Understanding The Testimonium Flavianum

[Tod Stites]

*Now recently the well-known "Testimonium Flavianum", the Testimony about Jesus attributed to the first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, has become once again the subject of controversy.
*For it seems that the extreme positions of wholly authentic and wholly fabricated have not been completely evacuated, and that some researchers are still determined that the Testimony was "probably" added to the "Judean Antiquities" of Josephus, was "almost certainly added deliberately", and that "the Testimony derives from the New Testament".
*But taking in an overview of the surrounding context of the Testimony, the non-specialist who is curious about this potentially earliest non-Christian reference to Jesus, may choose to reserve judgment on any "new findings" or any notion that the Testimony is a wholesale Christian concoction interpolated into the works of an ancient historian who (supposedly) never said anything about Jesus.
*To begin with, the "Antiquities" precede the entry about Jesus with the story of the "corbonas" protest, when the Jews protested against Pilate's expropriation of the
sacred Temple treasure ("corbonas") in order to fund the construction of an aqueduct in order to bring water to Jerusalem.
*Josephus says that at this time the soldiers of Pilate exercised crowd control by "equally" punishing "those that were tumultuous and those that were not"(1).
*After this we read the Testimony about Jesus, however much of it was altered or replaced by later Christian scribes.
*Next Josephus gives an account of a fraud perpetrated against an aristocratic lady of Rome by a group that included priests from the cult of Isis. When this plot was uncovered, the emperor Tiberius (14-37 C.E.) had the Isis priests crucified and the temple of Isis destroyed (2).
*After this passage, Josephus immediately tells another story of fraud, in which another aristocratic lady is swindled, this time by Jews, into making a "donation" to the Temple at Jerusalem. And when this fraud is discovered, Tiberius orders all the Jews banished out of Rome, all because of "the wickedness of four men"(3).
*Once again, following upon these stories, Josephus conveys the same lesson in reporting that the Samaritans "did not escape without tumults". This time a man whom Josephus regards as having been a liar, but who has been seen as a "messianic" figure (4), gathered
a multitude in order to proceed up Mount Gerizim, where this charlatan would reveal sacred vessels. This gathering triggered a militant reaction by Pilate, in which some of the multitude were slain, and a great many taken prisoner (5).
*Now it is important to remember that these stories run in sequence, one after another, in the "Judean Antiquities" of Josephus, and whether the instigators are Jews, pagans, or Samaritans, the misbehavior of these instigators is the cause of violent Roman reaction which falls on their co-religionists.
*In each of these stories, the misbehavior of a few members of a group brings Roman wrath down upon the entire group, whose members are united by a common (not always Jewish) religion, and the usual absence of any positive sentiments towards the Samaritans in Josephus suggests that the inclusion of the final story was part of a deliberate effort at thematic arrangement (6).
*Sandwiched into this arrangement is of course the Testimony about Jesus, making it appear as another example of aberrant behavior by one, or by a few, which brings Roman violence upon many.
*But of course the Jesus episode did not (as far as we can tell) bring Roman wrath down upon the Jews as a whole, or upon large numbers of them. Yet it is this which seems to hint at what Josephus is trying to tell his readers: that the Messianic fervor that surrounded Jesus, whom Josephus may well have regarded as another charlatan, MIGHT have triggered a widespread violent reaction from the Romans, as in the other stories, and as feared by the Jewish authorities at the time Jesus was crucified, according to the Christian sources (John 11:47-50).
*We have one source then, which attests to fear of Roman violence among Jews around the time Jesus was executed, and another source which MAY have attested to Jewish fear of Roman violence about the time Jesus was executed. But we also have a source, and this one contemporary, which points to the REASON for Jewish fear of Roman violence around the time Jesus was executed. For in his "Embassy To Gaius", the Jew Philo Judaeus says (c.40 C.E.) that under the emperor Tiberius,the Prefect of Praetorian Cohorts, Sejanus, in the period preceding his death in October of 31 C.E.,had been "contriving his attack" against the Jews, because he "wanted to destroy that race completely", and that after Sejanus fell (executed for treason), Tiberius sent word of assurance to Jews all over the Empire "that punishment was not falling on all" (as would have been the case under the
anti-Jewish Sejanus) "but only on the guilty"(e.g. those convicted of breaking the law),
who would be "few in number" because the Jews "were of a peaceful disposition" and their laws "were conducive to public order"(7).
*Any rumored pogroms against the Jews by Sejanus, as those known to Philo, would have
naturally made them nervous, helping us understand perhaps the Talmudic tradition of a Rabbi Zadoq, who began fasting to prevent the destruction of Jerusalem about forty years before the destruction of the Temple (8), i.e. about 30 C.E.
