Josephus on Jesus - Review: "The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus” by Gary J. Goldberg

This is one of a few reviews I’ll be doing of not-so-new academic articles about the first of the passages in extant Josephus to mention Jesus Christ.

This one is a review of Gary J. Goldberg’s article ”The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus.” It was published in The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (1995), 59-77. A copy of the article can be found online.

Introduction

In two books from the pen of first century Jewish historian Josephus, there are mentions of Christ. One is usually quite uncontroversial, this being the mention of the death of Jesus’ brother James (in Josephus’ Antiquities Book 20). Uncontroversial because it is not usually doubted that it is a bit of history genuinely written by Josephus. (See for example Louis Feldman’s comments in Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, 55–57.)

The other is controversial. Josephus’ Antiquities Book 18 tells us a little more about Christ, and is controversial because it is hard to be sure what Josephus actually wrote in this case. At some point, a Christian scribe tampered with Book 18 (yet not Book 20). This has led to many different techniques being used by scholars to determine what portions, if any, of the passage in Book 18 can be trusted. One of many scholars to come to the problem of Book 18 is Gary J. Goldberg. This post is a lengthy review of his 1995 journal article on the subject. Goldberg is an editor of josephus.org and has gained a wide knowledge of scholarship on the subject of the TF. He describes himself as “a private person interested in researching and teaching Josephus, among other things. For what its worth, I have a Ph.D. in Physics. I've studied Josephus for 15 years, being self-taught in Greek. My discovery about the Testimonium was published in an academic journal”.

His studies led him to compare the passage from Josephus Book 18 with various early Christian texts, looking for patterns, and this led him to one in particular: a little bit of the Emmaus Road story towards the end of Luke’s Gospel. So, the focus here is on the Emmaus passage compared to the Josephus passage in Antiquities Book 18. The Josephus passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum (“TF” for short), and I won’t bore you with why.

Before I set out, just to lay my cards on the table, I go with the majority of scholars who hold teaching positions in relevant fields at accredited universities, secular and Christian, who have published on the matter in the modern era, in saying that the TF seems to me to be partially authentic. (Goldberg does too.) Most of it is by Josephus, but the waters are muddied by some unknown Christian scribe who at some point in history caused the text to be Christianised in at least a couple of places, and it is very difficult to state with certainty the actual limits of this tampering.

But most scholars detect an authentic core to it. Some, such as Fernando Bermejo-Rubio (whose article on it I am reviewing in a separate post), argue that it has a slant, the anti-Christian point of view of a Jewish elite that we co-incidentally find echoed in the gospels that were, as it happens, written contemporary to Josephus. That is, reading between the lines, Josephus slyly implies that Jesus was justly crucified by the Romans for the usual reasons that people were crucified: that they present a political threat to Roman rule. The gospels present this same slant as an unwelcome bit of elite spin to get Jesus executed. Goldberg has a point to make that may be complementary to this. That is, we could in theory combine Goldberg’s argument along with Bermejo-Rubio's idea that Josephus spins whatever material he had into an anti-Jesus slant that he knew from Jewish sources, doctoring an underlying source that Goldberg postulates be be Christian. But that is not really what Goldberg’s article is about.

What Goldberg is saying

Goldberg observes that if “this passage from the Antiquities is read side by side with the Emmaus narrative – coincidences become manifest.” Of three alternative explanations which he considers for these coincidences, Goldberg favours a hypothetical common source as a better explanation than the two alternatives of total Christian forgery or sheer chance. In other words, Luke and Josephus both independently happened to have read more or less the same passage on the life of Jesus somewhere, and both put it into their own words. But, if so, what it this underlying common source?

Now, Goldberg does not necessarily mean a single source for everything that Josephus knew about Jesus. On the one hand, there is the source for the TF. On the other hand, there is Book 20, where we learn that Josephus had a source telling him that Jesus had a brother called James. That extra information isn’t found in the TF, and under consideration here is only the underlying source for the TF. (But Goldberg does speculate a way that Josephus' sources could join up.)

