslim immigration and the orthodox Muslim denial of the two kingdoms. But some evangelicals have the same dogma! A great many of the decisions of the nature of state and law, are left to sanctified individual choice and action, biblically informed.

Is the proof. 

First, you DO want to "Christianize the state," just more indirectly.

Second, not all Muslims are "orthodox" Muslims.  

Third? Most of what does make Merikkka in particular, and the West in general, actually, non-snarkily good, has nothing to do with Christian, or Christian-influenced culture. Locke, Hume, Montaigne, Voltaire and others who influenced the American constitutional structure, the American political science structure and related, weren't "Christian-influenced." Locke was probably a U/unitarian or Deist. Hume was a secularist, non-theist, atheist, etc. Montaigne may have been a Catholic, but his essays on the tripartate division of government were in no way influenced by that. Voltaire was a deist. 

On other non-Charlie Kirk stuff, he references the wingnuts squared to his right, who think that officially breathing the air of other Christians in official Christian events is akin to heresy:

As I pulled into the gas station this a.m., I turned on the radio. There were interviews with children whose fathers were firemen, killed in 9/11. Oh my, I thought. Another anniversary of that horrid day. I remember it all too well. Within a week I was at ground zero. The LCMS provided a million dollars for the victims’ center in Manhattan. The controversy in the LCMS which ensued nearly broke my heart. Thank God we’ve moved beyond it and our approach to such situations constructed in the wake, has very largely kept us out of further internal controversy.

Have fun with that. 

Beyond that, he, in talking about Kirk's death:

Yesterday was the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk. A confessing Christian murdered for political speech. I beheld the news in shock, bouncing between the reports of sorrow and vitriol, putting the worst possible construction on sound bites. ... A few on our far edges say untoward things about race, failing to take into account the beautiful message of the N.T. that “God is no respecter of persons.” (Acts 10) And that repeatedly in the N.T. we see lists of early Christians which include multiple ethnicities from around the Mediterranean world. There is no N.T. argument against the freedom to marry among ethnicities, much less any such distinctions in the church. Jesus said, “Go therefore to all ETHNAE.”

Ignores Kirk's own racism.

Maybe he doesn't know that much about Kirk in general. Maybe fear of the even further right wingnuts pushed him to say something. Maybe he's just a lying hypocrite.  

Hence my "backs off slightly."

He's still a hypocrite, perhaps a lying hypocrite, and hoisting himself by his own petard. 

Sadly, this is in my own family of semi-origin. A cousin, a former LCMS parochial school teacher, ran Kirk up the flagpole and saluted him. I'm not going to bother to quote her, but without naming her by name, I called out on Fuckbook, in a general way, Lutheran family and friends for glorifying Kirk, a "racist wingnut." I also told them to read Matthew 7:3-5 if they thought this secularist needed praying for. Per Jesus himself, elsewhere? "A word to the wise." 

==

The wise don't include Harrison, who, since I first started writing this, in the Reporter, the official LCMS newspaper, runs Kirk up the flagpole and salutes him. Time for a takedown.

This:

Pundits have crafted lists of Mr. Kirk’s statements, which allegedly justify his murder. But no speech of any human being justifies his or her murder.

Is a lie. Actual pundits have listed Kirk's wingnuttery, but without attempting to justify his murder. I said that if he had named named, it could have been slanderous. Even without that, I told him to look at Matthew 7:3-5 and tell himself the Sixth Commandment rather than shouting it at others.

This:

Marxism, which is pervasive on many university campuses, praises anarchy and violence because violence is the means to throw the status quo into chaos and overthrow allegedly repressive regimes. As an atheistic paradigm of human social existence, Marxism views all law and ethics as utilitarian, indeed merely a human construct — including sexual identity itself, which has always been (Rom. 1) and is again, with an intensity never seen before, the frontier of “freedom” from Divine design. Hermann Sasse, the friend of the LCMS and great Lutheran who lived through the Hitler years in Germany, was the first publicly to reject the Aryan Paragraph of the Nazi party platform. He blew the whistle on real fascism and racism.

Is a mix of stereotyping, strawmanning, handwaving and dogwhistling. The "real fascism and racism" is an attempt to pretend that Kirk wasn't that.

This:

Charlie Kirk was such a Christian. I am such a Christian. And I know thousands more. ... “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:43–45) Charlie’s debate videos are a marvelous example of this.

Is whitewashing. And gaslighting. And other things.

Harrison likes to blather about the Sixth Commandment, all while ignoring the Eighth Commandment, in all of this, too. 

==

Harrison also ignores Romans 8 about submitting unto the governing authorities!

Harrison claims not to meddle in church-state issues and to respect the Lutheran doctrine of the "two kingdoms."