*To the Romans, Josephus, in his "Judean War", had offered a model of how to treat his people. As the Caesars had not allowed the earlier rebellions in Judea to weaken their support for the Herodian family, and it's supporters, so now they should not harass all the Jews just because of the troubles caused by a few renegades (9).
*Thus the theme of the Testimony, and it's surrounding passages, all seem to strike a similar
chord, even if we remain unaware, or at least uncertain, of what the Testimony originally
said. The Roman wrath had fallen on entire religious communities, not always Jewish, because of the tumultuous and fraudulent behavior of a few members, so that perhaps the thematic arrangement of Josephus included a reference to Jesus for this reason.
*Such are the possible motives for Josephus in writing the Testimony regardless of what it's
content might have been: explaining to Christian Jews the perceived need of the Sanhedrin
to inform on Jesus, as well as explaining to Romans that the Jewish people should not be
punished because of the misbehavior of a few charlatans and fanatics.
*Whatever the Testimony originally may have said about Jesus, for the priest Josephus to
have placed it amid such examples and to have seen the story of Jesus in such a light,
would suggest that Josephus, descended from a priestly family (10), inherited priestly
traditions that recalled priestly concerns about what the Romans might do to the Jews
on account of Jesus, with the reported anxiety of the chief priests about possible
destruction of the Jewish Temple (John 11:47-48) making it appropriate perhaps to place
the Testimony just before the account of the charlatans who perpetrated a fraud that led
to Roman destruction of the Isis temple (2).
*In fact all four stories surrounding the Testimony involve the centers of worship for
various religions. The first story involves controversy and conflict over expropriation
of the Jerusalem Temple funds; the second story involves destruction of the pagan
temple of Isis; the third story involves a fraudulent acquisition of gifts for the Jewish
Temple; and the fourth story involves a "lying" promise about what was to be found
atop Mt. Gerizim, the sacred mountain and site of the former temple of the Samaritans.
This common feature makes one wonder just what the original Testimony might have
said about Jesus and the Temple, since his behavior there was so controversial accord-
ing to the Christian sources.
*Indeed priestly anxiety in the time of Jesus may have been focused specifically on the
prospect that the Romans would deprive them and all the principal men of the Jews of
their prestige and the Jews as a whole of their status as a "nation"(11)
*Now for Josephus to have grouped the above stories by way of thematic arrangement
would have been perfectly consistent with his style of writing. Such a concentric
arrangement has been illustrated for his "Life", which centers around a revelatory
dream of his which declares the divine favor he enjoys and which forms the anchor
for his stories of divine protection (12).
*And in covering the Hebrew Bible Josephus follows the chronological order of events
except when he strives to produce a thematic narrative (13), and in his other works
Josephus does not often establish an organic connection between one event and
another, and his stories are narrated with little regard for cohesiveness or logical
development (14).
*In his treatment of the Bible Josephus considers that "items which belong together
should be juxtaposed, no matter the chronology nor the disposition of the source",
and "we find this principle demonstrated throughout the Josephan corpus", with his
focus on and use of certain figures to organize his narrative reminiscent of the
methods of Livy (15).
*Indeed Josephus admits he is more concerned with the coherence of his narrative
than with the accuracy of his chronology (16), and has ample Greek precedent for
ignoring chronology in favor of thematic arrangement (17), while at Qumran a topical/
thematic arrangement of biblical passages has been made manifest (18).
*Now such an approach would be not only logical but safe for Josephus to use, since
in the Flavian period in which he was writing it could be dangerous to speak frankly
(19).
*More generally, Josephan scholars warn that we must not trust Josephus, not because
he is less reliable than other ancient historians, but because like them all he crafts "a
work of art". And his work may be relied on to fulfill his own aims, but not as a window
to real events (20).
*Absolutely rare ground is a rarity in Josphan studies (21). But while "Josephus does
exaggerate", " he does not normally engage in large scale invention"(22). It is observed
that Josephus was wont to stress the authenticity of his sources (23), and that "on the
whole Josephus was faithful to his sources: he neither invented new episodes nor
distorted the essential content of those previously narrated" (24).
*Now writing history in antiquity was an activity embedded in the honor system and in
the political status of the "historian", and was but one occupation of the elite (25). And
the objectivity of Josephus is in question because of passages like the account of the
standards incident under Pilate, which is written in language suspiciously similar to that
recalling the Hasmonean revolt (2 Macc 2:22):(4:11):(26), yet Josephus is quite capable
of acknowledging the positive qualities of categories of people of whom he is disdainful
(women, assassins):(27).
*All of these observations should be taken into consideration in evaluating the report on
Jesus as it appears in the "Judean Antiquities" of Flavius Josephus.

