Much of this blog is taken from section 4 of my forthcoming paper, will be released next issue of JHC 20.2, before I reproduce that extract, here are a few comments.

Some super skeptics (i. e. making claims without justification) historians question the authenticity of the Baptist passage and favour its ahistoricity.[1] The likes of NPL Allen just thinks everybody back then were cartoons and the three passages concerning Christianity in Josephus were wholesale interpolations.[2] Even Richard Carrier does not belong to this group and like me thinks the bit on Baptism was tampered with.[3] Clare Rothschild does not belong to this group either as she only tests the authenticity and does not come to a conclusion one way or the other. She only tested the passage internally and rightly states we don’t have full proof capability of determining one way or the other of the passage existence.[4] Externally it becomes more likely it existed given that Origen himself says he’s using Antiquities 18 and attests to the passage-  “For in the 18th book of his Antiquities  of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist” (Contra Cels. 1.47).

The baptism in the extant Baptist passage caused Rivka Nir to think that the passage was created ex nihilo simply because the Baptism was peculiar and a likely theological addition. As she says in her abstract:

Of particular importance to uncovering the theological identity of this baptism is its description as an external physical purification, whose efficacy is preconditioned by inner spiritual purification. This essay shows that baptism of this nature did not exist amid mainstream Jewish circles of the Second Temple periods^[5].

While I agree with Nir that meddling did occur with the Baptism, this in no way proves that the Baptist passage was created ex nihilo. Nir’s argument of a peculiar Baptism does not work as normative Judaism did not exist at this time as evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Judaism was multifaceted at this time. Her arguments do not work when we see an earlier version of the extant Baptist passage also. (I will proceed to show you the earlier form of the passage now).

I show that Origin commenting on both passages increases the likelihood of the existence of both the Baptist passage and the Testimonium Flavianum.[6]

‘For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Christ’ (Cels. 1.48). In Antiquities it does not connect the Baptist movement with the Jesus movement. Also in Antiquities, the execution of John (beheading) is different from the execution of Jesus (crucifixion). Therefore, these two passages taken together (Cels. 1.47, 48) show that Origen used Antiquities in his fights with Celsus^[7].

CM Hansen believed she could counter this argument by introducing the possibility that the Baptist passage did not exist. [*] This is unlikely as W. F. Flemington rightly stated: “A Christian interpolator would have produced something far more closely resembling the accounts in the New Testament.”^[8] So Hansen peddling this nonsense is moot. I also have evidence of earlier forms of the Baptist passage.

Here is the extract from David Allen, “EXPOSING THE PRE-EUSEBIAN STRATA OF THE TESTIMONIUM FLAVIANUM” JHC 19, Forthcoming:

The Baptist passage in the Slavonic merely opens with – “And at that time a certain man^[9]” … Again, dropping the name John from a source text used by the Slavonic does not make sense unless the source was from a more primitive version of Antiquities that did not have the Baptist named in the exact passage and was used for the insertion. Clare Rothschild in testing the authenticity or inauthenticity of the Baptist passage has shown we do not have any full proof capability of determining one way or the other of the passage existence. If a Christian interpolated the Baptist passage he would have used the gospels- this is not the case in the Baptist passage in Josephus. This makes it unlikely that this was an ex nihilo creation. To me as the passage shows no major issues of being badly tampered (like the TF), I see the passage is basically authentic with a few minor changes. One change highlighted by Rothschild is agrios:

Slavonic Josephus refers to John as agrios (“a wild man.”) Eusebius records “good man.” The difference between Slavonic Josephus and Eusebius elicits the question of whether Eusebius improved John’s image with a switch from ágrios to agathos^[10].

Although she says it is plausible that “good man” fits with Josephus, I think that “wild man” is much more fitting a description by Josephus for a figure executed because of the threat of sedition (Ant. 18.118).

Another change is evidenced from Origen and Rufinus shows some tampering with the Baptism in the extant text in Antiquities. Here is the extant Baptist passage in Antiquities:

baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness (Ant. 18.117).

One of the first witnesses of the Baptist passage did not deny Baptism was for washing away sins like the extant passage:

the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins … For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. (Origen, Contra Celsum 1.47).

Rufinus Latin translation of Eusebius History that quoted the Baptist passage seems to agree to this earlier version, perhaps preserving what Eusebius had originally written using Josephus’ Baptist passage (In other words the earlier form of the Baptist passage was floating around in Eusebius’ day as Rufunis Latin translation attests):

For then indeed baptism would be acceptable, if it would be taken up not only for washing away misdeeds, but also would be observed for the purpose of purity of the body and indeed for the purpose of righteousness and purification of the soul, and would be considered as a sign of all virtues equally and a certain faithful safeguard. (Literal Translation of LAJ 18.116-119 with Variants from Rufinus)^[11]. [ LAJ = Latin version of Antiquities of the Jews].

The extant version of the Baptist passage as found in the Greek manuscripts of Antiquities negated the passage by putting in the word “not” and “but”. As shown we have textual evidence where Rufinus’ Latin variant reverses the meaning of the Greek by saying that baptism can serve to wash away sins. Origen’s source of the Baptist passage had “John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins” as reported in Cels. 1.47. Another possible witness to this is Acts, which reports that “Paul said, ‘John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance.’” (Acts 19.4) which has the same meaning as what the more primitive John the Baptist passage and perhaps original to Josephus as attested by Origen and Rufinus. According to Steve Mason and Richard Pervo, Acts had made use of Josephus^[12]. Mark has John “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mk. 1.4)

The variants discussed above provides evidence of an earlier version of the Baptist passage. This earlier version probably had a much simpler Baptism without the specific peculiar theological attributes. While seeing the “forgiveness of sins” being part of or not part of the Baptism was an issue that was probably debated since Qumran times. Joel Marcus shows in the Community Rule (1QS) where “1QS 3, which describes life in the penultimate age, is coherent with Jewish Antiquities 18.117 [i. e. the extant version or latest tampered layer of the Baptist passage as found in all the Greek manuscripts of Antiquities], but 1QS 4, which describes life in the eschatological era, is coherent with the idea that John’s baptism itself conferred forgiveness of sins” [which agrees with the earlier version of the Baptist passage as evidenced by Rufinus, and Origin]. ^[13] Marcus goes on to say, “1QS 3:4–9, which describes the community’s present practices, describes purification by the Spirit as a necessary preliminary to cleansing of the flesh by immersion in water, 1QS 4:20– 22, which depicts a future, eschatological event, uses the image of sprinkling with purificatory water to describe God’s refinement of both body and soul through the Spirit.” So  1QS 3.4–9 and 1QS 5.13-14 have a similar theological requirement for Baptism with Josephus extant Baptist passage, namely repentance has to be done first before the baptism. In 1QS 4:20–22, has a type of eschatological Bsptism that does include repentance as part of the Baptism in agreement with the earlier form of the Baptist passage, Acts and Mark. 1QS 4 “uses the image of sprinkling with purificatory water to describe God’s refinement of both body and soul through the Spirit^[14].” 4Q414 and 4Q512 discuss the purification, repentance and atonement in more detail and suggest a thin line between sin and ritual purity. Martha Himmelfarb sees this connection as evocative rather than Halakic^[15]. The Slavonic possibly preserves an even earlier version on this Baptism where it states: “he did nothing else for them, except to immerse them in Jordan’s stream and dismiss them, bidding them to refrain from their wicked deeds.”

John not being named and the phrase “wild man” probably belonged to the earlier form of the Baptist passage. Although both Jesus and John are not named in the exact corresponding passages inserted into the Slavonic adaption of the War, the old Russian translator/adapter of the War obviously knew who the passages were about and named Jesus and John at different points. This chronographer had used a more primitive source for the insertions into the War that did not originally name John or Jesus.

 

---

[1] Rivka Nir, “Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist: A Christian Interpolation?“,  JSHJ 10 (2012), pp.32-62; NPL Allen, Clarifying the Scope of Pre-5th Century C.E. Christian Interpolation in Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaica (c. 94 C.E.), (North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015).

[2] NPL Allen, Clarifying the Scope of Pre-5th Century C.E. Christian Interpolation in Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaica (c. 94 C.E.)

[3] Richard Carrier, Mason on Josephus on James. Carrier discussed the Baptist passage on this blog: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/16715

[4] Clare K.Rothschild, “Echoes of a Whisper: The Uncertain Authenticity of Josephus’ Witness to John the Baptist”, in D. Hellhom et al. (eds), Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (3 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), I

[5] Rivka Nir, “Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist: A Christian Interpolation?“,  JSHJ 10 (2012), pp.32-62.

[6] David Allen, A Model Reconstruction of What Josephus would have Realistically Written about Jesus”, JGRChJ 18, (2022), pp.113-143 (120).