Goldberg ploughs three furrows for evidence on the TF and the Emmaus passage, finding patterns:

“(a) Detailed structural coincidences, beginning with the initial vocabulary cluster, that form a shared outline not found in comparable texts of the era;

(b) Coincidences at difficult textual points

(c) Arabic version at the most critical points, more similar to the Emmaus narrative than it was to the received Greek version of the Testimonium.“

I want to limit this review, so will leave out discussion of the Arabic TF, and will focus on (a) and (b) above.

Goldberg, I think knows that some of his points are a bit tenuous. If you’ll excuse my clumsy metaphor, there are no knock-out punches here. Rather I think Goldberg is seeking to win the bout on points, so to speak, with a cumulative case of smaller points.

Three things from the outset: 1) Goldberg is satisfied that Josephus was the author all of the TF bar two little phrases; 2) the author Josephus it seems had satisfied himself with the veracity of the report and is happy to include it without apparent hesitation; 3) Goldberg argues that there was, before Luke and Josephus wrote their books, at least one underlying common written source (now lost), with which Luke and Josephus were both independently satisfied. Goldberg argues that this has to be a Christian source.

Problem: paucity of material

Let’s look at the two texts that Goldberg compares:

Josephus: the TF, in an un-redacted version (trans. Louis H. Feldman):

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. 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.

Luke: Luke’s Gospel 24:19-21 and 24:25-27 (excerpts from Luke’s Emmaus Narrative):

They replied, “The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who was a man, a prophet, mighty in deed and word before God and all the people; and how the chief priests and leaders of us delivered him over to a sentence of death and crucified him. But we had hoped he would be the one to liberate Israel. Yes, and besides all these things, is passing this third day today since these things occurred. [...]” Then he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things in all the scriptures about himself.

Believing there is an underlying common source, Goldberg speculates that “Josephus and Luke both based their descriptions on statements circulated by Jewish Christians during the years 80-90 C.E.“

Now, what Goldberg is speculating there is the existence of something a bit like the famous “Q” document, only much smaller. Q is the name given by scholars to another hypothetical document, used by both Matthew and Luke to write parts of both of their gospels. There is a vast academic literature arguing whether Q ever existed or not, and scholars have not reached a point where the case for Q is closed around a consensus for very long. Q may well have existed - that is currently the majority position - but any argument for it has awkward unresolved problems. And the evidence base for Q is much larger – it’s great chunks of Matthew and Luke. The evidence base for Goldberg’s hypothetical common source is tiny by comparison, so it’s unlikely to my mind that Goldberg’s theory will reach greater acceptance than the existence of Q. Like the argument for Q, it has pros and cons, but it has a much smaller evidence base to try to base a judgment on. It’s not as if Goldberg is claiming the existence of a larger hypothetical document also including other material common to Luke and Josephus. These few lines have to bear the whole weight of the argument for the document’s existence. Q has never been found, and I’m sure Goldberg’s hypothetical document is equally unlikely to ever be found. But there are, as said, pros and cons to judge on their own merits.

So, let's examine his article in a little more detail.

TF: an authentic core with interpolations

Goldberg gives familiar arguments in brief for why most of the TF might be authentic: “the second Antiquities passage referring to Jesus [that is, the uncontroversial one on Jesus and James in Book 20], widely accepted as authentic, seems to presuppose some prior discussion [this is, in Book 18]. More generally, the content is consistent with a very primitive form of Christianity, consistent with the first century but peculiarly modest if ascribed to a highly motivated forger of a later century.”

That is to say, one is led to expect that Josephus did say something about Jesus prior to his Book 20; and indeed the TF (bar a couple of interpolations commonly redacted by scholars) simply does not bear the hallmarks that would surely characterise a Christian interpolator of later centuries, so no smoking gun of total forgery in the “modest” material. This is just a taste of the reasons why Goldberg favours common source as a better explanation for the coincidences he lists, rather than the two alternatives of total Christian forgery or sheer chance.