*Now that we have examined the surrounding context of the Testimony, and seen the
plausibility of the proposed explanation as to why Josephus placed it where he did, and
setting aside all consideration of content, of how much the Testimony was fabricated/
interpolated by later Christian scribes, we must ask one question:
*Why would a Christian editor, be it Eusebius or someone else, have placed a completely
falsified witness to Jesus (if that is what it is) in the present context, where we find it
in the "Judean Antiquities" ? Why place a fake testimony to the founder of their faith
amidst stories of scandal, fraud, turmoil and Roman violence ?
*Was it to show that the Jews were suffering various calamities because of their "crimes
against Christ ?" If this was the motive then it would have been logical to insert the fake
testimony into the "Antiquities" BEFORE the account of Pilate bringing idolatrous standards
into the sacred precincts of Jerusalem, and BEFORE the riot that broke out over the Temple
funds, so as to illustrate that it was because of their killing Jesus that the Jews suffered
these things. But in the "Antiquities" the account of Jesus comes AFTER the reports of these
afflictions. Eusebius himself tries to do this, positioning the "standards" incident after
announcing that the Jews' misfortunes began "with their daring crimes against the Saviour"
(28), alluding to the cry of loyalty to Caesar made by the Jews at the trial of Jesus (John
19:15),and then claiming that "after this", "another calamity overtook them", which leads
to an account of the Temple funds riot (29).He says that the "misfortunes of the Jews..
came upon them not long after their daring deeds against Christ", then that in Judea Pilate
attempted something contrary to the Jewish law with respect to the Temple.."(30).
*But this is NOT the sequence of the "Antiquities", where Jesus appears AFTER the account
of the standards incident and the Temple protest. Now if the Testimony was a wholesale
fabrication it's Christian creators could have placed it anywhere within the account of
Pilate's administration in Judea as given in the "Antiquities". After at least two centuries,
it is unlikely anyone would have been familiar with the precise chronology of the Pilate
years, and if meant to illustrate how God was punishing the Jews for what they did to
Jesus it would have likely been inserted in the sequence BEFORE the other calamities
recorded by Josephus.
*Is it not more likely then that the Christian "spin doctors" did not choose the location
for their interjected "witness" to Jesus but were drawn to a specific location within
the "Antiquities" where Jesus had already been mentioned, and that it was there that
they did their tampering ?
*And in fact this location is likely to have been the ONLY place which the interpolators
deemed suitable to do their work, for if a mention of Jesus was not already present at
this point in the "Antiquities" then why not insert the Testimony elsewhere, before any
of the afflictions suffered by the Jews under Pilate ? This would logically support the
theme of divine wrath coming down on the Jews AFTER what they had done to Jesus.
*Indeed it certainly seems that there must have been something there in the beginning,
and that Christian editors altered and fabricated and interpolated where they did
because it was the only place in the works of Flavius Josephus where they found Jesus.




