Continued from Review 3 . . .
And when it is pointed out that, after all, we are talking about texts written in Koine Greek (and so the language ability is pretty important), and that . . . requires a lot of study, all this if one wishes to make some kind of soundly-based judgement . . . (Hurtado 2012)
Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin . . . not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts . . . . (Ehrman 2013, 4f)
When a scholarly book is made open access in order to reach an audience as wide as possible one would expect many lay readers to feel out of their depth when reading claims about the meaning of the Greek words in Josepus’s passage about Jesus (the Testimonium Flavianum / TF).
As I mentioned earlier, I have since taken up formal studies in ancient Greek and have acquired enough awareness of the technicalities of ancient Greek and a knowledge of the reference tools used by scholars to see when baseless arguments are being fed to lay readers. In this post I take interested readers through a citation trail that Thomas Schmidt initiated in order to confirm his claim that Josephus was deliberately encouraging willing readers to interpret a passage about Jesus in a negative light. We will see by the end that the citation trail not only fails to support Schmidt’s case but even arguably points to its opposite – that the original Greek is meant to be understood in a positive sense. Most certainly we will see that there is no suggestion of the ambiguity for which Schmidt argues.
Schmidt’s argument re ἐπηγάγετο (epēgageto)
. . . and he [Jesus] brought over many of the Jews and many also of the Greeks . . . (TF)
Other translations for “brought over” (i.e. ἐπηγάγετο) read:
. . . “led astray / led away” (other possibilities listed by Schmidt)
. . . “won over” (Feldman)
. . . “drew over” (Whiston)
. . . “gained a following from” (Meier)
. . . “led astray” (Morton Smith)
. . . “attached to himself” (Zeitlin)
. . . “attracted” (Mason)
. . . “seduced” (Eisler)
In Schmidt’s view, Josephus wrote with careful ambiguity about Jesus attracting followers. Josephus, he explains, wrote the equivalent Greek words of Jesus “bringing over” many persons because the Greek for “bringing over” or “brought over” could be read either positively or negatively or neutrally:
. . . the evidence demonstrates that such phrasing could well have been interpreted neutrally, ambiguously, or negatively by one who was so inclined. (Schmidt 2025, 83)
In the end, Schmidt sums up by saying that Josephus meant to describe Jesus “somewhat neutrally”. I’m not sure what “somewhat neutrally” means. What would it mean to describe a referee of a game as “somewhat neutral” or a judge hearing a trial as “somewhat neutral”? Is it like being “somewhat pregnant”?
But here is his point that I want to discuss in this post:
Josephus then uses the ambiguous term ‘brought over’ (ἐπηγάγετο) to describe Jesus leading many Jews and Greeks. This word can be interpreted as connoting deception, exactly like what Jewish leaders accused Jesus of doing according to the Gospel accounts (Matthew 27:63; Luke 23:2; John 7:12, 47, 52). (Schmidt 2025, 208)
And that is important for Schmidt: for Schmidt, the words we read in Josephus have to allow for – and even subtly infer – a negative view of Christianity. So Schmidt continues,
Moreover, the Gospels describe how Jesus’ many followers caused great alarm among Jewish leaders (John 4:1-2) who worried that the ‘whole world’ was going to follow him (John 12:19) and that Jesus would cause a rebellion (Luke 23:1-5, 14). All this is once again corroborated by Josephus’ portrayal of Jesus leading ‘many from among the Jews and many from among the Greeks’ and then being crucified by the Roman governor at the behest of Jewish leaders. The reader of the TF is thus left with a fair impression that Jesus may have been accused of fomenting rebellion . . . (Schmidt 2025, 208 – my bolding)
[Josephus] further preserves the term ἐπηγάγετο [“brought over”] which can be understood as ‘he led astray’.19 (Schmidt 2025, 218)
Notice once again that Schmidt uses passages from the Gospels as evidence of historical words spoken and the historical feelings of Jewish leaders. He interprets Josephus through those gospel narratives. (There are many reasons this is a problematic way to understand Josephus, too many to repeat here though I have discussed them many times elsewhere as part of what consists of basic sound historical method.)
Schmidt cites other scholarly works and references and even other passages in Josephus to establish his claim that by “brought over” Josephus was subtly implying – and that the reader was meant to notice – that Jesus was “leading astray” many followers. Before I demonstrate that all his references and supports fail to make this case, I must explain for most of us the most obvious meaning of the Greek word translated “brought over” (or even possibly “misled” or “led astray”).
The meaning of ἐπηγάγετο
The word translated “brought over” or “led astray” etc is epēgageto (ἐπηγάγετο). It is simply the word for “bring” or “lead” (agō = ἄγω) combined with the preposition for “over” (epi = ἐπί). The base word is thus ἐπάγω, meaning “I bring or lead over”. ἐπηγάγετο is one of the many forms of ἐπάγω. The forms vary according to tense, case, person, number, voice.
One would not expect the word to have any more negative innuendo than the English words for “bring” or “lead”. One can bring or lead others for good or bad reasons. Example:
The guide led/brought the hikers back to his camp.
or
The bandit led/brought his gang to his hideout.
The word for “led” or “lead” or “brought” does not in itself have a good or bad meaning. Only the context can decide if it is being used to describe a positive or negative action. It is no different with the Greek. If I tell a story of events that “led” many people over many years into tragic circumstances, it does not mean that my use of the word “led” in itself conveys something bad. The next time I use the word “led” could be to convey a completely different type of event, let’s say a very happy one, or simply a neutral one. What counts is the context. If I say “Mary led the lamb to her school” no-one is going to suspect, from those words alone or because I had spoken of a butcher leading a heifer to his abattoir on another occasion that Mary was planning to eat her lamb for lunch.
It is the immediate context that determines the meaning of many of the words we use, not some other context where we used the same words once before.
Josephus: “somewhat” neutral? ambiguous? negative?
Let’s now examine Schmidt’s supporting evidence for his claim that the Greek word for “brought over” can and does, at least for Josephus, suggest the meaning of “led astray” or “misled”.