Goldberg’s approach: “The Testimonium, authentic or not, is written in the style of Josephus, and so part of this article will concentrate attention on certain deviations from that style: deviations that are not readily explained by wholly Josephan authorship, nor by recourse to a later editor. Some of these deviations, I will argue, coincide with similar oddities in the Emmaus narrative of Luke.” Goldberg is going to put these oddities down to the underlying source.

Bear in mind that Goldberg is initially testing a redacted TF, not a whole version, leaving out two phrases: (1), “if one can call him a man”, and (2), “He was the Messiah.” I would agree with the first redaction, but as for the second, some think that Josephus could here have written “He was believed (past tense) to be the messiah”, or “He was the so-called Messiah” in line with what he wrote in Book 20. (Academics study this range of possibilities in great detail.) So, I think rather than removing these words, a better case would be that there is at least a word (the “so-called”) rubbed out. But we need to move on and test Goldberg’s argument.

Let’s look at the kinds of coincidences between the TF and Luke’s Emmaus passage that he has in mind, bearing in mind that there is plenty here that is common ground across droves of early Christian literature, and so he has his work cut out to make his case for something unique.

Coincidences of structure

Firstly, Goldberg says, “A computer search of the New Testament on the vocabulary cluster “Jesus, man, deed” (᾿Ιησοὺς, ἀνήρ, εργ*), which are the first three major nouns of the Testimonium, reveals that only this passage of Luke shares this cluster.” It is an interesting qualification on his part to assert that these three are the “major” nouns and that his test should exclude non-major nouns, and also that at this stage “major” nouns after the first three are excluded for his immediate purposes.

Secondly, the larger picture, and this is tricky because the narrative shares some features with other versions of the Jesus story. Now, in the way he sets his treatment of these two narratives apart from other such narratives, one could quibble about Goldberg possibly shoehorning the use of individual words a little bit. Goldberg is interested in the extent to which structural parallels stretch, compared to other similar texts, arguing – here in English translation - that “the following phrase-by-phrase outline of coincidental points [between Luke and Josephus] appears [bullets added by me]:

• [Jesus]
• [wise man / prophet-man]
• [mighty/surprising]
• [deed(s)]
• [teacher / word] [truth / (word) before God]
• [many people]
• [he was indicted] [by leaders] [of us]
• [sentenced to cross]
• [those who had loved/hoped in him]
• [spending the third day]
• [he appeared/spoke to them]
• [prophets]
• [these things]
• [and numerous other things][about him] “

Goldberg: “Each of the nineteen brackets represents a location correspondence and contains the words or summarizes the meaning at each such point.” Here and there in the brackets above, he has summarised or switched words round to make his point, which is an example of what I mean by a little bit of shoehorning.

To be balanced, Goldberg also admits to mismatches: “content differences that are not attributable to differences of style of paraphrasing [bullets added]:

• the Testimonium mentions Pilate by name; whereas Luke’s passage does not and ascribes the execution directly to the leaders;
• the Testimonium explicitly states that Jesus taught Greeks as well as Jews; [Luke does not]
• the statement that Jesus was a teacher of the truth may or may not be a way of understanding “mighty in word before God;” and
• the teaching of the two disciples by Jesus at the end of one passage [Luke] does not appear in the other.

So the two passages are not by any means a perfect match. But in favour of his argument, he notes a difference with the full TF: “the two passages of the Testimonium that are often regarded as inauthentic, “if indeed one ought to call him a man” and “He was the Messiah,” do not have parallels in the Emmaus passage at analogous locations.” That could make the Emmaus passage similar to a redacted TF by excluding the two problem phrases. 