1.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 18.3.2.Josephus "Judean War" 2.9.4
2.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 18.3.4.Feldman "Josephus And Modern Scholarship" p.518,
the entries of Tacitus ("Annals" 2.85.5) and Suetonius ("Tiberius" 36) indicate that the ex-
pulsion of Egyptians and Jews from Rome by Tiberius took place in 19 C.E. but do not
attribute these expulsions to fraudulent activity. This again suggests thematic arrangement
and possible embellishing on the part of Josephus.
3.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 18.3.5
4.Feldman "Josephus And Modern Scholarship" p.539
5.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 18.4.1.Feldman "Josephus And Modern Scholarship" p.697.
6.Cf. Coggins in (ed.) Feldman and Hata "Josephus, Judaism And Christianity" p.268
7.Philo "Embassy To Gaius" 159-161
8.Babli Gittin 56b.Safrai and Stern "The Jewish People In The First Century" v.2,p.815.
The Temple was of course destroyed in 70 C.E., so that if historical, the fasts of Rabbi
Zadoq could have begun about the time Sejanus was rumored to be "contriving his attack"
against the Jews. Goodenough "The Politics Of Philo Judaeus" p.4, in the time of Philo,
Jesus, and Sejanus, Jewish rights "could be revoked instantly, and a pogrom begun, if it
suited Roman, especially imperial, pleasure to do so".
9.Mason "Josephus And The New Testament" p.155
10.Josephus "Life" 1.1
11.Winter "On The Trial Of Jesus" p.39-40,suggests "topos" may refer to "status"(John 11:48).
12.Mason "Josephus And The New Testament" p.126-9
13.Cohen "Josephus In Galilee And Rome" p.39-42. Feldman "Josephus And Modern Scholarship"
p.130. Mason "Josephus And The New Testament" p.124-5, in Josephus' "Life" historical precision
is cavalierly disregarded in favor of constant attention to moral lessons.
14.Cohen "Josephus In Galilee And Rome" p.9
15.Cohen "Josephus In Galilee And Rome" p.32-3. Velleius Paterculus "History Of Rome" 1.14.1:
"(In as much as) related facts make more impression upon the mind and eye when grouped
together than when they are given separately in their chronological sequence";cf.Shipley
"Compendium Of Roman History" p.35. Schiffman "Qumran And Jerusalem" p.175-6, notes that
part of the Qumran Temple Scroll compiles laws from Deuteronomy and to some extent
organizes them by subject.
16.Josephus "Judean War" 4.9.2.496
17.Josephus "Judean War" 7.3.2.42.Cohen "Josephus In Galilee And Rome" p.33.Rajak
"Josephus: The Historian And His Society" p.158, his early account of his activities in Galilee
shows "a disregard for chronology in the interests of it's thematic arrangement". Chilton
"The Temple Of Jesus" p.69/n1,Josephus "clearly gave up chronology for what appeared to
him to be thematic coherence", in a "quasi-Thucydidean patterning".
18.Schiffman and Vander Kam "Encyclopedia Of The Dead Sea Scrolls" vol.1,p.380.
19.Philo "On Dreams" 2.12.83. Goodenough "The Politics Of Philo Judaeus" p.5. Mason
"Josephus, Judea And Christian Origins" p.48-50.
20.Mason "Josephus, Judea And Christian Origins" p.42.Mason "Josephus And The New
Testament" p.131,in the spirit of the Age, Josephus, like the Gospel writers, shows
not the slightest hesitation in changing details and disregarding precision in the
interest of his rhetorical points. Chilton "The Temple Of Jesus" p.73n15,regarding
Josephus: "what he says might be governed more by what he wishes had been the
case than by what he knows".
21.Cohen "Josephus In Galilee And Rome" p.71n6
22.Cohen "Josephus In Galilee And Rome" p.204n44
23.Feldman "Josephus And Modern Scholarship" p.450
24.Cohen "Josephus In Galilee And Rome" p.47.Mason "Josephus And The New Testament"
p.119,however observes that "it is obvious and well known by scholars that Josephus adds
and omits a great deal".
25.Mason "Josephus, Judea And Christian Origins" p.7-8
26.Josephus "Judean War" 2.9.2-3.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 18.3.1.Mason "Josephus,
Judea And Christian Origins" p.21.
27.Feldman "Josephus And Modern Scholarship" p.775-6
28.Eusebius "Historia Ecclesiastica" 2.6.3-4
29.Eusebius "Historia Ecclesiastica" 2.6.4-8
30.Eusebius "Historia Ecclesiastica" 2.5.6-7