. . . the potentially negative ‘he brought over’ or ‘he misled’ (ἐπηγάγετο) (Schmidt 2025, 47)
. . . a far more ambiguous or possibly negative valence than the one implied by how scholars have traditionally translated it . . . revolves around the meaning of the Greek word ἐπάγομαι, which can mean ‘to lead’ someone in a neutral sense,146 or, according to LSJ and the Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, it may have the negative connotations of ‘induce’ or otherwise mislead.147
146 For this neutral meaning, see Antiquities 1.263, 2.173.
147 LSJ, ἐπάγω, II 6; Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, ἐπάγω. So, Thucydides relates how the Argives ‘induced the Spartans to agree’ (ἐπηγάγοντο τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους ξυγχωρῆσαι) to a treaty even though it seemed quite foolish; Thucydides, Peloponnesian War 5.41.2 line 8 (= TLG 0003.001). On this interpretation of ἐπάγομαι, see also Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 354–5; Cernuda, ‘El testimonio flaviano’, 373–4. (Schmidt 2025, 81)
It won’t hurt to keep in mind Schmidt’s acknowledgement that the word can indeed be used neutrally. Here are the examples from Josephus that he cites:
He makes a friendship with him beforehand, bringing Philochus, one of the generals, along. (Antiquities 1.263 – translations are from Perseus Tufts unless otherwise noted)
[ = φιλίαν ἄνωθεν ποιεῖται πρὸς αὐτὸν ἕνα τῶν στρατηγῶν Φίλοχον ἐπαγόμενος. – that is a participial form. Schmidt says this is a “neutral” use of the word but others might even see it as a “positive” use, given its context of friendship.]
Sent alone to Mesopotamia, you gained a good marriage, and returned bringing a multitude of children and wealth. (Antiquities 2.173)
[ = τὴν Μεσοποταμίαν μόνος σταλεὶς γάμων τε ἀγαθῶν ἔτυχες καὶ παίδων ἐπαγόμενος πλῆθος καὶ χρημάτων ἐνόστησας. – again, I am not sure why Schmidt chose to describe this form of the word as connoting a neutral meaning; it looks very positive to me.]
So after acknowledging that the word does not have any intrinsic negative flavour Schmidt must demonstrate that for Josephus and the TF this common rule did not apply.
To establish his point, Schmidt introduces major reference works buttressed by scholarly articles.
LSJ is the abbreviation for the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon. You can see for yourself all of the ways the root word for has been used in ancient Greek literature at LSJ: ἐπάγω. Schmidt directs readers to II 6. The II section, we discover from the abbreviation beside it, Med., lists the way the middle voice form of the word has been used and translated. The middle voice is the form or a verb that indicates it is being applied to or on behalf of oneself: e.g. bringing over for or on behalf of oneself or one’s project (hence my above examples with reference to “his camp”, “his hideout”, “her school” etc.).
II 6 is one of seven examples of how the LSJ observes how our word is used and translated across the literature. Here are those seven:
1 . . . bring to oneself, procure or provide for oneself, . . . devise, invent a means of shunning death . . . .
2 . . . of persons, bring into one’s country, bring in or introduce as allies . . .
3 . . . call them in as witnesses . . . introduce by way of quotation . . . adduce testimonies . . . .
4 . . . bring upon oneself . . . .
5 . . . bring with one . . . .
6 . . . bring over to oneself, win over . . . induce them to concede, Thucydides 5.41. . . . .
7 . . . put in place . . . .
Out of those seven different contextual middle voice meanings of ἐπάγω that are found throughout the literature, Schmidt zeroes in on that one instance from Thucydides 5.41 (see the footnote 147 above). “Induce” sounds sly, cunning. (Leave aside for a moment the fact that Aristotle used the word in the sense of “induce” when describing inductive argument or inductive reasoning.) And Schmidt calls attention to Thucydides describing how a group were “induced” to accept an agreement that was not ultimately in their interests. To reinforce his point he cites articles by Bermejo-Rubio and Cernuda.
1. Bermejo-Rubio . . .
[T]he verb έπάγομαι [another form of ἐπάγω] already has a negative tinge (“bring something bad upon someone’) . . . , and in this context it may carry the meaning of “lead astray” or “seduce.”133 Interestingly, Josephus himself uses the verb έπάγομαι in this negative sense elsewhere (e.g., Ant. 1.207, 6.196,11.199, 17.327). All this is unfortunately overlooked or downplayed by the proponents of a ‘neutral’ text.134
133 See. e.g.. Bienert, Jesusbericht. 225; Potscher. “losephus Flavius,’ 33: and Stanton, “Jesus of Nazareth.” 170. The verb is used in 2 Peter 2:1 in connection with false prophets ‘bringing’ destruction on themselves.
134 Meier. “Jesus in Josephus.” 88. n.33 refers to the possible negative meaning of έχηγάγετο, but rules it out too hastily, not giving supporting references or further reasons for such rejection. What he translates as “And he won over many Jews and many of the Greeks’ is translated by others (e.g., Bammel, Morton Smith. Stanton) as “and he led astray.” (Bermejo-Rubio 2014, 354f)
Now this is finally beginning to look bad for the Jesus we read about in Josephus. Could it really be that the word should be meant to suggest that Jesus was “seducing” or “leading astray” his audience? We saw above that Josephus could use our word in a positive or neutral sense. Here, we are told, he is using it in a negative sense. So we will begin by looking at those other uses in Antiquities that are listed by Bermejo-Rubio. These are all said to convey a “negative sense” of the word – translated variously as “bringing”, “drew”, won over”. I add my comments in italics.
Abraham moved to Gerar of Palestine, bringing Sarah in the guise of a sister, pretending as before because of… (Antiquities 1.207)
[Ἅβραμος δὲ μετῴκησεν εἰς Γέραρα τῆς Παλαιστίνης ἐν ἀδελφῆς ἐπαγόμενος σχήματι τὴν Σάρραν, ὅμοια τοῖς πρὶν ὑποκρινάμενος διὰ τὸν…]
And David, always bringing God with him wherever he arrived… (Antiquities 6.196 – I don’t know why this instance is interpreted in a negative sense)
[Δαυίδης δὲ πανταχοῦ τὸν θεὸν ἐπαγόμενος ὅποι ποτ᾽ ἀφίκοιτο]
“And of all the women, Esther happened to excel—for that was her name—in beauty, and the charm of her face drew the gaze of onlookers even more strongly.” (Antiquities 11.199 – again I don’t know why this is listed as a negative meaning)
[πασῶν δὲ τὴν Ἐσθῆρα συνέβαινεν, τοῦτο γὰρ ἦν αὐτῇ τοὔνομα, τῷ κάλλει διαφέρειν καὶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ προσώπου τὰς ὄψεις τῶν θεωμένων μᾶλλον ἐπάγεσθαι.]