To help make his case that the string of coincidences is unique, Goldberg checks whether similar matches can be found elsewhere, just in case the match in these two passages is less special. So, in comparison to Luke and Josephus, Goldberg cites a mini-summary of Christ’s life from second century Justin Martyr, First Apology 31, and concludes that there are many mismatches, and “Justin presents a developed Christology, while the Testimonium is instead consistent with early Jewish Christianity. These negative correspondences [in Justin] are typical of later creedal texts, but are not found to any serious extent in the Emmaus excerpt.” Goldberg’s argument is that the Emmaus passage and the TF bear a collective weight of similarities of a different order compared to lighter coincidences in other mini-summaries of the life of Christ.

He makes the same point from the mini-summary in Acts 10:38-43, saying there are too many mismatches, although there is a significant list of similarities too. 

Goldberg also simply enumerates other early Christian texts without sharing his analysis of them, and we are to trust him that “the Emmaus narrative more closely resembles the Testimonium in its phrase-by-phrase outline of content and order than any other known text of comparable age.“

In summary, there is bunch of texts that have similarities and differences to the Emmaus narrative, and out of all of them Goldberg judges that the TF has the superior similarities and the less troublesome differences. 

Coincidences of Textual Difficulties

Goldberg offers a dichotomy in how freely Josephus composed the TF from his source(s): his alternatives are creatively or rigidly. Goldberg goes with “rigidly”, that “Josephus rigidly adhered to a pre-existing text that described Jesus, making alterations only to suit his written style. His text is dominated by a historian’s motivation to faithfully record a primary source that had come to his attention.“ (This is obviously a point of difference from Bermejo-Rubio who finds Josephus doing rather more than mere recording.) This rigidity is key to Goldberg’s source-critical argument, which is about specific phrases used:

“points in both texts that have presented commentators with difficulties of interpretation or exhibit a peculiar deviation from the usual style of the author. A principal of source criticism argues that such difficulties can be clues to the tradition from which the author drew; for if the source were obscure at some point, the writer might prefer to retain the original expression rather than attempting to clarify it through a paraphrase that could turn out to be erroneous. Applying this to the present problem, we can postulate that if both the Testimonium and the Emmaus narrative employ at some point an odd or obscure form of expression then there is probable cause to believe that expression was derived from a shared or similar source.”

The more recent article by Bermejo-Rubio demonstrates that rather than following a Christian text “rigidly”, Josephus is making alterations to suit his written style and actually slyly chooses his phrases to give a slant unsympathetic to Jesus. Nonetheless, let's see how Goldberg presents a few examples to apply the above method to.

Coincidence of textual difficulty: “Third Day”

This is one of the things in Goldberg’s structural list. Goldberg says he has a solution for two clauses that translators and commentators have found difficult to understand. Unlike the smooth Christian phrase “on the third day” the TF’s prose is awkward, and apparently the construction is unusual in Josephus. Literally, the Greek in Josephus says “he appeared to them having [ἔχων] a third day alive again.” It’s a peculiar wording. Arguing this could be taken as either Jesus or the disciples having a third day (the verb having no subject), Goldberg wonders if Josephus did not know which was meant.

Meanwhile, the Emmaus narrative in 24:21 has, if you translate it this way, “spending [ἄγει] this third day [τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν].” (Whereas in the Emmaus passage twice you also see the stereotypical "on the third day" in 24:7 and 24:46 with the verb ἀναστῆναι.) Goldberg has found this construction nowhere else in early Christian literature. He adds, “Here too the phrase has no clear subject.” That really is the similarity. However, I would note the narrative: that here the disciples at this point on the Emmaus Road are not persuaded of the resurrection, and so the stereotypical phrase would not be fitting. The disciples are only relaying that this is the third day since the execution of Jesus, and the verb surely refers to them merely observing the passage of time. Whereas in Josephus, the phrase is directly linked with Jesus appearing. This rather undermines the similarity and any speculation of a common source.