[neilgodfrey]

There's nothing "extreme" about a position that suggests the TF is a complete forgery. Interpolations and forgery was part of the common literary culture of the day, after all. It would be "extreme" to suggest that any popular or ideologically useful manuscript from that broad era has survived unscathed.

For a discussion of the wider context than the limited one considered here see Cuckoo in the Nest (2) -- Jesus in Josephus

As for literary patterns, limiting the context to 4 items: Jerusalem - Rome / Jerusalem - Samaritans -- that leaves no natural room for another reference to Jerusalem mid-way.

If Josephus had placed a reference to Jesus anywhere there then his Jesus would have had to have been either depicted as a leader of trouble-makers who contributed to the fall of Jerusalem or depicted as a righteous victim whose mistreatment contributed to the fall of Jerusalem.

If the former, then we have a situation where the Jewish and Roman authorities did the right thing and got rid of him. So he would not have been responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and Josephus would have had to have pinpointed some successor like a Peter or James perhaps as responsible for calamity.

If the latter, then we would have an anomaly since everywhere else Josephus has only harsh condemnation for religious upstarts. Moreover, he tends to wax eloquent on the new ideas of religious innovations (such as the fourth philosophy) but does nothing of the kind with Jesus.

But the biggest problem with any authentic core is the failure of other interested parties to have noticed and commented on it when it would have proved most useful -- up until the time of Eusebius.

Besides, the small size of the unit is what one expects in the case of interpolations given the technical issues involved with inserting passages; and it is in a most appropriate place, alongside discussions of Pilate.

An interpolator is the beggar who cannot be the chooser of an ideal spot that would happily conform to every ideological wish for his insertion -- especially when Josephus was known to be typically hostile to religious innovators operating outside the system.

[arnoldo]

According to Jerome Murphy O'Conner, Josephus was hostile towards Christians for "having an appetite for novelties/innovations"

[arnoldo]

Perhaps this claim of novelty attributed to Christianity is echoed in the following writing.

It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—how else could it be?—in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He inter preted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/lucian/peregrinus.htm

[Ken Olson]

Tod Stites wrote:

*Now that we have examined the surrounding context of the Testimony, and seen the
plausibility of the proposed explanation as to why Josephus placed it where he did, and
setting aside all consideration of content, of how much the Testimony was fabricated/
interpolated by later Christian scribes, we must ask one question:

*Why would a Christian editor, be it Eusebius or someone else, have placed a completely
falsified witness to Jesus (if that is what it is) in the present context, where we find it
in the "Judean Antiquities" ? Why place a fake testimony to the founder of their faith
amidst stories of scandal, fraud, turmoil and Roman violence ?