“…he had ceased from deceiving, but having come to Crete, he won over to the faith as many of the Jews as he came into contact with, and having become wealthy through their donations…” (Antiquities 17.327 – here a false prophet, Alexander, is winning over a following)
[… ἀπήλλακτο ἀπατᾶν, ἀλλὰ Κρήτῃ προσενεχθεὶς Ἰουδαίων ὁπόσοις εἰς ὁμιλίαν ἀφίκετο ἐπηγάγετο εἰς πίστιν, καὶ χρημάτων εὐπορηθεὶς δόσει τῇ ἐκείνων ἐπὶ]
For anyone thinking that except for 17.327 these are not strong examples of “bringing over” having a negative meaning, Bermejo-Rubio adds some scholarly references:
Bienert, Jesusbericht. 225;
Pötscher, “losephus Flavius,’ 33;
Stanton, “Jesus of Nazareth” 170.
Let’s look at those.
Bienert:
For the formulation [“And he won over/brought over many of the Jews, and also many of the Greeks” suggests the idea that Jesus, in his own interest, for the formation of a faction, recruited followers — whereas a Christian would instead maintain that Jesus won people for their own salvation and for faith. With ἐπηγάγετο there is an implicit idea that this bringing-over served in some sense the personal advantage of the subject. (Bienert 1936, 225 – translation)
So Bienert says that a Christian would have written that Jesus won them over to the faith. But Bienert runs into a problem here because Josephus did indeed say, explicitly, that a false prophet, Alexander, won over the following “into the faith” (εἰς πίστιν). So how could a Christian author have written that Jesus was winning over followers to the faith in a good sense? Bienert says that the word for “won over” still had a bad implication simply because it is in the middle voice and therefore it meant that Alexander – and also Jesus – were motivated by devious self-interest. This is butchery of the Greek. Middle voice does not imply a negative motivation. It implies some person does something directly or indirectly for or on behalf of the same person, regardless of motive – such as when Jesus called disciples to follow him. Would a Christian really think such an action as Jesus calling people to follow him, saying “Follow me”, was a deviously self-serving action on the part of Jesus?
Pötscher:
For Pötscher, the word ἐπηγάγετο should be linked with the following sentence, “He was the Christ”, not with the earlier words about his followers. In this case, the word should be translated as “put forward” the idea that He was the Christ. Compare the third meaning in the LSJ II 6 reference above.
“ἐπηγάγετο actually fits better with what immediately follows. . . . I propose [the original text read as . . . “He brought him forward, saying that this was the Christ.”]: … ἐπηγάγετο, ὅτι ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος εἴη. The change is very slight; the Christian copyist had to correct εἴη to ἦν, and then the short word ὅτι could easily drop out. . . . (Pötscher 1975, 33f – translation)
If the primary source material does not support the hypothesis it appears to be accepted practice to hypothesize a change to the source to make it fit. But even so, this particular argument has nothing to do with the notion that the word ἐπηγάγετο conveys a negative meaning. If there is anything negative here it lies in the context, presumably of making a false claim. One can hardly say that the word meaning “put forward” by itself is negative or positive.
Stanton:
Let us start with the final verb, ἐπηγάγετο, translated by Feldman as “he won over,” and by Meier as “he gained a following among.” . . . Bauer’s lexicon gives “bring on” as the meaning of ἐπάγω, and notes that in figurative usage it usually has the sense “bring something bad upon someone.”19 Hence ἐπηγάγετο in the Testimonium can be understood as “brought trouble to,'” or even “seduce, lead astray.”20
19 BAGD 281. Josephus Life 18 is a good example of the verb in this [negative] sense. “Win over” is attested in Thucydides and Polybius (see LSJ) and Chrysostom (see G. W. H. Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon), but the verb is rarely used with this positive sense.
20 Bammel notes that significatio seditionis is possible for ἐπάγομαι (“Testimonium Flavianum,” Judaica, 179-81). Meier acknowledges that this is “a possible, though not necessary, meaning of the verb,” but does not give supporting references or reasons for rejecting this translation (“Jesus in Josephus,” 88 n. 33). M. Smith, Jesus the Magician (London: Victor Gollancz, 1978) 178, translates “lead astray” and claims that this sense is implied by the Greek text. (Stanton 1994, 170)
Look first at Bauer’s Lexicon. Yes, this lexicon does say that the word in the middle voice can have the figurative use meaning of “bring something [mostly bad] upon someone”. The only difficulty here, however, is that in Josephus’s passage about Jesus he is not using the word figuratively!
Bauer gives examples of the figurative use:
Hesiod, Works and Days 240
But upon them from heaven the son of Cronos brought a great bane —
famine and plague together — and the people perished.
τοῖσιν δ᾽ οὐρανόθεν μέγ᾽ ἐπήγαγε πῆμα Κρονίων
λιμὸν ὁμοῦ καὶ λοιμόν: ἀποφθινύθουσι δὲ λαοί.