[7] Alice Whealey, “Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum” in Josephus und das Neue Testament, edited by Christoph Böttrich and Jens Herzer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), p 84

[*] Christopher M. E Hansen, “A Response to David Allen’s ‘A Model Reconstruction of What Josephus would have Realistically Written about Jesus”, JGRChJ 19 (2023), pp.94-103 (101).

[8] W. F. Flemington, The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism (London: SPCK, 1957), p.23.

[9] Henry Leeming and Kate Leeming (eds.), The Slavonic Version of Josephus’s Jewish War, A Synoptic Comparison of the English Translation by H. St. J. Thackeray, with the Critical Edition by N. A. Meščerskij of the Slavonic Version in the Vilna Manuscript translated into English by Henry Leeming and L. Osinkina, Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums und des antigen Judentums und des Urchistentums 46, Boston: Brill 2003, p.248.

[10] Clare K.Rothchild, “Echoes of a Whisper: The Uncertain Authenticity of Josephus’ Witness to John the Baptist”, in D. Hellhom et al. (eds), Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (3 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), I, p.262.

[11] D. B. Levenson and T. R. Martin,  “The Latin Translations of Josephus on Jesus, John the Baptist, and James: Critical Texts of the Latin Translation of the Antiquities and Rufinus’ Translation of Eusehius’ Ecclesiastical History Based on Manuscripts and Early Printed Editions”, Journal for The Study of Judaism 45 (2014), pp.1-79 (37).

[12] Luke/Acts has used Josephus as per Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), ch. 6 and Richard Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Salem, OR: Polebridge Press, 2006).

[13] Joel Markus, John the Baptist in History and Theology, (Studies on Personalities of the New Testament), (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2018), p.65.

[14] Markus, John the Baptist, 65.

[15] Margaret Himmelfarb, “Impurity and Sin in 4QD, 1QS and 4Q512,” Dead Sea Discoveries 8.1 (2001), pp.9-37 (37).

Why the new Quests will rehabilitate John in Historical Jesus Studies.

For those that read my new paper discussed below, will see lots of examples where the Synoptics suppress the historical memory and it is John that brings what actually happened out in the open.

The political realism contained in John only started to be noticed in the third quest and offer a correction to the Synoptics – Gerd Thiessen and Annette Merz noted that Jesus’ first disciples belonging to John the Baptist (1:35–40), the Jewish leaders had political motivations for seeking Jesus’ death (11:47–53; 19:12); the so-called Jewish trial was actually just a hearing before the Sanhedrin (18:19–24); and the date of the crucifixion was probably 14 Nisan (18:28; 19:35). [1] The Jesus Seminar took very little out of John also (as reported by Paul Anderson)

Saying it considered plausible to Jesus in John is the reference to the prophet not receiving honour in his homeland (Jn. 4.44), and the only actions receiving the status of plausible or probable confidence are the inferences that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist (and that his disciples had also been John’s followers, (Jn 1.35-42), that Jewish leaders accused Jesus of being uneducated (Jn. 7.15), that Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas (Jn. 18.13), from whose home Jesus was taken to the Governor’s residence (Jn. 18.28), and that Jesus was beaten and turned over by Pilate to be crucified (Jn 19.1, 16, 18). [2]

E.P. Sanders in regard to the non trial by the Sanhedrin stated “John was just more astute with regard to realpolitik than were the other evangelists, and so wrote a story with greater verisimilitude”.[3]

In the new quests (Fourth and “Next”) and using memory studies will make better use of this verisimilitude, and bring out the realpolitik as I have in my paper called Jesus realpolitik (see below). The other quests went wrong expecting literal history and actual sayings. As I examined John 18:33-34 in my paper “Jesus realpolitik”, I have showed it does not matter whether Jesus said the extra bit John added ““or did others talk to you about me?” (18:34) – it’s how the evangelist recognised what actually happened to the Jesus movement. It’s about the memory John is conveying- namely that the Jesus movement like all the Sign Prophet movements were riddled with spies and the govenors got informed of the movements plan of action and were able to send cavalry and troops out against these movements. (Ant. 18.87; 20.97, 171; War 2.260). Note John mentions a speira (cohort) and chiliarchos (Commander) in John 18:12, a likely memory of footmen sent by Pilate. This is where the new quests will go light years ahead of the old quests. Actual history will be churned out.

A new paper of mine-

David Allen, “Memory studies and the realpolitik in John’s Gospel (memories we can determine from Josephus)” in Anderson, Just and Thatcher (eds) – Will be published in John, Jesus and History volume 7, SBL, (I was too late for volume 6)

In my research I found that, as I say in my conclusion, “This paper shows that the memories John uses to craft his narrative, are much closer to the historical surface than that of the Synoptics. The Synoptics while crafting their narratives attempted to suppress the historical memories of the Jesus movement whereas John uses the political realism of these memories, thus providing a much more valuable set of memory studies in Historical Jesus research.”

It is much like my Jesus realpolitik paper but shows why John is much more valuable in memory studies. Memory studies in a nutshell are how the gospels understood Jesus and then proceeded to build stories around those memories. Getting behind the memory contained in those stories is where history is at. In Jesus realpolitik I examined John 18:33-34, but in this paper I give the same treatment to many more verses in John which we can extract real history from. I’ll link my Jesus realpolitik paper to give you an idea what my new paper is like.

https://www.academia.edu/126227357/Jesus_realpolitik

One beauty is how the gospels try to handle the Temple incident, historically speaking Jesus caused his own arrest by his action in the Temple. Jesus like other Sign Prophets, tried to force the end- that is start a new age of the Kingdom of God. This is not necessarily a violent zealot movement as “forcing the end” is hoping God and his angels would turn up. “Force the end” does not mean a revolt, just a gathering of a crowd whom the Sign Prophets promised Gods liberation. (Example: The Sign Prophets under Festus “who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness.” (Ant. 20.188)). This usually made the Roman governor nervous suspecting revolt. (Example: “Felix thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt” (War 2.260) or “Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion” (Ant. 18.118). Josephus distinguishes between the Sign Prophets and Zealots when he said they were “not so impure in their actions” like the Sicarii and Zealots (War 2.258). The Sign Prophet movements were like “proto Christians” as Zeitlin had noticed in the 1920’s talking about a what we now call a Sign Prophet movement. [4] This action similar to other Sign Prophets resulted in their deaths or being hunted down (The ‘Egyptian’ was one of the few that had actually escaped).

Some scholars have noticed a Luke – John connection, where Luke seems to agree with John against Mark. [5] (eg Foot anointing may have been Luke’s influence but John has other instances more primitive such as the differences and rivalries between the Baptist movement and Jesus movement. Then we have instances that may have been influenced by Josephus from Luke onwards. John seems to adapt Josephus better. Even so, the fact that the evangelists seemed to identify best with the Sign Prophets is very telling in what sort of movement Jesus led. I don’t claim John is independent of the Synoptics, in fact I say that he interacts with the Synoptics throughout my paper. What I say is that John is much more out in the open with what actually happened. It is the Synoptics that try to suppress historical memories and not John.

Here’s an extract

“Again the Temple scene in John is not taken as what actually happened or in the chronological order it happened. More likely John moved the Temple scene simply because he wanted to take this action away from the cause of Jesus crucifixion. Mark had tried the same but did not quite succeed as he did not move it far enough from the arrest scene. Historically Jesus was probably arrested immediately after the Temple scene, the historical Jesus was hoping for an apocalyptic inbreaking of the kingdom of god, a new age initiated. As Paul Anderson noticed “neither in John 2 nor in Mark 11 is Jesus arrested directly after  the incident. In both accounts, religious leaders begin to plot the demise  of Jesus following the incident, but in John this happens during Jesus’s  subsequent visit to Jerusalem in John 5, while in Mark it happens a few  days later, at the end of his ministry.” [6] By doing this John is taking away the cause of Jesus crucifixion from an action taken by Jesus himself. All the Sign prophets attempted a re-enactment of some scriptural event hoping God would turn up. Theudas splitting the Jordan (Ant. 20.97) or the Egyptian saying the walls would fall (Ant. 20.170)”

While John may have taken the main event (Temple scene) as the cause of the High Priest to inform on Jesus, he instead comes up with a different event. In John 11:45-53 the raising of Lazarus caused his crucifixion by making the High Priest network plot against him. That would have put Hesus on the radar to be watched as a future trouble maker. His major event in the Temple could then have a pre- emptive prevention- the Roman governor would be ready for him.

The govenors knew through their own spy networks what was going on and easily prevented all these Sign Prophet movements and their plan of action – usually any actions initiated by the Sign prophet had a bad ending. [7] This is what happened the Jesus movement.

---

[1] Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus, (Augsburg Fortress, 1998), p.36.

[2] Paul Anderson, The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus, p. 20; Works edited by Funk and others (1993,1998), as well as his own monograph (1996).

