Continuing from Review 2 . . .
Thomas C. Schmidt asserts that Josephus portrayed the followers of Jesus in a negative light by writing that they “received truisms with pleasure” (according to Schmidt’s translation). I have demonstrated in the previous post that Schmidt’s “truisms” is a mistranslation. The correct translation can only be “true things” or “truths”. But Schmidt also argued that when Josephus added the words “with pleasure” he was conveying the idea that the disciples were being led by their worldly, carnal, physical desires. The word for “pleasure”, he argues, almost necessarily conveys a slur against the disciples.
Again, Schmidt’s argument is based on selective evidence. Though the word for “pleasure” is often used to refer to sensuous interests or wicked motivations it is also used – by Josephus as well as other ancient authors – in connection with virtues and contains not the slightest hint of anything derogatory.
The phrase ‘receive with pleasure’ (τῶν ἡδονῇ . . . δεχομένων) in Josephus’ writings most frequently refers to overzealous or heedless actions. (Schmidt 2025, 207)
“Most frequently” is misleading. If Schmidt is referring to the exact forms of the two words that he quotes then there is only one other place in Josephus’ writings where those forms of the words appear in combination. Furthermore, it just happens that in that one other place the phrase has a distinctly, unambiguous positive flavour. In the wake of the assassination of Gaius Caligula, a Roman senator’s speech urging careful judgment, caution and wisdom and virtuous decision-making is “received with pleasure” by the other senators.
Sentius used such words, and they were received with pleasure [ἡδονῇ δεχομένων] by the senators, as well as by all of the equites who were present. (Ant. XIX.185.2)
But it is more likely that Schmidt is referring to similar phrases built upon various forms of those words (“receive” and “pleasure”) as the context required. There are eight such instances, not including the TF, in Antiquities of the Jews. The first such instance is most interesting. . . .
Abraham had just explained to his son Isaac that he was about to sacrifice him at God’s command. How did Isaac “receive” these words? He “received” them with “pleasure”!
But Isaac—since he had such a father, it was necessary for his disposition to be noble—received the words with pleasure [δέχεται πρὸς ἡδονὴν τοὺς λόγους], and . . . declared it just, if both God and his father intended it. (Ant. I.232.2 = AJ 1.13.4)
No matter how often Josephus elsewhere spoke of wicked or foolish audiences receiving corrupt words that titillated their own pleasurable feelings, there is absolutely no way that anyone can read Josephus’s account of Isaac and think Josephus was implying some negative innuendo towards Isaac’s response to Abraham’s words.
Josephus boasted that the Judean nation observed their holy laws “with pleasure” throughout their entire lives:
What form of government then can be more holy than this? what more worthy kind of worship can be paid to God than we pay, where the entire body of the people are prepared for religion, where an extraordinary degree of care is required in the priests, and where the whole polity is so ordered as if it were a certain religious solemnity? For what things foreigners, when they solemnize such festivals, are not able to observe for a few days’ time, and call them Mysteries and Sacred Ceremonies, we observe with great pleasure [= ταῦτα μεθ᾽ ἡδονῆς] and an unshaken resolution during our whole lives. (Against Apion, 2.189 Whiston’s translation adds “great” to capture the tone of Josephus’s words here.)
Schmidt acknowledges one positive instance of a combination of those words. The Pharisees who protested against Pilate are said to have been willing to “receive” death “with pleasure” rather than break the Laws of God.
But those who had thrown themselves face down and bared their throats said they would rather receive death with pleasure [ἡδονῇ δέξασθαι] than dare to transgress the wisdom of the laws. (Ant. XVIII.59.2)
Schmidt directs readers to Olson’s chapter:
For an overview of positive usages of ἡδονή in both Josephus and Eusebius, see Olson, ‘A Eusebian Reading’, 104–5. (Schmidt 2025, 78. See also Olson 2013)
So when Schmidt writes . . .
The phrase ‘receive with pleasure’ (τῶν ἡδονῇ . . . δεχομένων) in Josephus’ writings most frequently refers to overzealous or heedless actions. (Schmidt 2025, 207)
. . . his words have no more relevance to the TF than they do to what Josephus meant by his discussion of Isaac “receiving with pleasure” the words of his father or the Pharisees “receiving with pleasure” death rather than disobedience to God.
