Interview – Dr Thomas C. Schmidt on Josephus’ Testimonium
My guest today is Dr Thomas C. Schmidt of Fairfield University. Tom has just published an interesting new book through Oxford University Press: Josephus and Jesus – New Evidence for the One Called Christ. In it he makes a detailed case for the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum; the much disputed passage about Jesus in Book 18 of Flavius Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews. Not only does he argue that Josephus wrote about Jesus as this point in his book, but he also argues that the passage we have is substantially what Josephus wrote. This is a distinctive position among scholars, who usually argue that it has at least be significantly changed and added to, with a minority arguing for it being a wholesale interpolation. So I hope you enjoy my conversation with Tom Schmidt about his provocative new book.
You can download Tom’s book here: https://josephusandjesus.com/purchase-page/
12 thoughts on “Interview – Dr Thomas C. Schmidt on Josephus’ Testimonium”
Great conversation on a fascinating book. It will be interesting to see how the mythicists respond to the arguments. Thanks for this.
The mythicist champion has yet to make his triumphal entry, but the YouTube/Reddit mythicists are already attacking TC Schmidt personally. “Another Christian apologist lying for Jesus” “Liar” “Quack” “All of “Josephus”was probably a forgery written by the evil Eusebius and his evil lying guild of Christians to try and prove Jesus existed”
I wish I was kidding, but one only has to only take a look at Mythvision’s video with Dr. Schmidt to see how nasty some of those people are being towards Dr. Schmidt.
I was never dogmatic on the TF either way, but Schmidt’s research on Josephus’ inner network is fascinating. He could be completely mistaken on the TF and the book still be worth the read.
Yes, the strident dogmatism of the Mythicist crowd is telling. I think the issue of the TF is a moot point and that there are solid arguments on all sides. Personally, I find the partial authenticity position most convincing, but can see there are decent arguments for wholesale interpolation. And for the substantial authenticity position argued by Tom Schmidt. One thing I like about Tom and the reason I had him on my channel is that he is generously non-dogmatic. He gives other arguments their due and also does not present any of the several possiblities he outlines as the only reading of the passage. This is how genuine scholars work. The rigidity of the online Mythers is a good indication they are arguing from faith and emotion, not open, evidence-based arguments and reason.
heads up tim, some fan of Neill Godfrey found your pinned tweet about this
accusing you of having “arrogance and unprofessional insulting approach”(i.e your being le mean or something 😂) also tried to sneak in saying that you are somehow too “arrogant” to admit you were proven wrong many times
(looked at it again and he plugged Godfrey’s Vridar blog )
i cant with these people man 😂
(great interview btw)
That’s that weird Tom Bullock guy. He’s an obsessive Myther, and one who believes the kooky “the Romans invented Jesus” thesis that even other Mythicists find ridiculous. I usually have him muted because he’s a crazed troll. It’s best to ignore him.
One of the things I like so much about history is how much of a soft science it is. I got to listen for one and a half hours as a very serious academic man talks about how the vibes of this once source match up with the vibes of the other sources written by Josephus and using obscure philology to prove it.
All this done to prove this one source is maybe/probably accurate, which seems like it should be a minor point but it might actually be the keystone in how we understand an important part of history.
History is the best thing ever.
That same quality leads some others, especially dogmatic unbelievers from the sciences, to reject history as too wishy-washy to take seriously. Like you, I find the inherent nuance and relative uncertainty of historical thinking to be its strength and, for me, its attraction.
Well said. It was a good interview and completely refreshing to see a scholar who is doing his best to publish what he found interesting during his research. The extremes on both sides will be disappointed as both extremes either want total confession or complete disregard.
I was curious if you’ve had a chance to see Dr. Nina Livesey’s book published by Oxford arguing that all of Paul’s letters are Marcionite forgeries. She even argues that Paul is an invented figure. It seems to be a resurrection of the old Dutch radicals type argument
with a modern update in Roman literary studies. I watched a few of her interviews and was kind of left scratching my head wondering what her argument actually was, but perhaps I’m just missing the point. I wasn’t even aware that a book had been published like this until some mythicist on YouTube chastised me saying that it has been “proven” that Paul was a “bullshit fictional character” and his letters were “bullshit”. It does seem as if some of the more radical old school scholarship is trying to make a return. It’s proof that no one in scholarship is repressing fringe ideas. It’s just that most academics don’t find those ideas to be plausible.
I can’t say I’ve bothered with Livesey’s book or watched anything on her, largely out of a lack of time and lack of interest. If her thesis gets traction, perhaps I’ll pay it some attention. Until then, it seems a fringe idea. And yes, when Mythers say something has been “proven” it usually means “some scholar somewhere at some point has argued it and I want it to be true so I’ve decided it is”. The problem here is that, in a well-trodden field like NT Studies, you can find someone who has argued pretty much anything you care to mention. That doesn’t make it true. It doesn’t even make it something worth consideration.
If Marcion wrote the Letters of Paul, you would expect
greater uniformity in the Letters, would you not ?
Yes.
Thank you posting the interview.
I think we should accept that Christians and Jews did not live wholly separate lives
and that Josephus may have been quite aware of the leaders of the follows of Christ.
The study of History teaches that very few bright lines of exclusion exist in any Society.