¹ For detailed bibliography and historiography, see Feldman, Louis H., Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–1980) (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Whealey, Alice, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times: 36 (Studies in Biblical Literature; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2003)Google Scholar. For a few more recent treatments, see Hopper, Paul, ‘A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63’, Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers (ed. Fludernik, Monika and Jacob, Daniel; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014) Google Scholar; Feldman, Louis, ‘On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum Attributed to Josephus’, New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations: In Honor of David Berger (ed. Carlebach, Elisheva and Schachter, Jacob J.; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 13–30Google Scholar; Allen, Nicholas P. L., Christian Forgery in Jewish Antiquities: Josephus Interrupted (Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2020) 98–228Google Scholar; Ivan Prchlík, ‘Ježíš řečený Christos‘ u Iosepha Flavia: Jistota nejistoty’, Antica Slavica (ed. Peter Fraňo and Michal Habaj; Trnava: Univerzita sv. Cyrila a Metoda v Trnave 2018) 77–152 and 280–6; Detering, Hermann, Falsche Zeugen: Außerchristliche Jesuszeugnisse auf dem Prüfstand (Aschaffenburg: Alibri Verlag, 2011) 19–41Google Scholar; Goldberg, Gary J., ‘Josephus’s Paraphrase Style and the Testimonium Flavianum’, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 20 (2022) 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tibor, Grüll, ‘Josephus és a Messiás: A testimonium Flavianum eredetiségének kérdése’, Studia Biblica - Bibliai Tanulmányok 2 (2020) 9–63.Google Scholar

² Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando, ‘Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a “Neutral” Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on Antiquitates Judaicae 18.63–64’, Journal for the Study of Judaism 45 (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar. He has since reasserted it was a negative text in They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2023), Kindle edition, location 1026.

³ Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Was the Hypothetical Vorlage’, 331–47. See also his incisive remarks in Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, ‘La naturaleza del texto original del Testimonium Flavianum: Una crítica de la propuesta de John P. Meier’, Estudios Bíblicos 72 (2014) 257–92.

⁴ N.A. Meščerskij, ‘Introduction’, Josephus’ Jewish War and its Slavonic Version: 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 H. Leeming and L. Osinkina (ed. H. Leeming and K. Leeming; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 1–106, at 19. The Slavonic’s TF is cribbed from George Hamartolos, who in turn utilised Eusebius. As such, we should dismiss its utility on this count, as it may not present an independent attestation of (ἀνήρ) τις being authentic but could just be indirectly relying on Eusebius instead.

⁵ Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Was the Hypothetical Vorlage’, 358 n.152.

⁶ Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Was the Hypothetical Vorlage’, 358 n. 152 incorrectly cites the Menahem passage as ‘Ant. 17.433’. There are multiple defective citations in this footnote. Ant. 19.273 at no point refers to Simon (contra Bermejo-Rubio), nor does τις occur anywhere there. Instead, Bermejo-Rubio must be referencing Ant. 19.332, where again τις is not being used negatively. It is when Josephus describes the insolence of Simon after that any negative intonation appears in the text. In general, it is rather neutral toward Simon. Bermejo-Rubio cites Ant. 20.97, never giving a name. Here he is referencing Theudas, but here τις is not negative by itself but is made negative because of Theudas being characterised as a ‘magus’ (γόης τις), a term with often negative connotations, see Eric Vanden Eykel, The Magi: Who They Were, How They’ve Been Remembered, and Why They Still Fascinate (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2022) 42–56. As Philip Edward Jewell, ‘Magic in the Works of Flavius Josephus’, (PhD Dissertation; University of Southampton, 2006) 107 shows, most instances of γόης in Josephus’ works are negative. Bermejo-Rubio references a few other places in Jewish War. He cites Jewish War 2.60 where Athronges is called ‘a certain shepherd’ (ποιμήν τις). This is not a negative usage of τις. He then cites Jewish War 2.433, which we have discussed above (see errant citation of a ‘17.433’). He cites 2.599 and a ‘certain Jesus’ (Ἰησοῦς τις), but τις is introductory, and the negative intonation of the passage arises from the description of Jesus and another John as agitating the crowds (παρώξυνεν δὲ τοὺς πολλούς). Jewish War 3.229 works against Bermejo-Rubio’s thesis of τις carrying negative connotations because the whole of 3.229–33 is describing the valour and courage of a ‘certain man’ (ἀνήρ τις) and his brothers. None of Bermejo-Rubio’s cited examples demonstrates his point, and one of them disproves his supposition.