Here is the complete Bauer reference where I highlight some other sources with the figurative use:
ἐπάγω 1 aor. ptc. έπάξας (Bl-D. §75 w. app.; Mit -H. 226: Rob. 348); 2 aor. ἐπἠγαγον (Hom. +; inscr., Philo.9 pap., LXX, Philo, Joseph., Test. 12 Patr.) bring on; fig. bring someth. upon someone, mostly someth, bad τινἰ τι (Hes., Op. 240 πῆμά τινi έ. al.; Dit., Or. 669, 43 πολλοῖς ἐ. κινδύνους; PRyl. 144, 21 [38 AD] . . . μοι ἐ.αἰτίας; Bar 4:9 10,14, 29; Da 3: 28, 31; Philo, Mos. 1, 96; Jos. Vi. 18; Sib. Or. 7, 154) κατακλυσμόν κόσμῳ έπάξας 2 Pt 2:5 (cf. Gen 6: 17; 3 Macc 2: 4 of the deluge ἐπάγαγὼν αὐτοῖς ἀμέτρητου ὗδωρ). λύπην τῷ πνεύματι bring grief upon the spirit Hm 3: 4. ἑαυτοῖς ταχινὴν ἀπώλειαν bring swift destruction upon themselves Pt 2: 1 (cf. ἑαυτοῖς δουλείαν Demosth. 19, 259). Also ἐπί τινά τι (Ex 11:1; 33: 5; Jer 6:19; Ezk 28:7 and oft.) ἐφ’ ἡμάᾶς τὸ αἶμα τ. ἀνθρώπου τούτου bring this man’s blood upon us Ac 5:28 (cf. Judg 9: 24 B ἐπαγαγεῖν τὰ αἵματα αὐτῶν, τοῦ θεῖναι ἐπὶ Ἀβιμελεχ, ὃs ἀπέκειvev αὐτούς), έ. τισὶ διωyμὸv κατά τινος stir up, within a group, a persecution against someone Ac 14: 2 D. M-M. (Bauer and Arndt 2021, 281 — I don’t think there is any instrinsic negative shift in meaning to ἐπάγω because of the figurative use: rather, I suspect that it is more common to speak of calamaties being brought upon us than it is good things.)
The Bauer lexicon and Stanton point to another figurative use of the word in Josephus’s Life, section 18, and again it is definitely with a negative sense:
[and desired them] not rashly, and after the most foolish manner, to bring on the dangers of the most terrible mischiefs upon their country, upon their families, and upon themselves.
καὶ μὴ προπετῶς καὶ παντάπασιν ἀνοήτως πατρίσι καὶ γενεαῖς καὶ σφίσιν αὐτοῖς τὸν περὶ τῶν ἐσχάτων κακῶν κίνδυνον ἐπάγειν.
But there is nothing figurative about Josephus’s use of the word relating to Jesus. Jesus is not bringing down plagues or war or terror or even riches and rewards. He is literally, not figuratively, bringing people to himself by means of his teaching.
Stanton offers other examples, Polybius and Thucydides, where the word is used and notes it is there it is used with a positive sense. We can note that the difference is with Polybius and Thucydides we meet a literary and not a figurative use. Stanton can only comment that “the verb is rarely used with this positive sense”. Presumably he is thinking of the many figurative usages.
Notice how positive in meaning Polybius’s use really is:
Polybius 7:14.4, cited in the LSJ (Liddell Scott Jones Greek-English Lexicon) reference:
. . . having employed Aratus as guide in general matters, he neither wronged nor even caused distress to any of those on the island, but held all the Cretans under his control, and brought all the Greeks over to goodwill toward himself through the dignity of his character.
. . . καὶ γὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνων Ἀράτῳ μὲν καθηγεμόνι χρησάμενος περὶ τῶν ὅλων, οὐχ οἷον ἀδικήσας, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ λυπήσας οὐδένα τῶν κατὰ τὴν νῆσον, ἅπαντας μὲν εἶχε τοὺς Κρηταιεῖς ὑποχειρίους, ἅπαντας δὲ τοὺς Ἕλληνας εἰς τὴν πρὸς αὑτὸν εὔνοιαν ἐπήγετο διὰ τὴν σεμνότητα τῆς προαιρέσεως.
So we have a non-figurative use of the word and one can scarcely imagine a more positive meaning: “brought all the Greeks over to goodwill toward himself through the dignity of his character”.
The same reference, LSJ, gives this example of Thucydides’ use, also singled out by Stanton that he concedes also carries positive innuendo:
Thucydides 5:45
Upon the envoys speaking in the senate upon these points, and stating that they had come with full powers to settle all others at issue between them, Alcibiades became afraid that if they were to repeat these statements to the popular assembly, they might gain the multitude, and the Argive alliance might be rejected,
καὶ λέγοντες ἐν τῇ βουλῇ περί τε τούτων καὶ ὡς αὐτοκράτορες ἥκουσι περὶ πάντων ξυμβῆναι τῶν διαφόρων, τὸν Ἀλκιβιάδην ἐφόβουν μὴ καί, ἢν ἐς τὸν δῆμον ταῦτα λέγωσιν, ἐπαγάγωνται τὸ πλῆθος καὶ ἀπωσθῇ ἡ Ἀργείων ξυμμαχία.
This is a good time to look at another passage in Thucydides, one that Schmidt identifies as conveying a negative sense of “inducing” (with a tinge of deceit) the Spartans to agree to a foolish treaty.
Thucydides 5.41.2
Arrived in Sparta, the Argive representatives discussed with the Spartans the conditions for a treaty. . . . The Spartans . . . said that, if Argos would agree, they were prepared to accept the same terms as in the previous treaty. Nevertheless the Argive representatives managed in the end to get the Spartans to agree to the following arrangement . . . (Rex Warner’s translation)
καὶ οἱ πρέσβεις ἀφικόμενοι αὐτῶν λόγους ἐποιοῦντο πρὸς τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἂν σφίσιν αἱ σπονδαὶ γίγνοιντο. καὶ . . . ἔπειτα δ᾽ οὐκ ἐώντων Λακεδαιμονίων μεμνῆσθαι περὶ αὐτῆς, ἀλλ᾽, εἰ βούλονται σπένδεσθαι ὥσπερ πρότερον, ἑτοῖμοι εἶναι, οἱ Ἀργεῖοι πρέσβεις τάδε ὅμως ἐπηγάγοντο τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους ξυγχωρῆσαι . . .
Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of making the treaty, the use of the Greek word for “bringing over/getting to agree/induced/winning over” is describing an event of mutual negotiations, of diplomatic statecraft. There is no inherent suggestion that the word implies any deceit.