Although ἔχων and ἄγει may be idiomatically interchangeable, I'm not sure that "spending" is a preferable translation of ἄγει. I would prefer something like the YLT's "this third day is passing to-day" in Luke, notwithstanding the case of the noun; it does illustrate that it's an awkward idiom.

As for rival theories, Goldberg notes that Meier speculates that the grammatical coincidence is best explained by a later Christian interpolator adding into the TF this strange phrase influenced by the Emmaus story in Luke (but why put ἔχων in place of ἄγει?). Whereas Goldberg argues that such an interpolator would be more likely to opt for a better known New Testament formula. E.g. “on the third day” for pride of place in Josephus, and not a peripheral one. So, Goldberg isn’t swayed from thinking that Josephus himself (not a later writer) incorporated or adapted this phrase from an awkwardly phrased underlying source: “Josephus would have retained this phrase for a very good reason: he did not clearly understand what it meant, so retained the ambiguity. Similarly, Luke also may have respected his source too much to clarify it, particularly if it had been passed down from Cleopas and had the air of great authenticity.” I’m not sure why a confusing turn of phrase should be presumed to have an air of great authenticity. I'm also not sure why Luke would change ἄγει to ἔχων, if that is what Goldberg would suppose. 

It also does not sit well that in Luke the awkward phrase is used at the narrative moment of the disciples doubting, whereas in Josephus it is used about Jesus appearing. It is difficult to establish that Josephus is sticking to a source rigidly when actually his and Luke's awkward phrasing diverge as to where they appear in the narrative. If there were a common source, then I would expect the awkward phrasing to be found in matching places, and in Josephus this means the detail of resurrection, but for that Luke reverts to the straightforward τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ with the verb ἀναστῆναι  (24:46).

This awkward phrasing is not a knock-out punch, but Goldberg is aiming to win the bout on points.

Coincidence of textual difficulty: “Our Leaders”

Who was behind the crucifixion of Jesus? The TF has “the principal men among us” and Luke’s Emmaus narrative has: “the chief priests and leaders of us.” First person “us” in both cases, note.

Goldberg claims that

“In the Antiquities, as a rule, Josephus is careful to distance himself from his subject and refer objectively to “the Jews” rather than “us.” When there is an exception, there is usually an obvious explanation for it.”

Similarly with Luke, Goldberg argues that “This expression does deviate from all other comparable speeches reported by Luke. In the speeches of Acts there is a concerted effort to disassociate the speaker from the leaders.” He cites Acts 13:27, 2:23, 3:15, 5:30, and 10:39.

Goldberg thinks Josephus (who wasn’t born at the time of the crucifixion) has made an “error” when sticking with a source, just as he did with Ezra 9:7 in Ant. 11.5.3 §143, which, he says, “is reported as indirect speech and not as a quotation, yet refers to “our fathers;”.”

An accidental “us”? Again, not a knock-out punch, but Goldberg is aiming to win the bout on points.

Coincidence of textual difficulty: Terse Presentation

Goldberg wants to make something of the shortness of the TF compared to Josephus’ comments on John the Baptist and others. He makes the good point that a Christian forging the whole passage from new cloth would probably forge something longer. This is surely right. Goldberg’s claim is that the TF is short because the hypothetical underlying source is short. This is just circumstantial and not a strong point for his case. It is not unusual for Josephus to be brief when he wants to be, which I have covered in another post. No special explanation is needed for the brevity of the passage, but Goldberg thinks his hypothesis provides an interesting one, namely that the underlying source used by Luke and Josephus was terse in the first place. One might well ask: how would Goldberg know a hypothetical document was short? Well, he picks three points from the texts where he believes that the TF possibly would have said more if Josephus had had more material to hand:

Terse Presentation: Deeds.