[3] E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 1993, p.72

[4] Solomon Zeitlin, “The Christ Passage in Josephus”,  Jewish Quarterly Review XVIII (1928),  p.236.

[5] Paul Anderson, “Acts 4:19-20—An Overlooked First-Century Clue to Johannine Authorship and Luke’s Dependence upon the Johannine Tradition” retrieved here:

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/opeds/acts357920

[6] Paul Anderson, “The Last Days of Jesus in John:  An Introduction to the Issues”, in Anderson, Just and Thatcher (eds) John, Jesus and History 3, Glimpses of Jesus through  the Johannine Lens, (2016, SBL), p.43.

[7] see section “3. Spies, Informers, Horsemen and Cavalry!” Of my paper Jesus realpolitik, JHC, forthcoming.

T. C. Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ, (Oxford, 2025).

This is coming out soon and am looking forward to it. Schmidt is right to say that when Josephus says “first men among us” he would have known of them, which brings Josephus himself closer to the Jesus case. In my own research I found that that line is about the only line not tampered with. Good catch Schmidt!

https://chbookshop.hymnsam.co.uk/books/9780192866783/josephus-and-jesus

Here is the line

“And when at the indictment of the first men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to a cross.”

The balanced distinction between endeiksei (verb endeichnumi) writ of indictment, attributed to Jewish leaders, and the act of awarding sentence (epitiman stauro) is not likely to be the work of a Christian interpolator …Such an interpolator would scarcely have been content with reproaching Jewish leaders for drawing up an indictment against Jesus whilst stating that the imposition of sentence by crucifixion was an act of Roman justice. [1]

I also found Schmidt is right to say that when Josephus says “first men among us” he would have known of them which brings Josephus himself closer to the Jesus case. [2] Here is the quote from page 6 of his new book;

 For Josephus does not simply say in the TF that it was the ‘first men’ (πρώτων ἀνδρῶν) who accused Jesus, but that it was the ‘first men among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν). This is an important clue, since, as it turns out, the phrase ‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν) is common in Josephus’ writings, where it is used fifty-one other times. And combing through every one of these fifty-one instances makes it plain that the phrase marks a subject with which the speaker was directly familiar. In other words, Josephus appears to be claiming in the TF that he actually knew some of those who accused Jesus.

One would be hard-pressed to believe such a thing based on a single point of linguistic data, but compelling support for this conclusion exists in several other statements where Josephus confirms that he did in fact know the ‘first’ men (πρῶτοι) of Jerusalem beginning in 51/ 2 ce. And it is only likely that some of those ‘first’ men of Jerusalem would have also been numbered with ‘the first men among us’ whom Josephus says accused Jesus twenty or so years before.

And this is from page 7:

All this occasions some further, significant discoveries. After analyzing Josephus’ social network, it becomes possible to actually identify the names of certain of Josephus’ acquaintances who were likely partisans in the trial of Jesus. The most probable candidate is the High Priest Ananus II. He was the brother-in-law of the High Priest Caiaphas and the son of the High Priest Ananus I (Annas in the Gospels), both of whom put Jesus to death. As the reader will see, Ananus II had good reason to be in attendance at Jesus’ trial and Josephus did know Ananus II directly. And there are several other candidates too, whom Josephus also knew and who were in all probability also at the trial of Jesus.

John 11:47-50 reflects the collaborating High Priest’s fear of the danger posed by a messianic figure.

Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. “What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation. (John 11:47-50)

This is also backed up in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15:

For you, brothers, became imitators of God’s Assemblies in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those Assemblies suffered from the Judeans…..

The Dead Sea Scrolls mention an earlier high priest, seen as a collaborator, whom they dubbed the “Wicked Priest,” (“cohen resha” mentioned in 1QpHab; cf 4QpPsa) which shows one need not read the Josephus business about priestly involvement in Jesus’ execution as a product of vilification by Christian interpolators.

This authentic line of the original TF matches another comment made by Josephus about another Sign Prophet. As I observered in my latest paper- “Something similar had happened Jonathan the Weaver, “those of the greatest dignity among them informed Catullus, the governor of the Libyan Pentapolis, of his march into the desert, and of the preparations he had made for it.” (War 7.439). This is similar to what happened in the TF, “when at the indictment of the first men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to a cross” (Ant. 18.64).[3]

—————————————————————

[1] Paul Winter, On The Trial of Jesus, (De Gruyter 1974), p. 40. 

[2] T. C. Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for The One called Christ, (Oxford, 2025), pp.6-7.

[3] David Allen, “Josephus on Jesus, New Evidence for the one called a ‘certain man’”, JHC 2026 forthcoming.

(Updated 26 July 2025)

This debate is over. Good luck to those still clinging onto the Hypothesis- “Eusebius wrote it.” Your day is gone.

Here is the abstract to my latest paper, there is actually no need to debate those guys who say Eusebius wrote it- that is debunked.

Josephus on Jesus, New Evidence for the one called a ‘certain man.’ David Allen, JHC 2026 forthcoming.

Abstract

This paper does not intend to interact with the “creatio ex nihilo by Eusebius” hypothesis for the composition of the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) such as put forward by Ken Olson reviving Samuel Zeitlin’s thesis. As far as this paper is concerned that debate is over. The variant ‘certain man’ as seen in a very early Syriac variant blows that hypothesis out of the water. The Syriac translater was translating Eusebius Church History book shows us that “certain man” was originally written by Eusebius. If Eusebius made up the TF from scratch he would have written “Jesus”. This shows that Eusebius had used an earlier form of the TF circulating at that time as his source.

There was an earlier form of the Testimonium Flavianum (TF). The one that existed before it was tampered with. We know this from the variants of the TF alone and in one of my papers I show a pre-Eusebian strata. The paper is “Exposing the Pre-Eusebian Strata of the Testimonium Flavianum” JHC 20, (2025, forthcoming). I demonstrate through variants earlier versions of the TF. The arguments of the ex nihilo guys only work off of the textus receptus found in all the Greek manuscripts of Antiquities. That was only the latest layer of the TF. These same arguments don’t work against the earlier form of the TF. To illustrate why we know there was an earlier form of the TF and really showing the creatio ex nihilo hypothesis is not tenable, I will reproduce an extract out of my paper- “Exposing the Pre-Eusebian Strata of the Testimonium Flavianum” JHC 20, (2025, forthcoming).

Before I reproduce the extract I wish to note that I also show another transmission line went east that influenced the Slavonic, so this counteracts Carrier’s claim that everything we know came from one manuscript in Caesarea. [*] That is not so. In the words of T. C. Schmidt:

Carrier neglects to consider the sixth-century Latin translation of Cassiodorus, which also contains the extant reading. He also does not realize that the three earliest manuscripts of Antiquities books 18–20 consistently differ from Eusebius’ quotation of the TF in two locations, suggesting that that the extant manuscripts descend from an exemplar different from that used by Eusebius. … [*1]

Another different variant reading of a ‘certain man’ in a Syriac translation of Eusebius shows Eusebius working off of an original TF. [*2]. Eusebius would never have said ‘certain man’ if he made up the TF from scratch. The variant “certain man” is witnessed by the following manuscript: MS British Library Add. 14,639. The Syriac translater was translating Eusebius Church History book shows us that “certain man” was originally written by Eusebius. If Eusebius made up the TF from scratch he would have written “Jesus”. This shows that Eusebius had used an earlier form of the TF as his source.

John Curran who examined the Latin texts of the TF, has shown a more primitive version of the TF went east and made little impression on a whole clatter of church fathers. ^[1] I see the more primative version of the TF made its way east and influenced the insertions of the Slavonic. It is difficult to explain why the Slavonic TF dropped the name Jesus and title Christ in the exact passage if this passage derived from a made up TF created by Eusebius (Christian’s don’t downgrade you know!) The Russian chronographer was highly educated and had lots of sources. One of the sources was a pre-Eusebian manuscript that went east.

I also counter Hansen’s claim and show that Jesus was not named in the exact Slavonic TF passage:

Hansen goes on to say:

The first [argument made by Dave Allen] is mitigated by the fact that while the Separated Edition (i.e., the later redaction of the Church Slavic War) omits Jesus’ name, the older editions of the Church Slavic edition retain it (Leeming and Leeming 2003, 261 note for 174b).^[2]

On inspection of these manuscripts and the footnote of Leeming and Leeming’s book for 174b, it shall be noted that Jesus was not named in the exact passage- it clearly says that it was only in the heading before the passage that the following was written: “Josephus writes about Christ.” (No Jesus mentioned here!) The reason the chronographer had to put in that heading before the passage is that the name “Jesus” was missing from the passage!

And I also counter Ken Olson imported argument that Origen wanted to find a non Christian to support his argument, therefore he emphasised that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the messiah for this effect. It was common knowledge that Josephus was non Christian so there is no need for Origen to do this. More than likely what happened is that Origen digressed onto the TF.