Finally, Stanton directs us to Chrysostom. Following Lampe’s A Patristic Greek Lexicon we find the passage is in the 28th Homily to Hebrews:
Chrysostom Homily to Hebrews 28, 263B
Tell me: who attracts more attention in the marketplaces—the one who brings along many, or the one who brings along few?
But of the one who brings along few, is she not the one who appears more modest and less conspicuous?
Εἰπέ μοι· τίς ἐπιστρέφει τοὺς ἐπ’ ἀγορὰς, ἡ πολλοὺς ἐπαγομένη, ἢ ἡ ὀλίγους;
ταύτης δὲ τῆς ὀλίγους ἐπαγομένης, οὐχὶ ἡ μᾶλλον ἀπρόοπτος φαινομένη;
As Stanton notes, there is no negative meaning instrinsic to the word in question here.
Thus far we have followed Schmidt’s references to the LSJ, the Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, a passage in Thucydides and his appeal to an article by Bermejo-Rubio. We conclude with a look at the article by Cernuda that he also appeals to.
2. Cernuda . . .
ἐπάγομαι itself could also be used in a negative sense80. It has thus also been argued that such is the case here81 . . . (Cernuda 1997, 373f – translation)
I learned long ago to always check the footnotes. Devils often lurk in such details. And we find them once again here. These devils are actually denying Schmidt his interpretation of “brought over”. Continuing with the translation, and with my own bolded highlighting added:
81 Es la postura que adoptó Reinach, perdiendo la debida imparcialidad semántica: “le verbe ἐπηγάγετο ‘il séduisit’, qui ne s’emploie qu’en mauvaise part et raille l’accusation de séduction portée contre Jésus […]; ἐπηγάγετο = pellicere […] un des vestiges les plus caractéristiques du ton hostile de la rédaction primitive” (“Josè”, 7 y 11). La reacción de Pelletier no pudo ser más justa: “En réalité, la nuance péjorative n’est habituelle que pour le verbe pellicere, employé ici par la traduction latine anonyme, et non pour le verbe grec que figure dans Josèphe” (“Témoignage”, 190).
80 Cf. infra. Bammel (“Zum TF,” note 25) attributes to K. Linck examples of ἐπάγομαι with negative meaning. But the four examples Linck gives from Josephus are completely irrelevant, and that was his intention: for what Linck did—contrary to what Bammel supposes—was to refute the claim of those who studiously assume a seditious meaning for the verb: “But this meaning of the verb is not supported by any evidence, nor is it required” (De antiquissimis veterum quae ad Jesum Nazarenum spectant testimoniis, Giessen 1924, p. 13).
81 This is the position adopted by Reinach, who lost proper semantic neutrality: “The verb ἐπηγάγετο, ‘he seduced,’ which is only ever used pejoratively, mocks the accusation of seduction leveled against Jesus […]. ἐπηγάγετο = pellicere [to seduce] is one of the most characteristic remnants of the hostile tone of the primitive redaction” (“Josè”, pp. 7 and 11). Pelletier’s response could not have been more justified: “In reality, the pejorative nuance is habitual only for the Latin verb pellicere, used here by the anonymous Latin translator, and not for the Greek verb found in Josephus” (“Témoignage,” p. 190).
Cernuda’s article thus actually contradicts Schmidt’s claim that Josephus had a negative intent in mind when he used the word of Jesus. It appears Schmidt failed to notice Cernuda’s devilish footnotes.
Bibliography
- Bauer, Walter, William Arndt, Felix Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. 1979. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 2nd Ed. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. 2014. “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 in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 45 (3): 326–65.
- Bienert, Walther. 1936. Der älteste nichtchristliche Jesusbericht, Josephus über Jesus : unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des altrussischen “Josephus.” Halle : Akademischer Verlag.
- Cernuda, Antonio Vicent. 1997. “El Testimonio Flaviano, Alarde De Solapada Ironía.” Estudios Bíblicos 55 (3, 4): 355–85, 479–508.
- Chrysostomi, Joannnis. 1862. In Dive Pauli Epistolam ad Hebraeos Homiliae. Oxford: Parker. http://archive.org/details/chrysostom_pauline_homilies_field_vol_7.
- Ehrman, Bart D. 2013. Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: HarperOne.
- Hurtado. 2012. “On Competence, Scholarly Authority, and Open Discussion (and ” the Data “).” Larry Hurtado’s Blog (blog). August 2, 2012. https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/on-competence-scholarly-authority-and-open-discussion/.
- Lampe, G.W.H. ed. 1961. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. 1996. A Greek–English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Montanari, Franco. 2015. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Leiden: Brill.
- Schmidt, T. C. 2025. Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Continues with Part 5 (pending)
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
Thank you. I greatly appreciate this kind of breadcrumbing. It’s a lot of work. Yet doing the work to go through all this matters. Because it exposes the deceit that defines the apologetical method: to make false claims with a voice of expert authority (with Oxford University Press prestige and its implication of peer review endorsement), and back it with a bunch of citations that, when anyone checks them, don’t pan out. Because they assume no one will check them. Like, evidently, the peer reviewers. Who naively just trusted that a scholar would not do this, so “obviously” his citations must adequately establish his point.
It’s so much work to check everything like this, so they just don’t. But if the reviewer wasn’t biased, they might have checked everything that sounded fishy, like this. So it’s likely the reviewers here were also Christian apologists, who are easily duped by their own methods, or quietly support them. A classicist, by contrast, is unlikely to have fallen for this, because they would find the entire concept of what he is arguing dubious and want to check how anyone cited is getting that result.
6 . . . bring over to oneself, win over . . . induce them to concede, Thucydides 5.41. . . . .
Out of those seven different contextual middle voice meanings of ἐπάγω that are found throughout the literature, Schmidt zeroes in on that one instance from Thucydides 5.41 (see the footnote 147 above). “Induce” sounds sly, cunning.
I can’t say for certain one way or the other myself. But it is worth noting the obvious, that we are so conditioned to seeing Jesus in a positive light, based on the Gentile Gospels and Church teaching, that we often times fail to appreciate that this whole “Christ-King” movement was seditious from a Roman point of view. So unless Josephus was somewhat sympathetic to this “Christ-King” movement, it seems unlikely that Josephus would write anything positive about him. The same for John the Baptizer and James the brother of Jesus. Yet, in each of these cases, the Josephus we have is not particularly negative, unless we look for clues that Josephus may not have approved of these seditious teachers, and saw them as deceivers like Judas of Galilee.
