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