In order to make his argument Olson uses Cels. 6.41 to equate this with the statement “although not believing in Jesus as the christ” with “Moiragenes … , who is not a Christian, but a philosopher^[3].”

Let us examine this passage in detail

“Origen is trying to argue against the following accusation by Celsus:

having become acquainted with one Dionysius, an Egyptian musician, the latter told him [Celsus], with respect to magic arts, that it was only over the uneducated and men of corrupt morals that they had any power, while on philosophers they were unable to produce any effect, because they were careful to observe a healthy manner of life. (Origen, Cels. 6.41)

Origen answers with the following:

that any one who chooses to inquire whether philosophers were ever led captive by it [i. e. Magic] or not, can read what has been written by Moiragenes regarding the memoirs of the magician and philosopher Apollonius of Tyana, in which this individual, who is not a Christian, but a philosopher, asserts that some philosophers of no mean note were won over by the magic power possessed by Apollonius, and resorted to him as a sorcerer; and among these, I think, he especially mentioned Euphrates and a certain Epicurean. (Cels. 6.41)

There is no such argument in Cels. 1.47 to argue against like we have in Cels. 6.41, on why Origen should bring up the phrase “not believing in Jesus as the Christ.” That is the imported interpretation of Olson. Origen has to state that Moiragenes is not a Christian to counteract the accusation of Celsus and not sound like a Christian apologist and thus showing Celsus was wrong. This is not what’s going on in Cels. 1.47. And what’s going on in Cels. 6.41 is not what is going on in the Commentary on Matthew either. This is why Feldman noted the following, “More­ over, it makes no sense for Origen to express wonder (Commentary on Matthew 10:17) that Josephus did not admit Jesus to be the messiah if Josephus did not even mention him^[4].”

Of course this is backed up when we realize that the Christian Pseudo-Hegesippus probably using the same source TF made the same complaint. A Christian author like Pseudo-Hegesippus would consider Jesus the Messiah, having the phrase missing from his source (probably the same TF Origen saw), shows it was missing from a copy of the TF still circulating.

Now let us produce the extract- showing how we actually know there was an earlier form of the TF and why this position is held by the majority expert TF scholars:

On this layer alone (the textus receptus/final redaction of the TF as witnessed in all Greek Manuscripts of Antiquities) it would be forgiven to come to the conclusion that the TF is a wholesale creation by later Christian scribes. This is certainly the main argument of those proponents of the creatio ex nihilo hypothesis. Most scholars of the ex nihilo hypothesis only test their arguments off of the textus receptus without ever recognizing the earlier forms of the TF as shown in this paper. Those arguing for the creatio ex nihilo hypothesis think its lack of use by church fathers before Eusebius proves it was written by Eusebius. Paul Hopper is an example who only tests the textus receptus, he also uses Louis Feldman arguments to say the silence of the Fathers is a reason to suspect the TF^[5]. Yet as Jossa says, “Josephus’ judgment of Jesus could not satisfy the Christian readers (which explains both the silence of the Fathers before Eusebius and the intervention of the unknown interpolator)^[6].” Alice Whealey observed that no Christian before Origen apparently found it worthwhile to cite Josephus as a relevant authority on anything in the New Testament including figures such as John the Baptist, King Herod or indeed Jesus^[7]. Jossa goes on to say , “If one removes the three clearly interpolated passages, it is clear that the text could not but appear insufficient to a Christian reader. That is why the fact that it did not earn much attention is easily explainable^[8].” Jossa like most scholars is in agreement here with the likes of Louis Feldman and John P. Meier in seeing the following lines as interpolated: “if indeed one should call him a man”, “He was the Messiah “ and “For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him^[9].” Fernando Bermejo-Rubio shows that the passage is not homogeneous and betrays a number of hands in its creation^[10]. Hopper comes at this from a linguistics point of view shows the anomalies with this passage and other Pilate passages^[11]. It is obvious that the textus receptus is the odd ball with the other Pilate passages but this is because of the tampering. It is the Textus Receptus that is an oddball, any earlier form of the TF would not be an oddball, this is how easy it is to counteract Hooper’s arguments. In agreement with Hopper the textus receptus probably used Christian creeds to overwrite what was originally there^[12]. In fact one of Goldberg options that a Christian scribe used the Emmaus passage in Luke for the overwrite is likely^[13]. Hopper suggests the brevity of the TF also raises suspicion but a proper comparison with other messianic figures or Sign Prophets shows this is clearly not the case. In a comparison study with other Sign Prophet passages David Allen has shown that this passage is no shorter or longer with other Sign Prophet passages and compares well with them^[14]. Although Hoopers paper comes from a linguistics point of view and is important for showing substantial tampering his study misses many factors such as a possible earlier form of the TF, explored by Allen in examing the variants of the TF^[15]. A much wider read scholar of the ex nihilo hypothesis was Ken Olson who revived Solomon Zeitlans proposal that Eusebius wrote it.^[16] In order to do this Olson tested the wording of the TF in a Eusebian framework^[17]. Yet Olson thesis suffers from refusing to recognize the earlier forms of the TF. While some of the wording of the TF is clearly Eusebian, not all of it is^[18]. Some phrases may have been added by Eusebius but as you go through the layers provided in this paper, you will come to see that tampering happened before, by, and after Eusebius. The passage was multiply tampered as we will see as we dig down deeper into each layer.

In the meantime, some arguments provided by leading TF scholars (with the exception of Olson) will show that the TF was not as useful as it would have been had Eusebius wrote it ex nihilo. As Olson says, “Eusebius is carrying on an extended defense of the incarnation and answering the charges of critics of Christianity. One of these is Porphyry’s argument against the divinity of Jesus^[19].” In Proof  (Dem. ev.) Eusebius defends Jesus of being a wizard but does not pick out the phrases Olson suggests such as Jesus being a wise man or his disciples receiving the truth with pleasure but picks out the problematic phrase, Jesus attracted to himself “many of the Jews and many of Greek element.” That was –

to prove that ‘he must evidently have had some extraordinary power beyond that of other men’. In fact Eusebius appears to realize that such an assertion about Jesus is problematical, not least because it points to a reality which did not pertain either at the time Eusebius was writing or in Jesus’ ministry. Hence he seeks to support the assertion by reference to the Acts of the Apostles and what was known about Christianity up to the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba revolt^[20].

Paget goes on to ask, “If Eusebius was the forger of the TF why would he have chosen not to emphasize those parts of the passage which Olson highlights as central to his concerns, emphasizing instead a part of the TF which appeared historically problematic^[21]?” In section three of my paper I show both Pseudo-Hegesippus and Eusebius inherited that phrase about Jesus leading the Jews and Greeks from a particular copy of the TF circulating at that time. Jesus leading Jews and Greeks is extremely unlikely. Steve Mason observed in the run up to the war, the era was marked by “the appearance of charismatic prophets, militants, and sicarii; … [and] deteriorating relations with Greek cities^[22].” It’s unlikely Josephus wrote that phrase so I show in the third section an early Christian scribe did write that phrase to make this movement sound universal. The motivation for this was that the majority of Christians were more gentile based.

Allen noticed a gap in Olson’s thesis where he failed to test his arguments in Josephan framework^[23]. If you test Olson’s arguments critically in both the Eusebian and the Josephan framework, his arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny. By testing both these frameworks it becomes obvious that Eusebius did not write the TF ex nihilo, in fact it becomes obvious that he had something to work with. In one example on the Josephan framework it would be easier to explain why Josephus placed the TF before the Baptist passage instead of the order found in the gospels^[24]. This Josephan framework favors a Josephan provenance. On the Eusebian framework it is hard to explain why Eusebius had not inserted it in the War (where Jesus is not named) instead of Antiquities^[25]. Eusebius in History cites the War instead of Antiquities to showcase the miseries of the Jews under Pilate and this all happened because of the murder of Jesus (HE 2.6.3). If Eusebius forged the Testimonium he would have put it in the War. John Meiers noticed especially in light that Eusebius could have written anything yet he made an “imperfect estimation of the God-man^[26].” Again Olson’s argument falls down in tte Eusebian framework. Inowlocki has examined every quotation in his Proof and Preparation and found that Eusebius did often manipulate quotations but did not find any case where he made them up wholesale. In one clear cut example in Preparation on Phaedo 114 c she states that “Plato’s manuscripts read that these souls will live without bodies whereas Eusebius’ manuscripts read without sufferings, preserving the dogma of the resurrection of the bodies. (Eusebius, P.E. 2.38.6)^[27].”

