Louis Feldman, the pre-eminent Josephus scholar, has succinctly discussed the problem of the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) in several works. The most readily available is his footnote to his translation of Josephus in the Loeb edition, Books 18-19, found on p. 48-49.
In his work Feldman describes the chief arguments for and against the
Testimonium authenticity. Briefly they are as follows:
Arguments for authenticity | Arguments against authenticity |
Found in all surviving manuscripts | Christian content unlikely from a Jewish writer (esp., "He was the Messiah."). |
Quoted in full by Eusebius, c. 324 CE | Writers earlier than Eusebius do not cite the passage; Origen states that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. |
A more accepted reference to Jesus in Book 20 indicates that he must have been described earlier in the Antiquities, logically at the discussion of Pilate. | The passage breaks the continuity of the narrative concerning Pilate.
|
Vocabulary and style are generally consistent with that of Josephus | There are stylistic peculiarities that are not found in Josephus, such as the use of the first person in "the principal men among us". |
No other passage in the Antiquities has been seriously questioned, so the burden of proof is on the skeptics. | Interpolations have been found in isolated manuscripts of Josephus, such as accounts of Jesus in the Slavonic version. |
93 CE
The book Jewish Antiquities by Josephus is
published in Rome. It contains at least one reference to "James, the brother
of Jesus called the Christ." Manuscripts surviving today also contain aa
description of Jesus. But was this description present in the year 93?
c. 230-250
The Christian writer Origen cites Josephus' section
on the death of James "the brother of Jesus" in Book 20 of the Antiquities;
but states Josephus did not believe in Jesus, and does not cite the TF
passage in Book 18.
c. 324
Eusebius quotes the TF in full, in the form that
survives today in all manuscripts.
10th Century
The Arab historian Agapius quotes a version of the
TF that differs from that of Eusebius. It does not have the most obvious
Christian elements. However, this version will be lost to scholarship until
1971 (see below).
16th Century
Joseph Scaliger first suspects authenticity of the
TF due to its Christian content.
17th Century
Richard Montague, Bishop of Norwich, declares phrase
"He was the Messiah" a later Christian addition.
1737
Whitson publishes his translation of Josephus, and
argues that the TF we have is entirely authentic. He argues that the passage
should be read from the perspective of a contemporary of Josephus, in which
case the Christian elements are not so alarming; and that, in any case,
Josephus could very well have been a Jewish believer in Jesus (a Jewish
Christian or "Ebionite").
18th - early 20th Century
Other scholars argue the passage is forged in whole
or in part. Later scholars opposing authenticity include:
Schurer
Niese
Norden
Zeitlin
Lewy
Juster
1929
H. St. J. Thackeray supports the interpolation theory,
credits Josephus' "Greek assistants" for variation in styles throughout
the Antiquities. Also notes several correspondences (but not the
TF) between the Gospel of Luke and the Antiquities, and suggests that Luke
may have been present at readings of Josephus' work in Roman, and that
the two may even have met.
1931
R. Eisler, in his influential The Messiah Jesus,
suggests Christian censors deleted large portions of
the original text, and offers a reconstruction by inserting new text into
the passage.
1941
Ch. Martin identifies select portions of the Testimonium
as probably interpolations, while the rest he considers authentic.
1954
Paul Winter argues that there are just three interpolations
in the TF, and the rest is genuine. "He was the Messiah" and "if indeed
he can be called a man" are considered most suspect, as is the latter section
describing the resurrection and the prophecies. This identification of
the interpolations becomes a popular view (reiterated by John Meier, 1991).
c. 1960
Hans Conzellman notes that the TF resembles "the
Lukan kerygma", the essential beliefs presented by Luke in his gospel and
in Acts; he therefore concludes the passage must be entirely forged by
a Christian.
1963
Feldman writes: "The most probably view seems to
be that our text represents substantially what Josephus wrote, but that
some alterations have been made by a Christian interpolator." (p. 49, Loeb
edition)
1971
In a startling find, Shlomo Pines publishes citations
of the TF appearing in Arabic and Syriac works of the 9th-10th century.
These quotations substantially resemble our current Testimonium, but do
not have two of the most suspicious phrases: "he was the Messiah" and "if
indeed he can be called a man". Pines suggests these editions may have
used an authentic, uninterpolated version of Josephus' work.
1973-1983
Karl Rengstorf publishes his massive concordance
of Josephus' work, listing references to every word, allowing scholars
for the first time a tool to study Josephus' style quantitatively.
1984
J. Neville Birdsall uses Rengstorf's new concordance
to study the style of the TF, concludes that there are too many discrepancies
for the passage to be genuine, and may be entirely forged.
1991
John Meier studies the question again, repeats support
for Winter's view. This work is influential among contemporary scholars,
including John Dominic Crossan and John O'Connor-Murphy.
1995
G. J. Goldberg identifies a regular series of correspondences
between the TF and the Emmaus narrative of Luke. He argues these are so
close the two must have been derived from a common source, a Christian
document now lost.
Moreover, the correspondences are not plausibly
what would be expected of a Christian forger, nor can later interpolations
have been made or the relationship between the texts would have been destroyed.
The significant variations between the two texts
is that the Luke texts have neither the phrase "if indeed he can be called
a man" nor "he was the Messiah" at appropriate locations, in accordance
with the Arabic version published by Pines (1971) and verifying the speculations
of Winter.
However, both texts contain the resurrection and
the prophecy in parallel locations and with unusual overlapping vocabulary,
again in accordance with the Arabic version, but in disagreement with the
speculations of Winter, Meier, and others.
The questions raised by scholars are answered, from the perspective
of this theory, on the Questions page.