I have argued that Eusebius of Caesarea composed the Testimonium Flavianum for use in his own work, most probably for his Demonstratio Evangelica, where it fits its context quite nicely and resonates with the argument Eusebius is making that Jesus was more than a common man, but in fact the Christ who was foretold in prophecy who would be a maker of miraculous works and a teacher of the truth (about the one God) not only to the Jews (who had had this proclaimed to them before) but to the Gentiles (who had not) as well. Further, the fact that the disciples did not abandon him after seeing how he met his end, and the nation of Christians has not only continued but grown, is explicable only on the theory that his teaching about eternal life with God was proven to them by his appearance to them after his death, so that they feared no mortal punishment. This is the case Eusebius is making in the Demonstratio and particularly in Book III and Chapter 5, and one can see how the Testimonium supports it if one bothers to look.

The question of how the Testimonium, which was written to fit its context in Eusebius, came to be inserted into the manuscripts of Josephus's Antiquities is an interesting separate issue. In my 1999 CBQ paper, I hypothesized that it was inserted by a Christian scribe who read it in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, but in my 2013 "Eusebian Reading" paper, online at http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5871, I allowed the possibility that Eusebius himself could have overseen its insertion (n. 50).

Why insert it between 18.62 and 18.65? Because that is far and away the most logical place to insert. The only internal piece of evidence from the Testimonium that would give an idea of when the event took place is the mention of Pilate, so Josephus's account of Pilate's tenure as governor is the most likely place to put it. In the Demonstratio, Eusebius says that Josephus mentions Jesus in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities, in his record of the times of Pilate.

Given that the times of Pilate is the most likely place to put the passage about Jesus, why put it between 18.62 and 18.65 rather than at some other point in Josephus's account of Pilate's tenure as governor in Ant. 18.55-89? Because 18.63 is the earliest point at which the passage could reasonably be introduced. Pilate is introduced as a new character and identified as the governor of Judea in 18.55, so the Testimonium would have to be inserted after that. It wouldn't make sense to insert the story in the middle of the passage about the standards (18.55-18.59), and it wouldn't make a much more sense to put it before the story about the temple treasury in 18.60-62, because that story does not reintroduce Pilate or re-establish the setting, but continues on from the story of the standards.

If the Testimonium is a complete insertion, as I consider most likely, the next story was the Paulina affair, which is set in Rome and does not involve Pilate, in 18.65-18.80, which begins with "About this same time." The Greek wording is very different from the Testimonium's introduction, but the function is the same. Daniel Schwartz has discussed the function of such introductions in his article "KATA TOUTON TON KAIRON: Josephus Source on Agrippa II," JQR 52.4 (1982) 241-268. Josephus and other ancient authors began stories that way when making insertions or combining sources because they don't require any specific temporal or causal relationship to what comes before them. They are unlike introduction beginning "Then," or "Next", "Immediately, "or "As a result of this," which closely tie the story being introduced to the story that precedes them. They suggest only a very general temporal relationship and could be earlier or later or overlapping with what comes before them.

This means that Antiquities 18.63 is the earliest point in Josephus's account of the time of Pilate in which the Testimonium could reasonably have been introduced. The two further objections to the location of the Testimonium that (1) it occurs amidst stories of scandal, fraud, turmoil and Roman violence and (2) that it should have come before the stories of the Jewish misfortunes in 18.55-18.62 rather than after them to reflect the idea that the misfortunes of the Jews were a result of their crimes against Christ, seem to presuppose that early Christian authors and scribes were much more foresighted than they actually were and that they should have seen how the context in the Antiquities might be used to undermine their Christian message.

For Christian authors, scribes and readers, a passage in which Josephus declares Jesus to be the Christ foretold in prophecy who was resurrected from the dead is scarcely to be undermined by being followed by a story about the seduction of a Roman matron. Why would it be? As far as I'm aware, no one in the reception history of the Testimonium ever mentioned the text with its unfavorable context until the the Testimonium began to be suspected of being a Christian insertion in the Reformation.