⁷ Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Was the Hypothetical Vorlage’, 358. For just a handful of counter-examples, see Josephus, Ant. 9.10; 10.67; 14.22; 16.231; 16.387; 18.91; 18.195.

⁸ Pindar, Olympian 1.100; Plutarch, Life of Agis 5; Herodotus, Histories 3.34; Sophocles, Philoctetes 440.

⁹ Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Was the Hypothetical Vorlage’, 358. The few examples that Bermejo-Rubio cites do not indicate this pronoun has been ‘widely accepted’ as authentic, and most of the citations given are to texts from over twenty years ago (many of them forty or more years older). Thus, it does not reflect current trends.

¹⁰ Bardet, Serge, Le Testimonium Flavianum: Examine historique considerations historiographiques (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2002)Google Scholar, 90 considers Acts 25.19 to refute the previous theories of Eisler (and thereby Bermejo-Rubio), who proposed the authenticity of τις on the basis of Codex A and the Slavonic. Bardet states, ‘Il est à craindre qu’il ne se trompe une fois encore, si l’on considère les Actes des Apôtres (25.19) […]’ (90). Bermejo-Rubio while citing Bardet on the usage of τις (‘Was the Hypothetical Vorlage’, 358 n. 15) ignores the implications of Acts 25.19 for his argumentation and does no further survey of early Christian literature on the issue.

¹¹ Thanks to Ken Olson for this reference.

¹² Other examples include the Acta Thomae 23 (Ἰησοῦ τινος) where Jesus appears to a merchant and sells his brother Thomas as a slave. For discussion, see A.F.J. Klijn, The Acts of Thomas: Introduction, Text, and Commentary (NovTSup; Leiden: Brill, 2003²) 68–9. See also the Acta Philippi 46 (Καὶ διδάσκει πιστεύειν εἰς ὄνομά τινος Ἰησοῦ). In François Bovon and Christopher R. Matthews, The Acts of Philip: A New Translation (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2012) 58 this is numbered Acta Philippi 5.5. For others using ‘Christ’ instead, see Ps.-Athanasius, Oratio quarta contra Arianos 36 (ὁ Χριστὸς τίς), for commentary and German translation see Markus Vinzent, Pseudo-Athanasius, Contra Arianos IV: Eine Schrift gegen Asterius von Kappadokien, Eusebius von Cäsarea, Markell von Ankyra und Photin von Sirmium (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 117–18. In a more general sense, also see Eusebius, Generalis elementaria introductio 3.46 (ἐν ᾧ χριστός τις καὶ ἀρχιερεὺς κατὰ διαδοχὴν ἡγούμενος τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ προστήσεται πραγμάτων). We can also note that this was used to introduce the prophet Joshua as well, see Gregory Nazanius, Oration 2; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 115.

¹³ Dave Allen, ‘How Josephus Really Viewed Jesus’, Revista Bíblica 85 (2023) 333–57, at 345–6 has attempted to rescue the term, claiming ‘While this word tis made no difference to Christian scribes who use it for heroes or villains, it just so happens that Josephus often used this descriptive to say somebody was unimportant. A certain so and so. It was probably common knowledge in Justin Martyrs time that Josephus did in fact use tis.’ However, this is also untrue. The term is simply introductory. He likewise introduces kings and rulers in this way, see Ant. 1.158; 5.182–4; 5.257; 5.276; 6.45; 7.101. Perhaps one of the most noteworthy is from Ant. 8.205, where it is used to introduce the future king, Jeroboam.