Josephus has the word “deeds” and Luke has “mighty in deed”. Are these choices of words unusual enough for the near coincidence to be meaingful? Well, they don’t necessarily point to a common underlying source. They are not totally unusual in either Josephus or rabbinics:

“Commentators have pointed out that ”deeds” here may have a special, understood connotation of magical acts,” [as in Ant. 9.8.6 §182 and M. Sotah 9:15].

Not totally unusual in Luke either:

“the phrase “word and deed” in Luke, although apparently conventional, nonetheless appears in reverse order the seven other places in the New Testament it is used, such as Acts 7:22”.

So, it’s a little bit unusual in Luke. If “deeds” scores any points, it’s not a high score in itself. Goldberg’s argument remains more about the cumulative case.

Terse Presentation: The prophets, and “these things”

Goldberg [formatting and bullets added by me]:

“In both texts, the predictions of the prophets, which occur at the end of the passages, are divided into two parts.

(1) The prophets are first said to have told predictions that explain “these things” (τα˜υτά in both), referring to the preceding accounts.

• In Josephus, “the prophets of God had foretold these things;”
• in Luke, “all which the prophets have spoken. Must not the Messiah suffer these things...?”

(2) The prophets are said to predict, in addition, many unspecified things about him;

• in the Testimonium, “and a thousand other marvels about him”;
• in Luke, “and to enter into his glory. And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he explained to them in all the scriptures the things about himself.”

Goldberg wraps this into his overarching theory:

“that “these things” was already in an underlying source, and that it was somewhat ambiguous – it’s not completely clear what it encompasses in Luke either – so that Josephus felt impelled to retain the term, rather than risk error by rewriting it more precisely.”

Perhaps, but does this depend on assuming that Josephus had no other source about Jesus to enlighten himself from, regarding events in the 30s of the first century? I’m not convinced about that, simply because we know that Josephus had other information about Jesus that is not in the TF, namely that Jesus had a brother called James who was killed in the 60s of the first century (during Josephus’ lifetime). NB As said, Goldberg does speculate a common source for both pieces of information in Josephus – in books 18 and 20 of Antiquities – see my footnote.

Goldberg has more to say about ambiguity in Josephus’ “terse” source for the TF: “the nonspecific “thousand other marvels” may have been no more elucidative [i.e. what marvels?] in Josephus’ source, just as it is in Luke.”

Basically, Goldberg is suggesting that if the underlying source recounted these marvellous deeds, then Josephus would probably have used them. That doesn’t follow, of course, but it is an interesting conjecture, and Goldberg is simply trying to build a cumulative case.

As with all the other coincidences used in his argument, Goldberg thinks the hypothetical common source is a better explanation than the two alternatives of Christian forgery or sheer chance. This point regarding “prophets” seems a little stronger than the previous one (“deeds”).

Terse Presentation: The Indictment/Sentence/Crucifixion.

Goldberg [formatting and bullets added by me]:

“In both texts there is no explanation for the death of Jesus, but rather a simple specification of the legal proceedings.

(1) In both texts, the leaders’ role in presenting charges is briefly given:

• “indictment” (Josephus),
• “delivered” (Luke).

(2) In both texts, a word is used for the sentencing decision:

• “condemned” (Josephus),
• “judgment” (Luke).

The most you can say here is that the story of Jesus contains its familiar climax, and is stated in brief, but without any matching vocabulary. So, as with “deeds”, this is not a strong point in itself.

Goldberg fills out his claim about Josephus being brief: “If Josephus did not include this level of explanation in Jesus’ death, he quite probably did not know of it”. That is possible, but there could be an equally simple reason for the brevity: crucifixion itself spells out the story, and is enough to leave the deadly slur that Josephus surely intends. Crucifixion would be for the lowest of the low (e.g. runaway slaves) or those deemed to be political enemies of Rome. Josephus leaves just enough said for his original readers to be in no doubt that the latter reason applies: Josephus is insinuating to his original readers that Jesus was a dead political enemy of Rome (and that is more of less what Bermejo-Rubio finds in Josephus here). Indeed, according to the gospels, that is what Jesus had been framed as (whereas really he was merely a challenge to the dignity and popularity of the Jewish elite according to the gospels). Goldberg does not include consideration of this simple alternative explanation.