This argues for Eusebius as textual manipulator but not as a wholesale forger of quoted passages as Olson’s thesis argues. It was Eusebian practice to manipulate existing passages such as the TF. Olson attempts to equate a quoted passage with a speech because he noticed that Eusebius made up a speech for Licinius^[28]. Yet this is very different from a quoted passage because it was common knowledge that all ancient historians just made up speeches, an author often attributed speeches composed by him to generals or other characters. So Eusebius making up a speech actually proves nothing as this was common practice on all Greco- Roman Historians. Whealey highlighted a fault in Olson’s logic on Eusebius use of quotes: “The attempt to use texts apologetically does not indicate that the texts were forged. Eusebius quotes numerous passages of Plato in Books XI – XIV of Preaparatio Evagelica (Preparation) in order to illustrate Christianity’s similarity to Platonic ideas, but no scholar would argue that Eusebius created these passages of Plato ex nihilo simply because he tried to use them apologetically^[29].”

Anyway all this aside, the textual variant ‘certain man’ found in a very early MS of the Syriac translation of Eusebius shows us that this phrase was in Eusebius, originally before the Greek MSS were tampered with. This proves that Eusebius used a more primitive TF circulating at that time that did not name Jesus but referred to him as a ‘certain man.’ This is exactly how Josephus would have described Sign Prophets and other messianic figures. Oh by the way, here’s the paper:

https://www.academia.edu/124894274/_Forthcoming_EXPOSING_THE_PRE_EUSEBIAN_STRATA_OF_THE_TESTIMONIUM_FLAVIANUM

If you like this blog, here are links to a bunch of other blogs like this.

 

---

[*] Carrier states this in his blog and not in his book On the Historicity of Jesus. That particular claim would not have passed peer review for which he prides his book. The blog title is “The Josephus Testimonium: Let’s Just Admit It’s Fake Already”.

[*1] T.C.Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, New Evidence for the One Called Christ, (Oxford, 2025), p.243.

[*2] MS British Library Add. 14,639, cit. op. Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, p.47, n.57.

[1] John Curran, “‘To Be or to Be Thought to Be’: The Testimonium Flavianum (Again)’, NovT 59 (2017), pp.71-94.

[2] Christopher M. Hansen, “Reception of the Testimonium Flavianum: An Evaluation of the Independent Witnesses to Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum”, New England Classical Journal 51/2, (2024), pp.50-75 (65); Henry Leeming and Kate Leeming (eds.), The Slavonic Version of Josephus’s Jewish War, A Synoptic Comparison of the English Translation by H. St. J. Thackeray, with the Critical Edition by N. A. Meščerskij of the Slavonic Version in the Vilna Manuscript translated into English by Henry Leeming and L. Osinkina, Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums und des antigen Judentums und des Urchistentums 46, Boston: Brill 2003, p.261, n.174b

[3] Ken Olson, “Why Origen said Josephus was unbelieving in Jesus as Christ.” retrieved from link here:

https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com/2021/11/09/why-origen-said-josephus-was-unbelieving-in-jesus-as-christ/

[4] Louis Feldman, Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, Hata and Feldman (eds),(Detroit: Wayne Stste University Press, 1987), p.56.

[5] Paul Hopper,  “A Narrative Anomaly, Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63.” in Monika Fludernik and Daniel Jacob (eds), Linguitics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), pp.147-169 (150-151); Louis H. Feldman, trans., Josephus: Jewish Antiquities Books XVIII-XIX, Leob 433, (Harvard University Press,1965).p.49; Louis H. Feldman,  “Josephus (c. 37–100 CE).” in W. Horbury, W. D. Davies and J. Sturdy, (eds), The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 3: The Early Roman Period, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1999),  pp.911-12.

[6] Giorgio Jossa,  “Jews, Romans, and Christians: From the Bellum Judaicum to the Antiquitate”, in Joseph Sievers and Gaia Lembi (eds), Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 104, (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden 2005), p.342.

[7] Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: Historical Criticism and the Testimonium Flavianum, Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times, (PhD diss., University of California at Berkeley, 1998), p.13.

[8]  Jossa, “Jews, Romans, and Christians”, p.342, fn 18

[9] Feldman, Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, pp.48-51; J. P. Meier, Rethinking the Historical Jesus: A Marginal Jew. Volume 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person (5 vols.; Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), pp.60-61.

[10] Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a “Neutral” Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on Antiquitates Judaicae 18.63-64’, JSJ 45 (2014),pp.127-154(329).

[11] Hopper, “A Narrative Anomaly”, pp.147-169.

[12] Hopper, “A Narrative Anomaly”, p.166.

[13] G. J. Goldberg, “The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus’, JSP 13 (1995), pp. 59-77; G. J. Goldberg, “Josephus’s Paraphrase Style and the Testimonium Flavianum’, JSHJ 20 (2022), pp.1-32(2).

[14] David Allen, “How Josephus Really Viewed Jesus”; Revista Bíblica 85/3-4, (2023b), pp.333-358; Hopper “Narrative Anomaly”, p.149

[15] David Allen, “A Model Reconstruction of What Josephus would have realistically written about Jesus”, JGRChJ 18, (2022), pp.113-143.

[16] Solomon Zeitlan, “Josephus on Jesus”, Jewish Quarterly Review 21/4 (1930), pp.377-417.

[17] Ken Olson, “A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum”,  in A. Johnson and J. Schott (eds.), Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations, Hellenic Studies Series 60; (Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2013), pp. 97-114; Ken Olson, “Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’, CBQ 61, (1999), pp.305-22.

[18] For an excellent study on the wording of the TF see Carleton Paget, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity”, JTS 52 (2001), pp.539-624.

[19] Olson, “A Eusebian Reading”, p.101

[20] Paget, “Some Observations”, p.562.

[21] Paget, “Some Observations”, p.562.

[22] Steve Mason, (ed.), Flavius Josephus: Judean War 2, translation and commentary, Volume 1b, Boston 2008, p.xv.

[23] Allen, “Model Reconstruction”, pp.114-116.

[24] Paget, “Some Observations”, pp.600-1

[25] Étienne Nodet, “Jésus et Jean Baptiste selon Josephus”, RB 92, 1985, pp.321–348, (340); Serge Bardet, Le Testimonium Flavianum:  Examen historique, considérations historiographiques, Paris 2002, p.85.

[26] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus I, The Roots of the Problem, (Bantam Doubleday Dell, 1991), p.64.

[27] Sabrina Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 64, (Leiden: Brill, 2006), p.87.

[28] Olson, “A Eusebian Reading”, pp.97-98.

[29] Alice Whealey, “Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum”, in C. Böttridge and J. Herzer (eds), Josephus und das Neue Testament, (Tübingen 2007), pp.73-116 (106).

I have a number of blogs on the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) and have decided to put all links to all these blogs in one place. Many of these blogs have been updated to include my latest research.

Part 1 The Original Testimonium Flavianum

Part 2 The evidence of the Variants of the TF

Part 3 Analysis of the Testimonium Flavianum

Part 4 The Layers of the Testimonium Flavianum

Part 5 Wanna know what Josephus originally wrote about Jesus?

Part 6 Exposing the Pre-Eusebian Strata of the TF

Part 7 Why we know there was a Testimonium Flavianum.

Part 8 Jesus or John were not named in the earlier form of Antiquities.

Part 8 Another nail in the Testimonium skeptics coffin: Implications of the Syriac translation.

This blog is part of the Sign Prophet hypothesis for Jesus.

All Sign Prophets movements were feared of revolt (the Jesus movement was no exception). Let’s view this history from the governors (client tetrach, prefect or procurator) point of view- it’s important to look at history from all angles.

Let’s show a few examples:

John the Baptist
“Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion” (Ant. 18.117)

As Amy-Gill Levine comments, “Antipas is mentioned in the Gospels for his execution of John the Baptist (Mark 6, Matthew 14, Luke 9; cf. Luke 3). Whether the execution was prompted by John’s condemnation of Antipas’s incestuous marriage to Herodias (so the Gospels), or whether Antipas had engaged in a preemptive strike against the popular teacher (so Josephus, Ant. 18:118–19), the execution does indicate that gathering crowds in Galilee, or speaking of alternative rules to that of Rome and its local representatives [“innovations” is the word Josephus used for this], was a very dangerous enterprise.” [1] Not only in Galilee but to gather a crowd anywhere under Roman occupation (directly or indirectly) would have been a dangerous enterprise.

Theudas movement must have been suspected as Fadus sent a troop of horsemen to cut them down (Ant. 20.97-99). Fadus displayed Theudas severed head in Jerusalem. A deterrent like crucifixion against leading a revolt.

With the unnamed prophets under Felix, Josephus said they were “procuring innovations and changes of the government” so “Felix thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt” (War 2.260)

The Samaritan figure:
“But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there. So they came thither armed”
(Ant. 18.85-86)

The embassy that complained Pilate to Vitellius said “for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate.”(Ant. 18.88)

With the Egyptian sign prophet, Felix had failed to prevent the revolt and it had actually “came to a battle” (War 2.263), although due to informers Felix was ready for him. (Ant. 20.171)

Festus also suspected the “certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under” (Ant. 20.188). These govenors were always suspecting revolt and sent out cavalry and footmen against them.