As this post in part demonstrates, there is nothing negative at all about the TF – it is all positive contra Schmidt’s unsupported arguments. We have no evidence that there ever was a Jesus in first century Palestine. Attempts to make it sound negative or neutral arise from the need to try to make the passage authentic at some level. Otherwise there is simply no evidence at all from the first century for Jesus. We only have stories and claims that first appear in the record well into the second century. The gospels are not historical sources but historical-theological fictions.
There is no first century evidence for most people of that time. But at least for Jesus we do have Paul’s testimony. The simplest explanation is that there was an historical Jesus, who in his own lifetime was not particularly important, but after his death and so-called exaltation, there developed a cult following of Jews and (via Paul) Gentiles also. Arguments to the contrary, while worthwhile, seem to be mostly based on the Dutch Radical School of criticism.
That’s a common retort but it is simply baseless. The names of historical persons we read in the history books are on the whole with clearly discernable evidence base. As I have pointed out several times, there is more historical evidence for Cicero’s slave Tiro than there is for Jesus. We have evidence for many minor persons, too, such as a rhetor whom Seneca hated but never otherwise appears in the historical record. For Jesus we have nothing comparable — only stories by unknown persons that do not appear in the record until the middle and late second century.
The Jerusalem Way was probably mostly wiped out by the Romans. So one would not expect much if any direct evidence for an historical Jesus from that quarter. And Paul was not really interested in Jesus “after the flesh”, and for the most part neither was John of Patmos. They both seemed mostly interested in their heavenly revelations of Jesus. Therefore that would suggest we are just not going to get much information on an historical Jesus.
One encounters many theories as to why we lack evidence on the historical Jesus. You mention Occam’s razor: maybe the simplest explanation is that we lack evidence because none ever existed in the first place.
Let’s continue this discussion over at my new post: “You may as well deny the existence of pretty much everyone in the ancient world”
These comments are more appropriate there. They are not really related to the topic of this post.
Antiquities 18:1.1 …..for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.
Jesus had a great many followers. And one might infer that Jesus was himself starting another philosophy, which the Jews were unacquainted with. And the Jews were certainly not familiar with Paul’s version of this “philosophy.”
There is no evidence that Jesus had a great many followers — we only have late theological stories, fictional tales. None of the reasons we treat other documents as historical accounts apply to the gospels.
I plan to post on the Jesus as seditionist theory later. The whole theory is founded on the same core fallacious assumptions at the heart of traditional apologetic works. https://vridar.org/series-index/historical-methods-with-reference-to-the-study-of-christian-origins-historicity-of-jesus/
Jesus may not have had a great number of followers during his life time, but he certainly did after his death according to Acts 21:20. Robert Eisenman, a Jew, and not a Christian apologist, suggests that whatever James the Brother of Jesus was, that is also what the historical Jesus was. And according to Acts 21:20-22, and Acts 22:1-4 Douay-Rheims/Latin Vulgate, the Jerusalem Way and James were all Zealots of the Law.
But your answer assumes that Acts is historically accurate rather than merely later Christian propaganda.
The Acts Seminar rheld that Acts is second century propaganda designed to unite Christianity rather than as an accurate portrayal of the early Christian movement.
But according to the Latin and Douay-Rheims (Acts 21:20-22, and Acts 22:1-4) these Zealots of the Jerusalem Way did not approve of Paul teaching against the Law, and they tried to kill him, claiming he was not fit to live (Acts 22:21-23). There is not much smoothing over here in the later chapters of Acts. Paul’s own Jewish church wanted to kill him. Which explains the schism between Paul’s Gentile church at Rome, and the Ebionite “heresy” of James the Just.
What ABuddhist is saying, I believe, is that what we read in Acts, whether Latin or Douay-Rheims or any other, is fiction. There is no justification for assuming any of it to be historical. That our culture has for millennia conditioned us to believe the Bible contains some core history at minimum makes it almost impossible to accept this perspective. But it is simply a matter of being consistent — treating the Bible like any other source material. Many scholars who claim they do this simply do not, unfortunately.
Occam’s razor: All things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best. If there is no reason to believe any of the New Testament is historical, then that presents us with a monumental problem: Why then does any of it exist?
According to Occam’s razor, the New Testament exists because some Jewish guy called Jesus got himself crucified by the Romans. Then his followers (including Paul) developed a cult following around the risen Jesuses, the Jerusalem Church around the risen Jesus Barabbas (Revelation 2:27), and Paul around his own risen Jesus Christ.
That’s not the simplest explanation. It opens up a host of other questions, in fact.
But to cut to the chase: Why do any historical fictional narratives exist? Why does the story of Adam and Eve exist? Your simplest explantion hardly applies to any of Genesis — nor by modern archaeological standards to any of the Pentateuch at all. Why do religious fictions exist? Why do myths exist about Heracles and Dionysus by the dozens? Why does Virgil’s Aeneid exist? Or the tale of Aesop?
People make up stories all the time for all sorts of reasons.
And many times the made up stories are set in contemporary and very recent times. People believe myths about the present day without opting to investigate if they are true.
We can’t just assume that there is some historical core to them in order to explain their narratives.
Please visit https://vridar.info/bibarch/arch/davies2.htm
If all we have is the story without any contemporary independent witness we have no reason to believe there is any historial basis to the story at all. Historical evidence is very different — at least outside the realm of biblical studies.
I am not so strident in believing that Acts is fictional, Neil, but I think that it is necessary for any person citing Acts in order to explain history (rather than in order to explain doctrines) to explain why Acts should be regarded as historically accurate rather than as, at best, proto-Orthodox propaganda, in the middle, historical fiction, and at worst, a morass of pseudo-historical hagiography, given what the Acts Seminar has said.