There remains one passage in Antiquities that surely must ring with a certain familiarity among those aware of the TF: Josephus’s account of a certain Alexander who claimed to be the son of King Herod after Herod’s death. Schmidt writes:
In fact, in another passage, much underappreciated by scholars, Josephus uses the very same wording to describe how a certain imposter pretended to be Alexander, the son of Herod, and ‘convinced as many of the Jews that came to meet him to believe [that he was Alexander]’ (Ἰουδαίων ὁπόσοις εἰς ὁμιλίαν ἀφίκετο ἐπηγάγετο εἰς πίστιν), Josephus then says that ‘the cause [of this] was that men received [his] words with pleasure’ (αἴτιον δὲ ἦν τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὸ ἡδονῇ δεχόμενον τοὺς λόγους). Taken together, Josephus claims that the false Alexander ‘convinced’ or even ‘led astray’ (ἐπηγάγετο) certain men (ἀνθρώπων) because they ‘received’ (δεχόμενον) his words ‘with pleasure’ (ἡδονῇ). Hence, this ‘pleasure’, which the men had in ‘receiving’ the words of the pretender, seems therefore to indicate an overeager, overzealous, or all too credulous belief—not something particularly positive.
Most striking, however, is that the above passage closely parallels the TF which also describes Jesus ‘leading’ or ‘misleading’ (ἐπηγάγετο) ‘men who receive truisms with pleasure’ (ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων). Such a close linguistic correspondence inescapably points toward Josephus as the responsible party for at least this portion of the TF . . . (Schmidt 2025, 82 – my highlighting)
On the contrary, what it points to is that anyone familiar with the writings of Josephus could have had such a passage in mind as they were drafting the TF. How often does the same writer describe two entirely separate and dissimilar episodes with the same semantic structures. I suspect that sort of parallel is normally what we find among ancient authors who were imitating others. But that’s an analysis project for another time.
In preparation for this post I compiled a list of extracts from both Perseus and TLG that itemize the instances where the words for “pleasure” and “receive” are found throughout all of the writing by Josephus, along with all writings including some form of the word for “pleasure” and “receive” from Josephus and his near contemporaries: Dio Chrysostom, Epictetus and Plutarch. I have decided not to belabor the point by posting them all here. If what I have written above does not suffice to convince anyone, I ask them to contact me directly and I may reconsider my decision.
Conclusion: There is absolutely no innuendo in the TF to suggest that “receiving with pleasure” the “true things” from Jesus in any way at all hinted at something negative. The words of the TF are quite capable of, and even demand, being read as positives: the true things Jesus the teacher taught were received with pleasure/happiness/joy by those who listened to him.
Bibliography
Olson, Ken. 2013. “A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum.” In Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations, edited by Aaron Johnson and Jeremy Schott, 97–114. Washington, D.C: Center for Hellenic Studies. https://www.academia.edu/4062154/Olson_A_Eusebian_Reading_of_the_Testimonium_Flavianum_2013
Schmidt, T. C. 2025. Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
In the TF, Jesus is said to be a sophos aner (a wise man). In War 2.17.8 Judas of Galilee is referred to as “a very cunning sophister.” Josephus says the followers of these two men received what they said with pleasure. And given the kingdom of God preached by Jesus was seditious even as the preaching of Judas, then Josephus could be saying these two men were similar in that respect. Perhaps the original TF described Jesus as a “sophister” and a later Christian scribe changed that to “sophos aner.” This might explain Origen saying Josephus did not believe in Jesus.
I would not trying to change your mind. But these things are curious. I don’t know what to make of them. I think your saying “truth” is the correct meaning of the word. But “truth” for Josephus meant that Vespasian was the world ruler to come out of Judea, not Jesus.
Yes, and as the ancient historian Finley wrote:
What people believe to be true is not necessarily some universal objective truth.
Speculation is often interesting and can lead to new questions for research.
Since posting I have inserted this afterthought:
Josephus boasted that the Judean nation observed their holy laws “with pleasure” throughout their entire lives:
Neil, thank you for putting the time in to write this series on Schmidt. I am looking forward to every entry. There is so much apologetical and specious argumentation in his book it is overwhelming. So it’s a fundamental good to have competent people carrying the water to unpack that.