So what were all these Sign Prophets doing? Gathering a crowd, re-enacting some great spiritual event [eg Theudas splitting the Jordan (Ant. 20.97) or the Egyptian saying the walls would fall (Ant. 20.170)] where God would turn up (according to the scriptures- you know like God helping out in the Exodus, well the crowd were convinced by these self styled prophets that the same thing was about to happen at their respective gatherings.[2] Not only were they convinced God would turn up but they saw it as an eschatological moment in line with their apocalyptic worldview- “the Kingdom of God” in the new age would start, it just needed a little push or as the disapproving rabbis said centuries later, they were trying to “force the end”.[3] As Horsley noted the first century prophets were “Focusing on a new/eschatological act of God conceived after the pattern of great historical acts of deliverance, these prophets and their followers themselves took action in anticipation of the divine action. [4] The problem was that all these movements were riddled with spies and easily cut down. [5] So Jesus much like his comparable figures- namely the Sign Prophets was easily picked up by the ruling governor- in this case Pilate, and crucified as a deterrent to revolt. Why I named this blog- Jesus set himself up for the cross- is that he left himself wide open to being caught- the delusion was that God would turn up- hence Mark 15:34/ Matthew 27:46 quoting the Psalm 22:1 – “My God, My God why have you forsaken me.”

To conclude the movements gathered by various Sign Prophets (including Jesus) made the govenors nervous- all suspected revolt – this is why Jesus ended up in a cross- just gathering a crowd was enough- did not matter how harmless you were.

Also Paula Fredrikson objection of Jesus crucified alone suggesting his group was not like the others is false as we have historical examples that this was nothing new, [6] – Theudas head was displayed alone in Jerusalem.

We actually have historical examples of what and why things happened to Jesus.

---

[1] Amy-Jill Levine, “Introduction” in The Historical Jesus in Context, Princeton Readings in Religions 27, (Princeton, 2006), p.19.

[2] David Allen, “How Josephus Really Viewed Jesus“, RevBíb 85.3-4, (2024), pp.339-334.

[3] Martin Hengel, The Zealots, Investigation into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I to 70 AD (translation by David Smith), Edinburgh 1989, p.124.

[4] Richard Horsley, Popular Prophetic Movements at the Time of Jesus, their Principle Features and Social Origins”, JSNT 26 (1986), pp.3-27 (9).

[5] David Allen, “Jesus realpolitik”, JHC (2025), forthcoming.

[6] Paula Fredrikson, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, (Knopf Doubleday, 1999), p.244

I have given Robert Price 10 papers of mine that will be coming out over the coming issues of the Journal of Higher Criticism. The reason for this is to bring my scholarship to the popular market. Here I will provide links to these papers.

Two just released on JHC 20.1 (2025)

Another paper just released here on JHC 20.2 (2025).

https://www.academia.edu/124894274/_Forthcoming_EXPOSING_THE_PRE_EUSEBIAN_STRATA_OF_THE_TESTIMONIUM_FLAVIANUM

https://www.academia.edu/127947848/Want_to_know_what_Josephus_originally_wrote_about_Jesus_Before_it_was_overwritten_I_mean

Jesus realpolitik is one of my best and most popular!

https://www.academia.edu/127297672/The_Mystery_of_Paul_and_his_sales_pitch_You_want_a_new_body

https://www.academia.edu/127297869/Paul_Lone_Wolf_or_Good_Shepherd

https://www.academia.edu/127297951/The_Markan_Jesus_and_Devilled_Ham

https://www.academia.edu/142976048/Josephus_on_Jesus_New_Evidence_for_the_one_called_a_certain_man_

https://www.academia.edu/129526162/Sign_Prophet_Hypothesis_for_Jesus

This is my profile

https://ucc-ie.academia.edu/DavidAllen

These are my peer review papers:

My paper in the JGRChJ 

http://www.jgrchj.net/volume18/JGRChJ-18_Allen.pdf

Revista Bíblica 85 1-2:

Vista de Tres estratos redaccionales para el Testimonium Flavianum. Una propuesta

Revista Bíblica 85 3-4:

Vista de Cómo veía Flavio Josefo realmente a Jesús

These are other interesting papers I brought out on the JHC over the years:

https://www.academia.edu/122178154/Jesus_and_the_Sign_Prophets

https://www.academia.edu/47243189/The_Use_of_the_Testimonium_Flavianum_by_Anti_Christian_Polemicists

Also watch out for a coming issue of John, Jesus and History series (SBL) by Paul Anderson where I have a fascinating paper on memory studies and the gospel of John.

This blog is part of the Sign Prophet hypothesis for Jesus.

Spies!

And there were spies set every where, both in the city, and in the roads: who watched those that met together. Nay it is reported that he [Herod] did not himself neglect this part of caution; but that he would oftentimes himself take the habit of a private man, and mix among the multitude, in the night time; and make trial what opinion they had of his government. And as for those that could no way be reduced to acquiesce under his scheme of government, he prosecuted them all manner of ways. (Josephus, Ant.15.366-367)

We can actually extract real history from the gospels by applying the new quests to this area of history. Yes you heard me right – applying new QUESTS (plural). Firstly the application of the 4th quest (The gospel of John’s grasp on historical reality- this quest was launched by Paul Anderson ),[1] and also the application of the ‘next quest’ using background history (this quest was launched by Chris Keith and James Crossley). A Roman historian Fergus Miller has shown that it is actually “John can bring us closer to the historical context and overall pattern of Jesus’ activities than the other [gospels]”.[2]Also memory studies such as those espoused by the leading scholar Alan Kirk (part of the next quest) and Tom Thatcher (very much involved with the fourth quest) are extremely valuable. As Chris Keith said, the memory technique[3] as espoused by scholars such as Alan Kirk[4] are far superior (or at least should be the framework for criteria) to the historical criteria tools that were the major part of the third quest. A new quest for the historical Jesus is now launched and dubbed the “next quest.”[5] As memory studies underpin both Quest, now is the time that both quests are amalgamated.

Let us now show a demonstration of these Quests in motion-

Pilate then went back inside the Praetorium, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”Jesus answered, “Do you say this yourself or have others spoken to you about me?” (John 18:33-34)

There is a lot behind these verses- you could say this verse more than any verse in the NT sums up the historical times of Jesus. Here is the result of applying the “4th quest-“ – It is the added bit to this narrative by John added on to what the Synoptics said, that shows John is more in tune with historical reality: “or have others spoken to you about me?”

Jesus answer tells a lot (whether Jesus said this or not does not matter – it’s how the fourth evangelist understood the situation which reflects actual history:

“Do you say this yourself or have others spoken to you about me?”

Who are the OTHERS…

Now let us apply the “next quest” i. e. memory and background history:

Here is an extract from my new paper [Jesus realpolitik] exposing the OTHERS.

Josephus provides many examples of movements just like the movement of Jesus that were stopped in their tracks. Small groups just like the Jesus group who gathered crowds were easily tracked by the various governors.

[This tracking was enabled by OTHERS, spies and informers that were in the govenors pocket]

Let us examine other Sign Prophet movements also stopped in their tracks where the Judaea governor seemed to be one step ahead.

In the group of the Samaritan that had gathered in Tirathaba, Pilate was ready to prevent them gathering at Mt. Gerizim:

So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; [the ‘Samaritan had told them Moses vessels were buried there] and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and got ready to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented them, however, by seizing the roads with a great band of cavalry and infantry (Ant. 18.86-87)

Fadus was fully aware of Theudas plan to gather at the Jordan in order to split the river (like Moses):

Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt: but sent a troop of horsemen out against them. Who falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. (Ant. 20.98)

Felix prevented a gathering by a Sign Prophet in the wilderness:

went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty. But Felix thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt; so he sent some horsemen and footmen both armed, who destroyed a great number of them. (War 2.259-260).

Felix also knew of the plans of the ‘Egyptian’ Sign Prophet:

Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. (Ant. 20.171)

So also with the Jesus movement, Jesus simply got caught with a little help from informers and got handed over. Paul reports after Jesus’ last Supper he got handed over. (1 Cor. 11:23-25). As Burton Mack says, “In this case the mythic features are that Jesus himself explained the symbols and that it happened ‘on the night he was handed over.’ Handed over was a term taken from the history of warfare and used in martyrologies to indicate the shift in power that set the situation up for a martyrdom. It did not need any narrative elaboration.”[6] The etymology of the term paredideto- παρεδίδετο is to “give over something that you posses (even if it is yourself) against your will. (against = παρά, give = δίδω). It is used for “deliver over” and for a militaristic “surrender.”

We can sense the danger in the gospels especially the “interest” in preventing the appearance of “messiahs” who could stir up the people during the festive season converges among all three involved. We see many examples of this, for example with the passage on the tax to Rome and also when the Pharisees themselves tell Jesus, “Go away, Antipas wants to kill you.”