¹⁴ Here Ps.-Athanasius is declaring that there is just one Christ, thus, identifying this as Jesus. For commentary and German translation, see Vinzent, Pseudo-Athanasius, 117–18.

¹⁵ And this would not be unheard of in recensions of Josephus’ works. As noted above, this was done in the Separated Edition of the Slavonic Jewish War. Likewise, as Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Was the Hypothetical Vorlage’, 340–1 relays that there are potential issues with Agapius’ text including that it may have downplayed Christianised language due to the Christian-Muslim debates, and that there were errors in transmission as well. One can also compare the Sozomen’s Historia Ecclesiastica 1.1 which dampens all of the TF (deriving it from Eusebius). See also John Malalas, Chronographia 10.26 and Cedrenus, Compendium Historiarum.

¹⁶ Meščerskij, ‘Introduction’, 19.

¹⁷ A similar issue may be behind the ‘believed/thought to be the Christ’ recensions in the Latin and Slavonic traditions, where the original passage reads ‘he was the Christ’. Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Was the Hypothetical Vorlage’, 335–6 takes this as the authentic reading. For detailed discussions of these texts, see David B. Levenson and Thomas 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 Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History Based on Manuscripts and Early Printed Editions’, Journal for the Study of Judaism 45 (2014) 1–79 and Whealey, Alice, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic’, NTS 54 (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar. As Levenson and Martin, ‘The Antiquities’, 25–6 note, Rufinus’ text originally read ‘he was the Christ’ but was altered to correspond to Jerome’s version later, an overt choice to de-Christianise the Latin tradition. Jerome’s version (the source of the Rufinus alterations) derives from Eusebius. It is quite possible Jerome’s version was also contaminated by influence from Ps.-Hegesippus’ De Excidio 2.12, see Richard Matthew Pollard, ‘The De Excidio of “Hegesippus” and the Reception of Josephus in the Early Middle Ages’, Viator 46 (2015) 65–100, at 83. De Excidio likewise derives from Eusebius, see David J. DeVore, ‘On the Fourth-Century Reception of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History’, Church History 92 (2023) 644–50, at 648; Agnès Molinier-Arbo, ‘Crime et châtiment des Juifs. Réminiscences d’Eusèbe de Césarée dans les histoires du pseudo-Hégésippe’, Revue des études latines 99 (2021) 161–81. The ‘he was possibly the Christ’ found in Michael the Syrian and Agapius were de-Christianisations, perhaps influenced by Muslim courts and pressures of the time, see Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Was the Hypothetical Vorlage’, 340–1. The Syriac translation of Eusebius reads ‘he was the Christ’, which means the version that went into Semitic translations was then altered to de-Christianise it in quotations by Michael and Agapius. Origen’s claim that Josephus did not believe Jesus was Christ (Contra Celsum 1.47) does not necessitate even seeing a TF, as he makes similar claims of Jews and other non-Christians in general, cf. Contra Celsum 2.9, 2.38, 6.41. De-Christianisation of this passage also occurred in Cedrenus, Compendium Historiarum, who renders the passage as: ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν to πολλοὺς γὰρ καὶ ἀπὸ Ἑλλήνων ἠγάγετο Χριστός.

¹⁸ Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Was the Hypothetical Vorlage’, 353.