The Buddhist mystic Saraha said about certain tirthikas (non-Buddhists), “The Brahmins claim to have the truth, but they merely quotes from the Vedas!” To Buddhists and others, the Vedas should not be assumed to be true – indeed, Buddhism rejects the Vedas as authoritative.
So, I say to you in this light, “You claim to have the early Christian movements’s history, but you only cite from Acts!” To Mr. Godfrey and to me, Acts should not be assumed to be true – indeed, the Acts Seminar rejects Acts as authoritative.
You have failed to address that.
The first half of Acts, Peter’s vision of the sheet with unclean foods etc., is obviously contrived to promote Paul’s eat anything Gospel. But the second half of Acts shows the real schism between the Jerusalem Way and Paul. And is consistent with Paul’s own letters (Galatians for example) and with Mark’s Gospel, which is mostly a parable about Paul, the Sower who went out to sow his Gospel.
Neil said: “We can’t just assume that there is some historical core to them in order to explain their narratives.”
But we can assume an historical core as a working hypothesis, and then test how well it fits the known narrative facts, and how well it predicts new facts, as we would with any scientific inquiry.
In the case of Genesis, for example, we know it is mainly a book of etiological origins based on older polytheistic myths to explain the origin of the world, and the origin of Israel and the Jewish people. If then we compare this to evolutionary theory, we have a story of dominant male primate gods driving the subordinate man primates out of their fig trees and out of their garden, lest the subordinate primate man become like the dominant primate gods (the Elohim), wise and living forever. The story explains why man is wise like the Elohim, but not immortal like the Elohim. The same etiological theme applies to Babel and the confusion of languages.
No we can’t. That is circular reasoning. It is interpreting a narrative on the assumption that it is historical. We read a narrative, assume it is historical at some core, then use the narrative’s other details to confirm our hypothesis. That’s not scientific. We need external independent support for the narrative from outside the narrative if we want historicity.
Your example with Genesis is a propo. We approach that with a different theory from historicity. How about I approach the gospels and Acts with a different theory? We can “know it is mainly a book of etiological origins based on OT and Greek mythical stories to explain the origins of Roman Christianity.” There doesn’t have to a single historical datum in it — every datum can be explained by reference to what we read in other literature to which we know the authors had access.
The trial scenes of Acts are taken directly from, and are embellishments of, the trial scenes of Jesus in the gospels — as some scholars have noted. The persecutions of Paul are direct borrowings of the motif we find in the Aeneid where a founder figure is forced to keep on the move until he founds his new base in Rome for the New Troy.
But I could read Genesis on the assumption of historicity and discover that it is indeed an outline of the origin of the historical Jewish people. That is how Christian and Jewish scholars interpreted Genesis for centuries until finally it was challenged in the 1970s by a scholar who was excluded from academia for his pains — until after an exile of a decade or two his theory finally became the dominant one and the reason you “know it is mainly a book of etiological origins” today.
The same revolution is needed in New Testament studies. I am in fact using the same methods as that particular scholar who pioneered the modern consensus on Genesis — Thomas L. Thompson — applying his methods to those of the NT. But Jesus is more precious and a harder nut to crack in the minds of apologists and other scholars than Abraham was.
Do check out https://vridar.info/bibarch/arch/davies2.htm
>But the second half of Acts shows the real schism between the Jerusalem Way and Paul.
Why assume this rather than considering other options, such as that there was a schism but that Acts was inventing a narrative about the schism in order to make a given faction seem better? In such a circumstance, Acts cannot be said to portray a real schism, but only a fictionalized and propagandistic narrative about a real schism.
Furthermore, even if what you say is true, you seem to be acknowledging that at least half of Acts is contrived propaganda, which raises the question of how much we should trust the remainder.
And Eisenman’s argument is highly speculative. As Bob Price wrote, his argument is like keeping more and more plates spinning at once — mesmerizing the readers.
I admit that Eisenman’s books are long winded, and it is hard to follow the thread. But the basic thread is that there was an historical Jesus movement that divided into two ways, the original way of Jesus and his brother James, and the way of Paul and his Gentile followers. And these two ways did not like each other very much, because Paul’s Gentiles were still eating meats sold in the butcher shops that were left over from pagan temple sacrifices; and this was strictly forbidden to the followers of James and the historical Jesus because it was a type of apostasy and fornication with respect to God.
Re “We will see by the end that the citation trail not only fails to support Schmidt’s case but even arguably points to its opposite – that the original Greek is meant to be understood in a positive sense.”
Since the TF is clearly a redaction by some Christian forger, why would it be negative … unless the editor was incompetent (a possibility)? In any case I don’t think the TF can be used to delve into Josephus’s motives as he didn’t write the damned thing.
My undrstanding is that almost everyone believes it is a wholesale later interpolation, and the Schmidt is trying to rehabilitate it construing it in a way plausible for Josephus, i.e. negatively.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
You are correct. Many assume Josephus wrote something about Jesus, and many assume it must have been originally negative, because Josephus did not believe in these kingdom of God charlatans, as he himself makes clear, and as Origen confirms. For Josephus, there was only one king, Vespasian, who was to come of Judea to rule the world.
For Josephus, there was only one king, Vespasian, who was to come out of Judea to rule the world — correcting typo.
The majority of people believe that Josephus wrote something about Jesus. But many believe that what he wrote was probably negative for the reasons I mention.
Schmidt says only a minority of scholars believe the TF was wholly interpolated. Most, he informs readers, believe it to be partly interpolated, some believe it significantly interpolated and others less so. A few are beginning to argue it is almost wholly authentic.
Schmidt attempts to argue that it is wholly authentic except for a mere two or three words that are found in other textual witnesses. Schmidt adds that Josephus personally knew people who knew Jesus first-hand.
Thanks, Neil. I will have to read the book. I find it hard to believe it is wholly authentic, and there are several good reasons for believing it is not wholly authentic. But I will look at Schmidt’s argument. I guess it is possible Josephus knew people who knew Jesus, like James the Just.
Thanks also for the note on Pelletier. My understanding is the first Latin translations (that we know of) of Josephus’ TF are 6th century. And it seems unusable that in those Christian times a translator would use a pejorative sense “pellicere” if it were not in some Latin original or a translation of a Greek original.