“a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man”
I had speculated: Perhaps the original TF described Jesus as a “sophister” and a later Christian scribe changed that to “sophos aner” (a wise man). Neil pointed out: “Speculation is often interesting and can lead to new questions for research.”
Thinking about this some more: If in fact this was changed by a Christian scribe, then after changing “sophister” to “wise man”, it would have been quite natural for a Christian scribe to also add “if it be lawful to call him a man.” Because for this supposed Christian scribe and interpolator, Jesus was more than just a man.
perhaps implied, “if it be lawful [for me] to call him a man” – Josephus would have had no problem calling Jesus just a man. But the scribe/interpolator did.
We can imagine different explanations and processes but we can go no further with them until we find some specific evidence for them with which to work. The next step is to look for some data that can be explained no other way.
In my reading, Morton Smith (“Jesus the Magician,” 1978) offers a more cogent explanation for the text on Jesus by Josephus.
In Morton Smith’s opinion, the original text was entirely negative, since Josephus was entirely skeptical about Jesus. Christian censors soon twisted the text into something more positive by changing only five words. The following is closer to Josephus’ original:
“About this time there lived Jesus, a CRAFTY man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed SHOICKING deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept SUPERSTITION gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was CALLED the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He REPORTEDLY appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”
This, then, was Morton Smith’s interpretation of “The Testimonium Flavianum.”
I have addressed Morton Smith’s methods several times now. Unfortunately he falls into the traps of circular reasoning and confirmation bias over and over. There is absolutely no way to justify the translation of SUPERSTITION that you mention — as my previous post demonstrated: https://vridar.org/2025/06/23/josephus-and-jesus-new-evidence-review-2-a-teacher-of-truisms/
I invite you to study the basis of his rationales for the negative interpretation — and the various criticisms of Smith’s arguments online. Or I’m happy to discuss further here.
What Morton Smith wrote was:
And his explanatory notes (p. 178)
All of those changes are debated in the literature. The entire reconstruction is based on the assumption that Josephus did write about Christianity (and in a negative way) so it cannot be used to prove he did write about Christianity (or that the imagined reconstruction is closer to the original). Few other disciplines would permit changing the sources in order to make them conform with a priori assumptions.
I agree with you the TF is probably fraudulent. But if so it reveals your reasoning here to be dubious: almost everyone acknowledges that the source needs amending.
In what way is my reasoning “dubious” here? (Sorry — I’m missing your point. — I write these things publicly in hopes of learning if they hold water at all — so if I have been “dubious” please show me.) I do know that many scholars think the TF “needs amending” but I don’t know if “almost everyone” does.
But the question to ask is why they think it needs amending. That is where we enter the realm of circularity and question begging. It is apologetics pure and simple — apologetics to argue in line with the Acts-Eusebian model of Christian origins. There is no intellectually valid basis for the exercise at all, as far as I can see. But you disagree?
(I should have written “emend”.)
I mean that many propose the entire TF is a later insertion. That’s arguably a bigger emendation than Smith’s proposed changes to five words.
There’s a thread about my reviews on the Early Writings Forum — and after a little flurry of personal attacks against me, some have begun to discuss the grand idea of evidence of “cumulative weight”. I first learned about this concept in a book by James Crossley and thought it was simply nonsense. How can a lot of flimsy arguments be said to become strong when they are they are all put together? That’s the sort of fallacious reasoning that leads people to be convinced of all sorts of hocus pocus, including conspiracy theories. One little thing doesn’t esablish the case, but if we come across two, or three, or more speculative and inconclusive and baseless arguments then they somehow become a convincing and strong case??? This is the sort of route that ends up being “fair game” when we build arguments on evidence-free baseless assumptions and wishful thinking.
Isn’t that what many do with respect to the TF? The evidence as it is works just fine for some apologists, so they leave it as it is. But some think it doesn’t quite work the way they think it should, so they make a slight change to the data to make it fit their preconceptions. Others think much of it doesn’t fit their theories, so they change more of the data to make it fit. Oh my god — this is not scholarship. It is simply tampering with evidence to make it support one’s pet theory.
Josephus HAD to say something about Christianity otherwise we have no independently confirmed first century evidence for early Christianity at all. And that will simply not do! So Josephus MUST be made to say something to save the prevailing broad models of Christian origins.