¹⁹ Curran, John, ‘“To Be or to Be Thought to Be”: The Testimonium Flavianum (Again)’, Novum Testamentum 59 (2017) 71–94, at 89 n. 83CrossRefGoogle Scholar asserts that there is a single positive usage of ἡδονῇ in Josephus (Ant. 18.59). However, further positive or at least neutral usages can be found as well. For instance, 18.274 where it refers to the courage of the Jews in being unwilling to let their laws be usurped; 18.289 where it refers to Agrippa’s ability to gain favour with Gaius, which is doubled in 18.291. Earlier in Antiquities, there is also 11.167 which refers to Nehemiah’s pleasure he received from the king, which dissipated his sadness. See also another positive instance in 12.324.

²⁰ Olson, Ken, ‘A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum’, Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovation (ed. Johnson, Aaron and Scott, Jeremy; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013) 97–114, at 104.Google Scholar

²¹ Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Was the Hypothetical Vorlage’, 354.

²² There are dozens of instances of this term appearing in Eusebius’ works alone. Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 1.6 in fact uses this of Jesus (τίνες θ’ ἡμεῖς καὶ ὁποῖος ὁ τῶν τοιῶνδε λόγων τε καὶ μαθημάτων διδάσκαλος, αὐτὸς ὁ σωτὴρ καὶ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ). For a more thorough discussion, see Olson, ‘A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum’, 104–5. Another notable parallel is Acta Philippi 46 which has at least three terms of overlap with Codex A of Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica 1.11.

²³ He also uses it in ways that have little relation, such as a ‘tribe of locusts’ for one of the Egyptian plagues (Ant. 2.306). In this case, the devastation of the locusts is more the negative trait here. The ‘tribe of locusts’ is itself an act of God.

²⁴ For other non-negative usages, see Demonstratio Evangelica 5.3 where he says that Christ did not derive from the priestly tribe (φυλῆς). See also 1.3.45 where Eusebius describes Christ deriving from the tribe (φυλῆς) of Judah. A more neutral usage of φῦλον is also in Eusebius, Commentary on the Psalms 23.565.1 (numbering according to Thesaurus Linguae Graece database, which is using Migne’s edition here). Eusebius wrote: Αὕτη δὲ ἦν ἡ πάλαι ἀφωρισμένη τῷ Ἰωσὴφ μερὶς κατ’ ǰξαίρετον, ἐφ’ ᾗ καὶ μέγα ἐφρόνουν πρότερον μὲν Ἰουδαίων παῖδες, νῦν δὲ τὸ Σαμαρειτῶν φῦλον. Here is Σαμαρειτῶν in combination with φῦλον in the genitive plural. Alice Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum’, Josephus und das Neue Testament (ed. Christfried Böttrich and Jens Herzer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007) 73–117, at 99 emphasises the genitive-plural as carrying a particular negative connotation for Eusebius, and as such Eusebius would not have fabricated a TF with this construction. She neglects this counter-example. Whealey’s attempt to find negative meanings inherent to specific grammatical forms in Eusebius is also questionable, see Olson, ‘A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum’, 104 n. 27. Whealey and others cannot exclude counter-examples due to them being in the genitive singular, as much as they would try. The form φυλῆς is frequent in the New Testament as well (Luke 2.36; Rom 11.1; Phil 3.5; Heb 7.13, etc.).

²⁵ As Olson remarks, Eusebius was not ‘polemicizing against stars when he refers to their “tribes and families” in Preparation 7.15.12’, see Olson, ‘A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum’, 109 n. 43. Allen, Dave, ‘A Model Reconstruction of What Josephus Would Have Realistically Written About Jesus’, Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 18 (2022) Google Scholar makes a similar error here as Bermejo-Rubio. Whealey, ‘Josephus’, 97 argues that Eusebius’ usage of φῦλον for Christians stems from Tertullian and is therefore immaterial (i.e., Eusebius would not use the term normally, but does so because he is utilising Tertullian in this instance). Whealey’s argument is unconvincing. That Eusebius uses φῦλον under the influence of Tertullian shows that he had an exemplar and that under such influence he was fine using it. It is irrelevant where it stems from, Eusebius still finds it acceptable. Further, even if Eusebius’ usage of φῦλον is negative, this does not compel us to think he would not have used it as a basis for interpolation. To think that Christians could not invent unfavourable portrayals of themselves for their own apologetic purposes is unevidenced, and in fact contradicted by the way they construct fake opponents using such derogatory or distanced language, such as Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho.