Conclusions

Goldberg has made a thought-provoking contribution to discussion of the TF. It has strengths and weaknesses, both of which merit further investigation. Whether Goldberg is right or not, the bottom line remains that Josephus was sufficiently satisfied of the historicity of the basic outline of the Jesus story that he wanted to use it as a historian, and wanted a source he felt he could work with, and he was sufficiently satisfied with the validity of his source information and so was happy to make it part of his Antiquities. We find it embedded in with other historical data, without Josephus’ making any qualifications whatsoever that could undermine it. For those reasons, whether it was from an underlying Christian or non-Christian source, it would be valuable either way because of Josephus’ confidence in the background of historicity.

Any Christian source potentially has intrinsic value because it is terribly important to historians to have an insider perspective on events where possible, which is often better informed than the view of non-insiders. But a non-Christian source also has value because it helps us to triangulate the story of Jesus from another angle. Goldberg's theory in effect points towards both Josephus' underlying confidence in the historicity of the basic Jesus’ story and his confidence in whatever source it is that he has used. Whether it is a document with Q-qualities, a common source for two writers, is very difficult to tell, when the amount of information we have to go on is tiny compared to the famous Q.

I suggest that Goldberg’s article should ideally be read in conjunction with Bermejo-Rubio’s more recent article. Bermejo-Rubio too validates partial authenticity of the TF, and gives an interesting argument as to why a Christian scribe would have redacted the TF. He believes that the redaction is a reaction against a slant that Josephus puts on the data. We recall that in the gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial and execution there is startling piece of data, that he supposedly claimed to be “King of the Jews”, which appears out of the blue (in that such a particular claim has never appeared prior to those scenes in the gospels). As such, that data sticks out to historians as a historical nugget. King of the Jews? It was enough to get Jesus crucified. And that is the slant that Josephus was perpetuating with multiple negative insinuations about Jesus in the TF that were obvious to his readers until Christian redactions muddied the waters. See my review of Bermejo-Rubio’s article for more on this.

Footnote:

Goldberg tosses in an interesting piece of speculation about a particular possible Christian source for Josephus’ knowledge of both Jesus’ brother James, and also the Emmaus narrative information. He argues that it originates from within Jesus’ family.

“Luke attributes his tradition to Cleopas and his companion. As mentioned above, Cleopas might well have been the father of Simon, the leader of the Jerusalem Church after James died circa 62 C.E. Now, the only other passage in Josephus that mentions Jesus is the description of the death of James (Ant. 20.9.1 §200- 203). I speculate that both this description of James’ death and the description of Jesus that served as the basis for the Testimonium were obtained by Josephus from the Jerusalem Church during Simon’s tenure. This church had an interest in both (a) the facts behind James’ fate, which led to Simon’s succession, and (b) the testimony of Cleopas, which asserted that the first disciple to whom Jesus appeared [CLEOPAS] was the father of Simon (if we have identified Cleopas correctly), and so would establish his authority. Moreover, Josephus seems to treat James and the Jewish Christians with sympathy. This theory is purely a guess, as Josephus could have had other sources for the death of James, as it was the central act of Ananus during his high priesthood“.

Bermejo-Rubio mentions Goldberg’s article but has very little to say about it. I have raised with Goldberg what he thinks of Bermejo-Rubio’s arguments, and he has kindly replied to the effect that the point that Josephus’s original TF has an anti-Christian slant may well be valid. Goldberg fills this out this by suggesting that Josephus may have done so simply because his readers would have expected an anti-Christian stance by default and he is meeting that expectation, while trying to look like the restrained historian in doing so.