BUT? He officially glorifies in Charlie Kirk an official 2020 election denier. And, AFAIK, while he may have disciplined (or may not have disciplined) a semi-retired Illinois LCMS pastor for participating in an interdenominational event, he has done NOTHING (AFAIK) about said pastor trying to overturn Georgia's 2020 election results.

Romans 13, along with the Eighth Commandment, Matthew Harrison.

Biblical criticism roundup tidbits

' James McGrath gets called out for getting Judeophobia backward, and it's kind of hilarious, too. It's the biblical criticism version of librul identitarianism, applied wrongly. This is part of a book where the authors in general are apparently of McGrathian mindset. The bottom line, per this review, is:

Opposite the one-dimensional depiction of Judaism as positive and innocent stands a corre-spondingly one-dimensional depiction of Christianity as negative and malicious.

Oops.

That said, the review is itself spoiled to some degree by this at the end:

I confess that in this time of rising antisemitism, I have misgivings about reg-istering so dim an assessment of a volume with patently good intentionsZ

And, I say "spoiled" on the assumption the author is conflating antisemitism and anti-zionism. Schwartz is indeed Jewish, with a master's from JTS, and also one blog post on the Times of Israel AND, interestingly, with a wife who is a female Orthodox rabbi. Now, goys can do the same conflation, but Schwartz also condemned Pope Francis for his post-Oct. 7 comments. I'm reasonably comfortable in labeling him a conflationist.

==

A book that appears to do better on looking at early Christian writings beyond the New Testament, though it's purview would likely include the original Simon Magus story in Acts, challenges the "magic=heresy" idea.

==

Pilate putting a guard on Jesus' tomb, as recorded by Matthew, might have a kernel of historicity? Thanks for the laugh. Just because the Gospel of Peter may be behind it doesn't increase its chances of historicity. This guy is some sort of quasi-fundagelical.

The latest questionability from r/AcademicBiblical

First, touting this historical Jesus conference hosted by Bart Ehrman. We know Bart's gotten Jesus wrong on the claim he preached JW annihilation instead of hellfire, and other things. Other keynoters? James Tabor is a whack job with his Jesus family dynasty nuttery. Dale Allison is on the conservative side of New Testament critical scholarship. Paula Fredriksen, outside of biblical scholarship, has at least a degree of odiousness, and possible Zionist background as a Jewish convert, in past comments about Palestinians in general and Palestinian Christians "running away" in particular.

==

"Are Catholics really the first Christians" is a theological question, not an exegetical one, and should have been removed by mods. 

==

Early church fathers were NOT contemporaneous with Jesus' followers, contra this goob question. OP gets plenty of other pushback, but not on the most key thing. SMH.

Tidbits from the New Search for the historical Jesus

In this Academia piece, from 2010, a number of scholars answer three questions about the "New Search."

The first question: Is this phase over? My own answer, riffing on one of the commenters, is, it should be considered on pause, until more digestion of the sociological elements of Judaism(s) at the time of Jesus, along with broader culture at this time, is complete.

The second question asks each to comment on that social and cultural background. All stress Jesus' Jewishness while also showing that, in terms of education, style of life, teaching focus and many other things, they can still have large differences in interpretation.

The third question spills from this and asks about Jesus' originality.

Some of their specifics are interesting. 

For example, John Dart, after talking about images of bad faith in Mark in general, notes the presumably original ending of the gospel is one more example of bad faith, as the two Marys run away from the empty tomb in fear, just as fear motivated Peter's denials, etc.

Dart also makes an argument of the early date of several non-canonical writings.

Several respondents talk about Jesus and halakhah. Several of them go beyond the basics to talk about how this influenced Jesus' understanding of purity issues, his disputes over this with the Pharisees and possibly others, and from that, his relations to the emerging, but not established, oral Torah.

Several place this in the larger context of "Hellenization" of Galilee. From a couple of books I've read on the issue, like Lee Levine, "Hellenization," even before the Maccabees may have "de-Hellenized" Galilee in some ways, was not in direct opposition to "Judaization" or whatever term should be used.

Many contributors note the great variety of Judaism(s) at this time. I think one thing that unites "New Search" scholars is going beyond Josephus' "four sects," way beyond, in some cases.

Richard Horsley notes that at least parts of what eventually became collected into I Enoch may have been considered "canonical" in some circles at this time. He argues for a sociological reinterpretation of the Daniel 7 vision.

It's also Horsley who talks about the low level of literacy in Judea and Galilee of this time in general.

Somewhat riffing on that, and the Lukan special material, Rainer Reisner argues for a relatively high educational level of Jesus.

Paolo Sacchi talks more about the varieties of Judaisms. He also says he doesn't think Jesus had that much focus on purity issues.