Memory studies in a nutshell are how the gospels understood Jesus and then proceeded to build stories around that. In this case the gospels knew the Jesus movement was riddled by spies and built the Judas Iscariot story around this.

I show in my paper, that Paul is unaware that Judas did it.[7]

Here’s an extract:

Bart Ehrman says Paul uses handed over [by God, to face death] and that this “passage that might suggest that Paul did not know about Judas and his betrayal.”[8] Gary Greenberg says Paul or his followers are unaware of Judas betraying Jesus, it is only the gospel of Mark is the first to say so. Jesus’ post crucifixion appearance to Judas is relayed here – “and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve,” (1 Cor 15:5). Greenberg observes “If Paul consciously intended his reference to ‘The Twelve” to mean that Jesus made a post crucifixion to all twelve disciples at the same time, including Judas, it would strongly suggest that at about 56 CE, twenty to thirty years after the death of Jesus, Judas had not yet been identified as a villain within the mainstream Christian community.”[9] Tom Dykstra sees Judas used by Mark (Mark being a Paulinist downplays Jesus’ family and the twelve) to emphasize the 12 before Paul were inferior. “The most straightforward interpretation is that the evangelist wanted to place extra heavy emphasis on the fact that Judas was one of the twelve; or, in other words, he wanted to leave no possibility that his hearers would miss the point that one of the twelve betrayed Jesus. The reader must naturally infer that mere membership in the ranks of “the twelve” – or, in the context of a Pauline epistle, mere status as one of “the apostles before me” -should not automatically confer authority on anyone.”[10]

Many scholars today think that Iscariot means “man of Kerioth,” as the “Is” in Hebrew means “ish” in English, implying Judas was Keriothish (transliteration of IsQeriyot). It can also be a  Greek rendering of the Sicarii, (an assassin group who had small daggers under their clothing on the pretense of a sacrifice), this implying the name meaning “man of the daggers.” Judah Sicarii became Jude Iscariot, then Judas Iscariot – sicarii after their knife (sicae-Latin/ sikkah-Aramaic)^[11] Jesus betrayed by his own disciple “Judas”, who shares the name of the patriarch who gave his name to the whole nation of Judea ie the Jews. In this scenario Iscariot can also denote the sicarii. Robert Gough explains, “The same Greek word for handed over is used in the Greek translation of the book of Genesis where it mentions the betrayal of Joseph by his brothers, and guess who comes up with the betrayal idea – Judah, the patriarch after whom the province of Judah and the Jews is named.  This suggests  Judas is a literary character.”[12]

This blog does not argue for the ahistoricity of Judas, in the words of Helen Bond, “just because the disciples have counterparts in the real world does not mean that they are any less Markan creations. They are still “paper people,” cut by our author to fit the needs of his literary product.” [13] Rather this blog argues that we had more than one informer, that the nameless informers did not suit Marks genre of bios, that it was much better for Mark to create a named villain as this pinned the success of his narrative. The memory studies unlock the actual history- namely that the Jesus movement was riddled with Pilate’s spies (probably both Pilates network of spies and the network of spies from the Sanhedrin) and Mark used this memory to build his own gospel story.

This post is taken from my new paper:

https://academia.edu/resource/work/126227357

---

[1] Paul Anderson, The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered, (2006).

[2] Fergus Miller, “Reflections on the Trials of Jesus”, chapter 7 in Rome, the Greek World, and the East volume 3 of The Greek World, the Jews, and the East, Fergus Millar, Edited by Hannah M. Cotton and Guy M. Rogers, (North Carolina Press, 2006), p.140

[3] Chris Keith, Jesus Against the Scribal Elites, The Origins of the Conflict, (T & T Clark, 2020), p.83

[4] Alan Kirk, Jesus Tradition, Early Christian Memory and Gospel Writing: The Long Search for the Authentic Source (Eerdmans, 2023).

[5] A bunch of essays applying the next quest are contained in the following book: James Crossley and Chris Keith (eds), The Next Quest for the Historical Jesus, (Eerdmans, 2024).

[6] Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament?, (HarperCollims, 1996), pp.91ff

[7] David Allen, “Jesus realpolitik”, JHC 2025 forthcoming.

[8] Bart Ehrman, The Lost Gospel of Judas, A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed, (Oxford, 2006), p.16.

[9] Gary Greenberg, The Judas Brief, Who Really Killed Jesus?, (Continuum, 2007), p.136

[10] Tom Dykstra, Mark Canonizer of Paul, (Ocabs Press 2012), p.117.

[11] John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: the Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1992), pp. 118 ff.

[12] Robert Gough, Messianic Mania: How Jesus became messiah, A Commentary of the Life of Jesus the Nazarene (2024). 

[13] Helen Bond, The First Biography of Jesus, Genre and Meaning in Mark’s gospel, (Eerdmans, 2020), p.263.

Most people are very perplexed when trying to get just a simple history of Jesus- like what actually happened, why is Jesus famous, what was his actual history? None of these very simple questions seem to be answered in most history books about Jesus. Never was a figure so clouded in mystery. Why is that? Do people put too much trust on the religious texts or are people convinced that is all we have to go on.

Not so according to a new paper of mine, very much in line with the next quest, I attempt to reconstruct what actually happened given what we know about similar groups and similar figures to Jesus. In line with the next quest for the historical Jesus, memory studies are used to show how the gospels stories were built around memories. This we can achieve knowing the background history.

Enjoy Jesus realpolitik!

https://www.academia.edu/126227357/Jesus_realpolitik

This blog is part of the Sign Prophet hypothesis for Jesus.

The governors of Judaea often knew what was going down, not just from their own informers but from the informers of their collaborators – that is the network belonging to the collaborating High Priest, an office controlled by the governors. The High Priest had been controlled since Herod the Great and the Romans, this was done by placing their special vestments under lock and key:

when Herod came to be king, he rebuilt this tower, which was very conveniently situated, in a magnificent manner; and because he was a friend to Antonius, he called it by the name of Antonia. And as he found these vestments lying there, he retained them in the same place, as believing, that while he had them in his custody, the people would make no innovations against him. The like to what Herod did was done by his son Archelaus, who was made king after him; after whom the Romans, when they entered on the government, took possession of these vestments of the high priest, and had them reposited in a stone-chamber, under the seal of the priests, and of the keepers of the temple, the captain of the guard lighting a lamp there every day; and seven days before a festival they were delivered to them by the captain of the guard, when the high priest having purified them, and made use of them, laid them up again in the same chamber where they had been laid up before, and this the very next day after the feast was over. (Josephus, Ant. 18.92-94)

It was Fergus Millar, a Roman historian that showed that it was the gospel of John, as opposed to the Synoptics that was most in touch with historical reality of the times. As Millar says, “Caiaphas makes his first appearance, described as ‘‘archiereus [high priest] of that year,’’ and utters the proposition that one man should die for the sake of the people.”[1]

So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” (John 11:47-50)

This reflects the precarious position of the High Priests, either do the Romans bidding or lose your job by violent force.

Josephus provides many examples of movements just like the movement of Jesus that were stopped in their tracks. Small groups just like the Jesus group who gathered crowds were easily tracked by the various governors. Let us examine other Sign Prophet movements also stopped in their tracks where the Judaea governor seemed to be one step ahead.

In the group of the Samaritan that had gathered in Tirathaba, Pilate was ready to prevent them gathering at Mt. Gerizim:

So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; [the ‘Samaritan had told them Moses vessels were buried there] and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and footmen (Ant. 18.86-87)

Fadus was fully aware of Theudas plan to gather at the Jordan in order to split the river (like Moses):

Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt: but sent a troop of horsemen out against them. Who falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. (Ant. 20.98)

Felix prevented a gathering by a Sign Prophet in the wilderness:

went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty. But Felix thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt; so he sent some horsemen and footmen both armed, who destroyed a great number of them (War 2.259-260).