Eusebius was the inventor of the argument that Josephus shows that the misfortunes of the Jews began with their crimes against Jesus, but depends mostly on the Jewish War, not the Antiquities to make the case. Also, the placement of the Testimonium after the introduction of Pilate is narrative order, not temporal order, so would not have contradicted the theory. The introduction "About this time" allows that the event could be earlier, later or simultaneous, with events preceding it in the narrative.

In summary, I think the decision to insert Josephus's testimony to Christ between Antiquities 18.62 and 18.65 was made because that was the earliest point in Josephus's account of Pilate's tenure where it would fit. That the surrounding context might make readers reinterpret Josephus's testimony to Jesus unfavorably or could be used to undermine the claim made in the Ecclesiastical History that the misfortunes of the Jews began with their crimes against Christ because two misfortunes are narrated before that are probably not considerations that that weighed heavily on, or even occurred to, the interpolators.

Best,

Ken

[Bernard Muller]

to Tod Stites,
Generally, your long OP is full of weak arguments, opinions, appeal to possibilities and plausibility, but nothing solid.
I'll comment on one key point:

*Why would a Christian editor, be it Eusebius or someone else, have placed a completely
falsified witness to Jesus (if that is what it is) in the present context, where we find it
in the "Judean Antiquities" ? Why place a fake testimony to the founder of their faith
amidst stories of scandal, fraud, turmoil and Roman violence ?

Because, according to gLuke, the Jesus' episode happens in the middle of Pilate's tenure as governor of Judea, between what occurs at the beginning of his rule (the successful protest & the Corban massacre) and what occurs at the end (the Samaritan prophet). Let's note the Jesus' passage is introduced by "Now there was about this time Jesus)...". That was the logical place to put it, even if the Testimonium clashes with the other stories.
I know you think the Testimonium replaced something Josephus would have written about Jesus, probably in no complimentary terms. But there is no trace on that.
Actually, I made some points against that possibility in my own web page on the The Testimonium Flavianum here:
http://historical-jesus.info/appe.html

Cordially, Bernard

[FransJVermeiren]

If Josephus had placed a reference to Jesus anywhere there then his Jesus would have had to have been either depicted as a leader of trouble-makers who contributed to the fall of Jerusalem or depicted as a righteous victim whose mistreatment contributed to the fall of Jerusalem.

I believe it is quite important to combine things correctly. If a) the Testimonium is false and b) Origins says that Josephus did not see Jesus as the Christ, then we have to look at a Jesus in Josephus apart from the Testimonium, a down-to-earth Jesus preferably.

In Vita 134 Josephus mentions a Galilean Jesus who is ‘a knave with an instinct for introducing disorder into grave matters’, so you are served with year leader of trouble-makers, Mr. Godfrey.

This same Jesus is ‘the ringleader (…) of the party of the sailors and the destitute class’ (Vita 66). Doesn’t this remind of the numerous Sea-of-Galilee-stories in the Gospels? And as the members of the destitute class were poor, should we be surprised that in Luke 6:20 Jesus blesses the poor? The leader of the poor blessing the poor, can it be more simple?

Josephus was active in Galilee in the first half of 67 CE, so it is clear that Jesus son of Saphat whom he met there may have contributed to the fall of Jerusalem, or better, to its defense.

Also in Vita 134 Jesus son of Saphat is depicted as a leading priest, ‘with a copy of the laws of Moses in his hand’. Doesn’t this remind of the Gospel stories of Jesus’ activity in the synagogue (on more than 10 occasions)?

[neilgodfrey]

If Josephus had placed a reference to Jesus anywhere there then his Jesus would have had to have been either depicted as a leader of trouble-makers who contributed to the fall of Jerusalem or depicted as a righteous victim whose mistreatment contributed to the fall of Jerusalem.