Pelletier’s response could not have been more justified: “In reality, the pejorative nuance is habitual only for the Latin verb pellicere, used here by the anonymous Latin translator, and not for the Greek verb found in Josephus” (“Témoignage,” p. 190).
So, how come NOBODY who read Josephus’s works noticed the FT until AFTER the 4th Century CE?
Eusebius, anyone?
I seem to recall reading somewhere that Origen had specifically checked Josephus and found no reference to Jesus. Perhaps my memory is faulty.
Origen pointed out the Josephus specifically named Vespasian as the Messiah (Christ) of the Jews.
I don’t know about that, but Origen did lament that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah.
Josephus saved his own life in the war by telling Vespasian that he was the Messiah (Josephus claimed to have had prophetic dreams). He even reiterated that in BJ. He could never have suggested anyone else was the Messiah and avoids using that word for any of the several other would-be Messiahs that he mentions.
For what it’s worth, I prefer to keep to the words of Josephus and avoid the very common modern tendency to substitute them with Christian flavoured terms. Josephus actually spoke of a prophesied king to rise in the East and to rule the world — he did not refer to a “messiah”. We may think he meant a messiah but that’s our bias showing, I suspect. Similarly, none of the rebels and bandits and false-prophets that he spoke of ever were thought of as messiahs — at least Josephus gives us no reason to think that’s what any of them thought of themselves and he certainly never indicated that he thought they were pretending to be messiahs. False prophets or rebel kings, yes, but no more. See, for example: https://vridar.org/2016/07/28/questioning-claims-about-messianic-anticipations-among-judeans-of-the-early-first-century/
Schmidt observes as have others: “Yet there is evidence for suspecting that Origen did know of some version of the TF, even though he does not mention it explicitly. To begin, Origen is aware of Josephus’ later reference to James ‘the brother of Jesus who was called Christ’ in Antiquities 20.200.7 Such a statement in and of itself suggests that Josephus had written about Jesus earlier in the Antiquities, for it is unlikely that Josephus would have mentioned Jesus to identify James, but never have introduced Jesus to his audience in the first place.”
Schmidt further observes: “The idea that Origen did know of at least some version of the TF is further supported by three intriguing observations. First, Origen twice declares that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, even though, apart from the TF, Josephus never discusses Jesus in any kind of detail. This implies that Origen did know of some discussion of Jesus in Josephus’ work located before the brief mention of him as the brother of James in Antiquities 20.200.
Have a read of this recent article on James. The passage likely did not have “Called Christ”
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/923167
No, but I will have a look at it. There are good reasons for believing that the James passage in Antiquities never mentioned Christ originally, that the phrase itself likely was introduced as a marginal gloss. Many scholars will point out that Josephus made a point of avoiding using the word “Christ” because he did not want to upset Roman readers — who were well aware, supposedly, that many of the bandits and rebels that Josephus described were “would be Christs”. If that is so then it simply makes no sense that Josephus would decide to use the word “Christ” when it came to Jesus.
(Besides, I don’t believe that any of those rebels were would be messiahs or Christs anyway — but that’s another story.)
Schmidt is not being quite fair in his discussion wrt Origen. Maybe because he is aiming more at a lay audience. For a scholarly audience, at least for a diverse one, he ought to have addressed the published alternatives and contradictions to his arguments about Origen and addressed them and explained why his view was more satisfactory than the alternatives.
A reason for my posts here is to try to alert interested readers to the somewhat flawed standards and slip in scholarly standards one would expect in such a book.
Let’s continue this discussion on historicity over at my new post: “You may as well deny the existence of pretty much everyone in the ancient world”
These comments are more appropriate there. They are not really related to the topic of this post.
Ah, no.
The case is made that Josephus is not speaking well of Jesus,
he may be speaking of Jesus in a neutral tone,
or it may be perjorative.
Those who claim, in the most absolute manner, that the passage is
a forgery, base much of their claim on their perception of Josephus
must always be speaking well of Jesus.
Josephus and Jesus calls that claim into doubt and his sources and argument are sufficient to do so.
Please tell me what Graduate studies you have done in Ancient Christianity/Judaism/Roman History and in Koine Greek and in Aramaic.
Please, also tell me, do you have a bias against the passage being authentic ?
You write, “Ah no” and then say Josephus may be speaking in a neutral tone or may be a pejorative tone. Do you understand that Ah, yes, that is exactly Schmidt’s argument — Schmidt is arguing that Josephus may be speaking in a neutral or pejorative tone. So I do not understand you saying “Ah no”.
You write:
What do you mean by “in the absolute manner”? Do you mean someone is so dogmatic they simply dismiss alternative arguments? Who writes like this?
You then say that those who argue the case for forgery do so because they believe Josephus “must always be speaking well of Jesus”. Can you tell me who makes this argument? I have never heard it before. Or perhaps you meant to say that those who argue for forgery do so on the assumption that Josephus must always be speaking bad about Christianity?
Can you tell me who argues on the basis of unfounded assumptions. I do know of many who argue for forgery AFTER arguing a case based on the evidence of Josephus’s writings about various groups and persons that they conclude it is very unlikely for Josephus to have written positively about Jesus. That’s not arguing on the basis of an assumption but on the basis of an argument.
Are you aware of the arguments that Schmidt failed to address? Are you aware that if one follows what he claims to be supports for his assertions one is likely to find those sources do not support his claims at all. Can you respond to evidence I cited for one such example in this post?
Or do you prefer to attack the person because you have no come-back to the evidence I cited in this post?
When you can tell me the style and form of Greek Josephus wrote in — I mean the various styles he used — and who he based his writings on, then I will tell you about my course major and post grad studies in the relevant fields at the University of Queensland and Macquarie University.
I only have a bias against shoddy methods and persons who prefer to attack persons rather than attempt to engage with the evidence. — If you can engage with the evidence and argument you will soon answer your own question about my bias, and maybe even learn something about yours.
Ah — I think I see where your non sequitur comes from. You did not have to read my post or the others related to this to “know” what I am arguing — and because you have not read my posts you failed to see that I am arguing against Schmidt’s claim that Josephus wrote in a neutral or pejorative tone”.