Even if one accepts the most widespread view about the so-called Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.63-64)—i.e., that the text is basically Josephus’s but with some Christian interpolations—a decision on the nature of the alleged original text is still pending. Although a number of scholars have asserted that it contained some unfavorable references to Jesus, the overwhelming majority assert nowadays that it was originally neutral. The aim of the present discussion is to reassess the contemporary discussion on Josephus’s text in order to ascertain which is the most plausible hypothesis regarding the nature of its Vorlage. This article contends that the arguments advanced to support the view of a “neutral” text do not stand up to close examination, and it offers several reasons indicating that the Vorlage must have been at least implicitly negative.
See Leonardus Van Liempt“De Testimonio Flaviano,”Mnemosyne55 (1927): 109-16and Albert A. Bell “Josephus the Satirist? A Clue to the Original form of the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’ ”jqr 67 (1976): 16-22 esp. 17.
Walther BienertDer älteste nichtchristliche Jesusbericht Josephus über Jesus: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des altrussischen ‘Josephus’ (Halle: Akademischer Verlag1936) 298 states: “Selten in der Weltgeschichte ist Jesus so ungerecht so gehässig dargestellt worden wie durch den Juden Josephus.” According to Eisler Brandon and others Josephus called Jesus a γόης; this is possible but uncertain.
In fact Graham N. Stanton“Jesus of Nazareth: A Magician and a False Prophet who Deceived God’s People?” in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ. Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology (ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans1994) 164-80at 171 states that the mooted original text was only “mildly hostile.” Graham Twelftree “Jesus in Jewish Traditions” in The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels (vol. 5 of Gospel Perspectives; ed. David Wenham; Sheffield: jsot Press 1985) 289-342 at 308 refers to several remarks in the text as “possibly slightly derogatory.”
Van VoorstJesus Outside the New Testament96. See also Meier “Jesus in Josephus” 87 and Friedrich Wilhelm Horn “Das Testimonium Flavianum aus neutestamentlicher Perspektive” in Josephus und das Neue Testament 117-36 esp. 135.
Carleton Paget“Some Observations,” 582, comments: “All of this seems rather too brief, and may suggest the possibility of omission from, as well as addition to, an original source.” Also, Rivka Nir, “Josephus’s Account of John the Baptist: A Christian Interpolation?”Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus10 (2012): 32-62has called into question the authenticity of the passage on the Baptist but I remain unconvinced by her arguments.
See S. G. F. BrandonJesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factory in Primitive Christianity (Manchester: Manchester University Press1967) 361; Dubarle “Le témoignage de Josèphe sur Jésus d’après la tradition indirecte” 496; Reinach “Josèphe sur Jésus” 7-8; Bienert Jesusbericht 20-21.
See e.g. Winter“Josephus on Jesus”8. Significantly Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament 93 strives to persuade his readers that “the reconstructed Testimonium appears noncommittal toward Jesus . . . [and] some readers may wonder how this reconstruction with its several positive statements about Jesus can be regarded as neutral.”
Lawrence I. Conrad“The Conquest of Arwad: A Source-Critical Study in the Historiography of the Early Medieval Near East,” in The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East: Problems in the Literary Source Material(ed. Averil Cameron and Lawrence I. Conrad; vol. 1 of The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East; Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 1; Princeton: Darwin Press 1992) 317-401 esp. 322-38.
Claudia J. Setzer Jewish Responses to Early Christians: History and Polemics 30-150 C.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress1994) 211 n. 13 has labeled Agapius’s sentence—“he was perhaps the Messiah” which had previously been deemed “hardly credible” as an authentic Josephan statement (cf. Smith review of Pines 442)—“a nonsensical statement from any point of view probably reflecting an inadequate rendering from Syriac into Arabic.”
See Dale C. Allison“The Continuity between John and Jesus,”Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus1 (2003): 6-27; Fernando Bermejo-Rubio “Juan el Bautista y Jesús de Nazaret en el judaísmo del Segundo Templo: paralelismos fenomenológicos y diferencias implausibles” Ilu Revista de Ciencias de las Religiones 15 (2010): 27-56.