I believe it is quite important to combine things correctly. If a) the Testimonium is false and b) Origins says that Josephus did not see Jesus as the Christ, then we have to look at a Jesus in Josephus apart from the Testimonium, a down-to-earth Jesus preferably.

Does that follow? Had Origen said Josephus believed Jesus was such and such, say, a "down-to-earth" fellow, etc, then yes, we would look for that portrait of Jesus in Josephus.

But if Origen says Josephus does not indicated any belief that Jesus is Messiah, then it follows that he is as like as not made no reference to him.

[MrMacSon]

.
This from 4-5 days ago sums up the most recent literature on the TF (disclaimer: I haven't read it yet).

• http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12071

While I think that Carrier gets it wrong with the title of his blog-post; he does seem to address the key publications in that blog-post.


He links to a 3 page document here - http://www.richardcarrier.info/testimonium.pdf?x23333

I have taken page 2 of that document and changed the order of the references -

Carrier's "New Essential Bibliography" re-ordered chronologically

G.J. Goldberg. 1995. “The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13: 59–77.

Ken Olson. 1999. “Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61:305–22.

Alice Whealey. 2008. “The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic.” New TestamentStudies 54.4: 573–90.

Louis Feldman. 2012. “On the Authenticity of the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’ Attributed toJosephus.”

• in New Perspectives on Jewish Christian Relations, eds. E Carlebach & J Schacter (Brill), pp. 13–30.

Richard Carrier. 2012. “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 20.4: 489–514

• [Reproduced in 'Hitler Homer Bible Christ: The Historical Papers of Richard Carrier' 1995-2013 (Philosophy Press, 2014), pp. 337–68.]

Ken Olson. 2013. “A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum.” in Eusebius of Caesarea:Tradition and Innovations, eds. A Johnson & J Schott (Harvard University Press), pp. 97–114.

• link in post by Ken Olson here viewtopic.php?p=64784#p64784

Ken Olson. 2013. “The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus.” The Jesus Blog (August 13):

• http://historicaljesusresearch.blogspot ... s-and.html

Paul Hopper. 2014. “A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63.”

• in Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers, eds. M Fludernik & D Jacob (de Gruyter), pp. 147–169.

Richard Carrier. 2014. “Josephus and the Testimonia Flaviana.” in On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield-Phoenix), pp. 332–342.


Alice Whealey. 2016. “The Testimonium Flavianum.” A Companion to Josephus in His World, eds. HHChapman Z Rodgers (John Wiley & Sons), pp. 345–55.

• [Which fails to take into account any of the [above] (except Whealey 2008 and Olson 1999), which is reflective of the problem that needs correcting.]

What an absolute joke it is that Alice Whealey publishes in 2016, but did not refer to key literature between her previous 2008 publication and 2016

• (and other authors in 'A Companion to Josephus in His World' do; one at least refers to Feldman 2012).

.

[Tod Stites]

If Josephus had placed a reference to Jesus anywhere there then his Jesus would have had to have been either depicted as a leader of trouble-makers who contributed to the fall of Jerusalem or depicted as a righteous victim whose mistreatment contributed to the fall of Jerusalem.

I believe it is quite important to combine things correctly. If a) the Testimonium is false and b) Origins says that Josephus did not see Jesus as the Christ, then we have to look at a Jesus in Josephus apart from the Testimonium, a down-to-earth Jesus preferably.

Does that follow? Had Origen said Josephus believed Jesus was such and such, say, a "down-to-earth" fellow, etc, then yes, we would look for that portrait of Jesus in Josephus.

But if Origen says Josephus does not indicated any belief that Jesus is Messiah, then it follows that he is as like as not made no reference to him.

Louis Feldman: "Origen's statement that Josephus did not admit 'Jesus to be the Christ' is a strong argument that Origen did have a passage about Jesus but that it was neutral"
"Josephus And Modern Scholarship" p.690.