²⁶ Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Was the Hypothetical Vorlage’, 355.

²⁷ Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Was the Hypothetical Vorlage’, 355–6.

²⁸ The literature on this subject is beyond my ability to summarise here. Recently, we can point to just the several studies being done on the Gospel of John’s usage of this, see Paul Aaron Hines, ‘Loving Wisdom: The Ἀγαπάω-Φιλέω Exchange in John 21:15–17 as an Allusion to LXX Proverbs 8:17’, Bulletin for Biblical Research 30 (2020) 379–402; David Shepherd, ‘“Do You Love Me?” A Narrative-Critical Reappraisal of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in John 21:15–17’, Journal of Biblical Literature 129 (2010) 777–92.

²⁹ Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Was the Hypothetical Vorlage’, 360.

³⁰ For discussion of this phrase, see Barrett, Anthony A., Rome is Burning: Nero and the Fire That Ended a Dynasty (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2020) .Google Scholar

³¹ That Seutonius’ Chrestus refers to Jesus is doubtful, see Williams, Margaret H., Early Classical Authors on Jesus (London: T&T Clark, 2022) Google Scholar. See also, Richard Carrier, ‘The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44, Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 264–83.

³² For discussion of the fragments of Galen’s work, see Flemming, Rebecca, ‘Galen and the Christians: Texts and Authority in the Second Century AD’, Christianity in the Second Century: Themes and Developments (ed. Paget, James Carleton and Lieu, Judith; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017) .Google Scholar

³³ See above notes on Eusebius’ use of φῦλον.

³⁴ Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Was the Hypothetical Vorlage’, 361–2.

³⁵ Thus, Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 1.11.9 remarks Jews earn their derision since even Josephus, one of them, admits the truth of Christ.

³⁶ Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Was the Hypothetical Vorlage’, 331–47.

³⁷ Victor, Ulrich, ‘Das Testimonium Flavianum: Ein authentischer Text des Josephus’, Novum Testamentum 52 (2010) 72–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar proposes it was all authentic, but the arguments are strenuous at best. Partial to this is also van Henten, Jan Willem, ‘Testimonium Flavianum’, The Reception of Jesus in the First Three Centuries (ed. Keith, Chris, Bond, Helen K., Jacobi, Christine and Schröter, Jens; 3 vols.; London: Bloomsbury, 2020) Google Scholar. By far the least likely proposals have been from Dave Allen, see Allen, Dave, ‘An Original Negative Testimonium’, Journal of Higher Criticism 15 (2020) 67–90Google Scholar. He has since altered his reconstruction multiple times, see Allen, ‘A Model Reconstruction’ (cited above) and ‘How Josephus Really Viewed Jesus’. Allen’s reconstruction however is more a series of strenuous thought experiments, see Hansen, C.M., ‘A Response to David Allen’s “A Model Reconstruction of What Josephus Would Have Realistically Written About Jesus”’, Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 19 (2023) 94–103.Google Scholar

³⁸ Several scholars have posed this issue, see Sanders, E.P., ‘Jesus Christ’, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (ed. David Noel Freedman; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) Google Scholar; Joseph Hoffmann, R., Jesus Outside the Gospels (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1984) 54Google Scholar; T, R.. France, The Evidence For Jesus (Vancouver: Regent College, 2006) 30Google Scholar; Williams, Early Classical Authors on Jesus, 54.

³⁹ Mason, Steve, ‘Non-Christian Texts’, The Jesus Handbook (ed. Schröter, Jens and Jacobi, Christine; trans. Brawley, Robert L.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022) , at 165.Google Scholar