See Kuhn“Die Kreuzesstrafe”724. Klausner Jesus of Nazareth 57 recalls the fact that Ant. was written “at the very time that the emperor Domitian was persecuting all the descendants of the House of David.”
Pelletier“L’originalité”185-86. This is why I consider unwarranted the judgment of Geoltrain “Débat recent” 113 who comments: “Même . . . en éliminant les affirmations par trop chrétiennes le témoignage de Josèphe reste encoré très positif à l’égard du Christ et du christianisme et très negative à l’égard des autoritès juives et de Pilate.” Brandon Jesus and the Zealots 360 argues that Josephus “could have shown how the Jewish leaders recognizing the pernicious influence of Jesus had arrested him and delivered him to the Roman governor for execution. In other words as he represented the Jewish ruling class of which he was himself a member as striving to suppress Zealotism which had caused Rome so much trouble so could he have made out a good case of their attempt to suppress Christianity at its beginning.”
See e.g. BienertJesusbericht225; Pötscher “Iosephus Flavius” 33; and Stanton “Jesus of Nazareth” 170. The verb is used in 2 Peter 2:1 in connection with false prophets “bringing” destruction on themselves.
Nodet“Jésus and Jean-Baptiste” 322 notes: “[L]’effet polémique bouleverse la bienveillante apparence”; cf. Wohleb “Das Testimonium Flavianum”165. It is often claimed that the phrase σοφὸς ἀνήρ and the reference to παράδοξα ἔργα offer a positive portrayal of Jesus but this is doubtful. We cannot be sure that Josephus did indeed write “σοφὸς ἀνήρ”—it has been often argued that the unaltered text contained the term σοφιστής. But even if we accept the textus receptus hasty inferences should not be drawn from the use of the same expression in Ant. 8.53 and 10.237 (on Solomon and Daniel). Not only is the context different but also in the words of Bardet Le Testimonium Flavianum 98-99: “σοφός peut avoir un sens très voisin de σοφιστής” (cf. Reinach “Josèphe sur Jésus” 10). In Ag. Ap. 1.236 a certain Amenophis is called τὸν σοφὸν καὶ µαντικὸν ἄνδρα but irony cannot be excluded: this figure is presented as advising the king to clean the land of polluted people but also as fearing that the anger of the gods would come on him. Be that as it may Jesus seems to have had some fame as a witty teacher hence his description as a σοφός (which fits his designation as διδάσκαλος) is perhaps simply descriptive (see above n. 114). Something similar could be said about the reference to his wondrous acts: “Rapporter les θαυµάσια de Jésus n’était pas forcément compris comme un éloge ou une allusion sulfureuse parce que c’était plus probablemente perçu comme une simple mention se conformant au genre en vogue des mirabilia”; Bardet Le Testimonium Flavianum 74.
See e.g. ThackerayJosephus143; Pötscher “Iosephus Flavius” 30-31; Winter “Josephus on Jesus” 438-40; and G. C. Richards and R. J. H. Shutt “Critical Notes on Josephus’s Antiquities” cq 31 (1937): 170-77 esp. 176. After his thorough review of the scholarly discussion Carleton Paget “Some Observations” 603 states that “there may have been a reference to a θόρυβος” although he puzzlingly adds: “but this may not have been negative.” Theissen and Merz Der historische Jesus 82 assuming that Jesus could not be involved in seditious activities state that the original text must have contained a reference to “einen befürchteten Aufstand Jesu oder seiner Anhänger” (emphasis original) and they add: “Es wäre verständlich daß christliche Abschreiber diesen Abschnitt unterdrückten da ihnen alles daran gelegen sein mußte jeden Verdacht christlicher Illoyalität gegenüber dem römischen Staat auszuräumen.” But one wonders why Christians would have needed to drop the report of mere suspicions. Such an erasure is by far more plausible if the original text contained a reference to an actual seditious act.
Erik Peterson“Christianus,” in Miscellanea Giovanni MercatiVolume I:Bibbia Letteratura Cristiana Antica(ed. Anselm M. Albareda; Studi e Testi 121; Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana1946) 356-72esp. 363.