Paul Clark

Reviewed by Paul Clark

Josephus played a leading part in the massive and ultimately disastrous Jewish rebellion against Roman rule in 66-70 CE. When captured in 67 CE, he defected to the Romans and thrived thanks to the protection of the future Emperor Vespasian.

Years later, Josephus wrote a history of the Jewish War and a wider history, or Antiquities, of the Jews. In the Antiquities, there are two short passages that refer to Jesus. The second refers to the execution of “James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ” and need not detain us here.

THE TESTIMONIUM

The first passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is commonly translated as follows (pay special attention to the parts highlighted in bold):

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 miraculous deeds, a teacher of men who receive truths with pleasure.

And he led many from among the Jews and many from among the Greeks. He was the Christ.

And, when Pilate had condemned him to the cross at the accusation of the first men among us, those who at first loved him did not cease to do so, for on the third day he appeared to them 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.

PROBLEMS WITH THE TESTIMONIUM

The bold sections are considered problematic. Why would a Jewish writer, who you would expect to be unsympathetic toward Christians, say these things about Jesus?

• If one ought to call him a man
• A doer of miraculous deeds
• A teacher of truth
• He was the Christ (Messiah)
• He appeared to them alive again
• The prophets had spoken such things and thousands of other wonderful things about him

This has led the majority of scholars to believe that the Testimonium isn’t wholly authentic, that a later Christian scribe has interpolated pro-Christian phrases into it. A minority argue that the Testimonium is wholly interpolated.

A BETTER TRANSLATION

Schmidt disagrees. He says the Testimonium is wholly authentic but has been misunderstood, in large part because the original Greek has been translated badly. Far from being pro-Christian, the Testimonium is in fact neutral or possibly hostile toward Jesus:

• If one ought to call him a man – Schmidt suggests that Josephus uses this phrase because he knows people have very different opinions of Jesus. Some see him as the Son of God but others regard him as a demon.
• Miraculous deeds – Schmidt prefers to translate this as “paradoxical” or even “magical” deeds. Magic was severely taboo among Jews, so this would be a hostile comment.
• A teacher of men who receive truths with pleasure – this could be translated as “truisms”, indicating that Jesus’ message was inane and his followers naïve. Equally “led many” can be read as “led many astray”.
• He was the Christ (Messiah) – Schmidt suggests this should be “was believed to be the Christ”, i.e. by his followers.
• He appeared to them alive again – again, he seemed to his followers to be alive again.
• The prophets had spoken such things and thousands of other wonderful things about him – this refers to what his followers believe, not what Josephus believes.

EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS

Schmidt marshals his evidence systematically. He notes that early Christian writers didn’t make a big deal of the Testimonium. This is odd, since one would expect them to do so if it were pro-Christian. This is one reason why many scholars believe the Testimonium contains later interpolations.

However, early commentaries and Latin and Syriac translations contain features closer to Schmidt’s interpretation of the text as something neutral or hostile toward Jesus.

AUTHENTICITY

Schmidt goes into a detailed and forensic examination of the language of the Testimonium. He argues that it is entirely consistent with the language Josephus uses in the rest of Antiquities and that it is highly unlikely that a later Christian scribe could have imitated his style so accurately.

There are a number of phrases that a Christian writer wouldn’t use if he were forging parts of the Testimonium, among them “wise man” (associated with Greek philosophers, not the Son of God), questioning Jesus’ humanity (orthodox Christians insisted Jesus was fully human) and the presence of Greek followers (the gospels insist that all Jesus’ followers during his lifetime were Jews). Schmidt suggests the latter point is probably a mistake by Josephus because by the late first century, the vast majority of Christians were gentiles.

He notes the context in which the Testimonium is located – a section about the various disturbances which occurred during Pontius Pilate’s reign in Jerusalem. Would a Christian interpolator really have inserted a passage about Jesus in a list of disturbances?

JOSEPHUS’ SOURCES

The final part of Schmidt’s argument concerns Josephus’ sources, which Schmidt says were very good indeed. Josephus was born a few years after the crucifixion and grew up in Jerusalem, the child of an aristocratic priestly family. It is almost certain that he knew personally some of the people involved in arresting Jesus and handing him over to the Romans, and he definitely knew Ananus II, the High Priest who had James the brother of Jesus executed.

He was also commander of the rebel Jewish army in Galilee and visited many of the places where Jesus had ministered a few decades earlier. Schmidt speculates that it is possible that he will have met people who knew Jesus or heard him preach.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

I am not competent to judge whether Schmidt is right about the language used in the Testimonium or how it should best be translated. All I can say is that his book is published by a reputable academic publisher and his arguments seem logical and coherent to me.

I don’t agree with everything he says. Most scholars are less convinced by the historicity of Luke and Acts than Schmidt. He seems to find the gospel accounts of John the Baptist’s death credible, but for me the tale of Salome’s dance leading to the Baptist’s head on a platter is precisely the kind of salacious detail I would expect Josephus to include in his account of the Baptist’s execution. The fact that he doesn’t suggests to me that this story is not to be trusted.

I don’t like the cover, a detail from Antonio Ciseri’s painting Ecce Homo. This depicts a scene from John’s gospel where Pilate presents a scourged Jesus to the the baying mob. This almost certainly never happened and is not appropriate for a serious work of history.

However, none of this detracts from the power of Schmidt’s arguments. I wait with interest to see how the wider academic community responds to this book. I suspect we may see a paradigm shift in which the Testimonium comes to be regarded as wholly authentic but in no sense pro-Christian.

If Schmidt is correct, then the Testimonium can be viewed as strong evidence for the existence of Jesus as a real historical figure who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. This, by itself, would mean that arguments promoted by the likes of Richard Carrier and (to his shame) Richard Dawkins that Jesus was a purely mythical figure are almost certainly false.

LINKS

Schmidt has made his book available for free download as a PDF at https://josephusandjesus.com/purchase-page/.

You can see him discuss his ideas on the History for Atheists podcast at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L2bE1-pyiU&t=14s

—