Felix also knew of the plans of the ‘Egyptian’ Sign Prophet:

Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. (Ant. 20.171)

So also with the Jesus movement, Jesus simply got caught with a little help from informers and got handed over. Paul reports after Jesus’ last Supper he got handed over. (1 Cor. 11:23-25). As Burton Mack says, “In this case the mythic features are that Jesus himself explained the symbols and that it happened “on the night he was handed over.” Handed over was a term taken from the history of warfare and used in martyrologies to indicate the shift in power that set the situation up for a martyrdom. It did not need any narrative elaboration.”[2] The etymology of the term paredideto– παρεδίδετο is to “give over something that you posses (even if it is yourself) against your will. (against = παρά, give = δίδω). It is used for “deliver over” and for a militaristic “surrender.” Bart Ehrman says Paul uses handed over [by God, to face death] and that this “passage that might suggest that Paul did not know about Judas and his betrayal.” [3] Ehrman uses a passage in Romans as an example:

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare his own son, but handed him over [paradidomi] for all of us—how will he not give us all things with him? (Rom. 8:32)

This would be a cute way of saying when Jesus was caught- that it really was gods plan where god had let it happen. Paul blamed his own people for the crucifixion of Jesus by Roman soldiers (1 Thess. 2:15). In the words of Michael A. Rydelnik:

A more plausible view is to see this passage in a narrow sense, condemning the Jewish leaders and their followers but not the Jewish people in general. Several facts support this view. First, the persecution spoken of in 2:14 was intraracial. Paul commended the Thessalonians because they were able to endure persecution at the hands of their “countrymen” even as the Jewish churches did at the hands of other Jews. The word συμφυλέτης, a hapax legomenon, is an ethnic term meaning “of the same tribe or race.[4]

I have shown before in one of my papers why 1 Thess. 2:14-16 is no longer seen as an interpolation, mainly because the wrath of God does not refer to Temple Destruction.[5] The authentic line in the Testimonium Flavianum meshes very well with this: “And when at the indictment of the first men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to a cross.” (Ant. 18.64). The gospel of John also says Jesus suspected informers:

Pilate then went back inside the Praetorium, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this yourself or have others spoken to you about me?” (John 18:33-34)

Gary Greenberg says Paul or his followers are unaware of Judas betraying Jesus, it is only the gospel of Mark is the first to say so. Jesus’ post crucifixion appearance to Judas is relayed here –  “and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve,” (1 Cor 15:5). Greenberg observes “If Paul consciously intended his reference to ‘The Twelve” to mean that Jesus made a post crucifixion to all twelve disciples at the same time, including Judas, it would strongly suggest that at about 56CE, twenty to thirty years after the death of Jesus, Judas had not yet been identified as a villain within the mainstream Christian community.”[6]

The kiss of Judas is only the dramatic story telling of Mark and Matthew. (Mk. 14:43–45 and par).  The only dealings the Roman administration would have with a movement like the Jesus movement is through the payment of informers, whether Judas is a literary invention or not – that is what he represents. The gospel of Matthew says Judas did it for the money (Mt. 26:15), Luke’s gospel says Satan uses Judas to get back at Jesus. (Lk. 22:3). In Johns gospel Judas comes with a cohort of soldiers. Tom Dykstra sees Judas used by Mark (Mark being a Paulinist downplays Jesus’ family and the twelve) to emphasize the 12 before Paul were inferior. “The most straightforward interpretation is that the evangelist wanted to place extra heavy emphasis on the fact that Judas was one of the twelve; or, in other words, he wanted to leave no possibility that his hearers would miss the point that one of the twelve betrayed Jesus. The reader must naturally infer that mere membership in the ranks of “the twelve” – or, in the context of a Pauline epistle, mere status as one of “the apostles before me” -should not automatically confer authority on anyone.”[7]

Many scholars today think that Iscariot means “man of Kerioth,” as the “Is” in Hebrew means “ish” in English, implying Judas was Keriothish (transliteration of IsQeriyot). It can also be a  Greek rendering of the Sicarii, (an assassin group who had small daggers under their clothing on the pretense of a sacrifice), this implying the name meaning “man of the daggers.” Judah Sicarii became Jude Iscariot, then Judas Iscariot – sicarii after their knife (sicae-Latin/ sikkah-Aramaic)[8] Jesus betrayed by his own disciple “Judas”, who shares the name of the patriarch who gave his name to the whole nation of Judaea i. e. the Jews. In this scenario Iscariot could denote the sicarii.

The best way to evaluate Judas Iscariot is through memory studies. Chris Keith claims that the memory technique[9] as espoused by scholars such as Alan Kirk[10] are far superior (or at least should be the framework for criteria) to the historical criteria tools that were the major part of the third quest. A new quest for the historical Jesus is now launched and dubbed the “next quest.”[11] This next quest will use everything such as background history but will also involve memory studies. Memory studies in a nutshell are how the gospels understood Jesus and then proceeded to build stories around that. They involve that many repeated claims, such as the re-occurrence technique used by Dale Allison (i. e. what keeps re-occurring such as Jesus as a prophet). Allison’s method consisted of what kept re-occurring in the gospels more than likely came from historical sources told in a literal and theological way in the gospels.[12]

Here by using the background history of small movements riddled with spies, the gospels are shown through memory studies to remember that the Jesus movement too suffered from such an infliction. This memory technique shows us that the gospels built a villain, in this case Judas Iscariot as the inside spy that gave the game away. Matthew’s gospel reflects how easy it was for governors to recruit informers- among poor people offering money for information was standard:

Then one of the Twelve who was called Judas Iscariot went to the chief priests and said, “What do you wish to give me, if I hand him over to you?” And they paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from then on he was seeking an opportunity to hand him over (Matt. 26:14–16).

The thirty pieces of silver alludes to Zech. 11:12-13, this in turn alluded to payment for killing a slave, Ex. 21:32.

---

Some commentary from my FB Group-

Russell Gmirken:

Judas the informer’s fate: Hung himself in the throes of remorse (Matthew 27:3–5)? Disemboweled in a fall (Acts 1:18–19)? Divinely punished (Papias)? In any case, all accounts, however late their date, agree that the unfortunate yet well-deserved death of the Judas ensued almost immediately after his act of betrayal.

Call me a cynic, but there were a number of prominent traitors in antiquity regarding whom ancient or modern sources hotly disputed whether their subsequent fate was suicide or in fact murder: Demosthenes, Brutus, Mark Anthony, Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso, Seneca the Younger, among the most famous. One can extend this list with many other historical examples down to the near present when it was expedient to chalk up an act of violent political retaliation as an unfortunate case of suicide. An entertaining possibility in the NT which few, however, are willing to entertain.

My Answer (Dave Allen):

Russell Gmirkin as “Judas described” is an invention (whether there was a historical figure or not as I argue in my blog) – I’d be very willing to entertain what that description was based on. In the blog I see Judas as representing a historical memory of a movement full of informers and spies.

---

[1] Fergus Millar, “Reflections on the Trials of Jesus”, chapter 7 in Rome, the Greek World, and the East volume 3 of The Greek World, the Jews, and the East, Fergus Millar, Edited by Hannah M. Cotton and Guy M. Rogers, (2006, The University of North Carolina Press), p.146.

[2] Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament?, (HarperCollims, 1996), pp.91ff

[3] Bart Ehrman, The Lost Gospel of Judas, A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed, (Oxford, 2006), p.16.

[4] Michael A. Rydelnik, “Was Paul Anti-Semitic? Revisiting 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16”, BSAC 165.657 (2008),  p.63.

[5]David Allen, A Model Reconstruction of what Josephus really said about Jesus” JGRCHJ 18, (2022), p.138, n.76: Most of the arguments proposed for interpolation were done on theological grounds. Most of Carrier’s analyses are only applicable to the passage when ‘But wrath has come upon them at last!’ is applied to the Temple destruction (see Richard Carrier, Hitler Homer Bible Christ: The Historical Papers of Richard Carrier 1995–2013 [Scotts Valley, CA: CreativeSpace, 2014], pp. 203-11). Yet that is only a retrospective fallacy as Jewett has shown many local catastrophes (see Robert Jewett, ‘The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation’, NTS 17 [1971], pp. 198-212 [205 n. 5], who writes, ‘Furthermore, Paul’s statement in I Thess. ii. 16, “but God’s wrath has come upon them at last”, may refer to the disturbance which occurred in Jerusalem during the Passover of 49 when twenty to thirty thousand Jews were supposed to have been killed. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 20.112 and War 2.2247. Since this disturbance was instigated by Zealots [War 2.225], Paul could well have interpreted the massacre as punishment for the persecution against the Christian in Judea’). This is not the only disaster as Judea also suffered famine in 45-47 CE (Ant. 20.49-53). For a full set of the arguments, see Matthew Jensen, ‘The (In)authenticity of 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16: A Review of Argument’, CBR 18 (2019), pp. 59-79.

[6]Gary Greenberg, The Judas Brief, Who Really Killed Jesus?, (Continuum, 2007), p.136

[7]Tom Dykstra, Mark Canonizer of Paul, (Ocabs Press 2012), p.117.

[8] John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: the Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1992), pp. 118 ff.

[9] Chris Keith, Jesus Against the Scribal Elites, The Origins of the Conflict, (T & T Clark, 2020), p.83

[10] Alan Kirk, Jesus Tradition, Early Christian Memory, and Gospel Writing: The Long Search for the Authentic Source (2023).

[11] James Crossley and Chris Keith (eds), The Next Quest for the Historical Jesus, (Eerdmans, 2024).

[12] Dale Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, Millenarian Prophet, (Augsburg Fortress, 1998).

---