Josephus’s Paraphrase Style and the Testimonium Flavianum

The controversial account of Jesus in Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities 18.63–64, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, has puzzling similarities to Luke 24.18–24, a portion of the Emmaus narrative. This article proposes an explanation based on established research into Josephus’s methods of composition. Through a phrase-by-phrase study, this article finds that the Testimonium can be derived from the Emmaus narrative using transformations Josephus is demonstrated to have employed in paraphrasing known sources for the Antiquities. Precedents are identified in word adoption/substitution and content modification. Consequently, I submit that the Testimonium is Josephus’s paraphrase of a Christian source. This result also resolves the difficulties that have raised doubts about the Testimonium’s authenticity, with implications for the understanding of the historical Jesus.

Can Study of the Historical Jesus Escape its Typographical Captivity?

As part of the deepening diversification of biblical studies, several lines of research are now undermining the print-cultural assumptions on which New Testament studies developed. The first section offers summaries of important inquiries into ancient communications media: the dominant oral communication and the uses of writing; revisionist text-criticism of manuscripts of texts later included in the Hebrew Bible; the oral-written cultivation of their cultural repertoire by Judean scribes; the parallel oral cultivation of Israelite popular tradition; revisionist criticism of Gospel texts; and the learning and oral performance of Gospel texts. These separate but related lines of research are undermining the standard print-cultural assumptions, concepts, and approaches of Jesus studies. The second section explores the implications of these researches that open toward an alternative view of what the sources are, a more comprehensive approach to the historical Jesus appropriate to ancient communications media, and a reconceptualization of Jesus studies.

Communal Incarnation: The Corporate, Collective Jesus of Paul’s Letters

In his authentic letters, Paul describes a historical, human Jesus, but is strangely silent about the events of Jesus’ life. At the same time, Paul describes the figure of Christ using participatory language, and provides no reason to think that this collective embodiment of Christ does not also apply to Jesus’ historical body. I propose that Paul’s historical Jesus was therefore a corporate figure, embodied by the Jewish, pre-Christian community to which Jesus the Nazarene belonged. I present the literary background for this proposal, and explain how the evidence in Paul for a historical Jesus should be interpreted in a corporate or collective sense. I also provide a typological derivation of the name ‘Jesus’ in Paul.

The Speech-Acts of a Royal Pretender: Jesus’ Performative Utterances in Mark’s Gospel

Performative speech-acts were used by successive Seleucid pretenders and kings to create the appearance of power and authority out of weakness. As we have seen on the basis of Mark’s Gospel, Jesus’ used performative utterances in a similar way, and, for that reason, he was recognized as a royal pretender by both sympathizers and critics alike. From the perspective of Mark’s Gospel, Jesus set about to create the kingdom of God by royal pronouncement. It was a matter of royal power as discourse.

Reflections on John the Baptist in History and Theology by Joel Marcus

In this article, I engage with Joel Marcus’s recent book on John the Baptist, focusing on the relationship between John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. While I appreciate many parts of his detailed study, I question the claim that John was a former member of the Essenes. Although there are intriguing similarities, the question is how far reaching conclusions we may draw concerning such a relationship. I problematize some aspects of the comparison between the sources. Like many scholars, Marcus refers in particular to 1QS and the site of Khirbet Qumran for reconstructing the Essenes and hence John’s background. In response, I highlight the uncertainty about the Sitz im leben of 1QS in relation to Khirbet Qumran and ask why this particular manuscript should be privileged over others. Not least when it comes to purity halakhah there are many other documents than 1QS from Qumran that are highly relevant to the issue. Finally, I critically evaluate Marcus’s view that John the Baptist had a favorable attitude towards Gentiles, which according Marcus differed from the views of the Essenes.

Naturalizing Christians: A Response to Joel Marcus, John the Baptist in History and Theology

This essay examines the conceptual framework that informs Marcus’s distinction between history and theology, and considers what stands to be gained by this manner of classification. The essay observes that Marcus’s classification hinges upon a theory of religion that views gospels as artifacts expressive of sincere belief and, further, suggests this approach serves to mystify the origins of the Christian theological metanarrative by replicating the explanation asserted within the gospels themselves. By reversing the conceptual framework and the explanatory priority, one could deploy a theory of religion that sees gospels as artifacts of persuasion and thereby argue that they aim to naturalize the initially unnatural truth claim that Jesus was the christ by connecting him to a known social type: John. From this approach, it would not be belief in Jesus as the christ that explains the modified constructions of John the Baptist; rather, modifications of John the Baptist would be precisely what construct belief in Jesus as the christ.

John the Baptist in Memory, Judaism and Historical Materialism

Joel Marcus’s JBHT argues that John would have seen himself not as forerunner to Jesus but rather that he, and not Jesus, was the proclaimer and inaugurator of God’s apocalyptic kingdom. The historical Baptist, originally part of the Qumran community, broke away from this group due to his belief that he himself was the prophet Elijah and that his own ministry was central to God’s purposes. This article raises three methodological and historiographical questions concerning where Marcus might reconsider and/or expand the results of his study. First, can we really get at John’s self-understanding beyond the subjective memory impressions left in our extant sources? Second, does Marcus’s connection of John to the Qumran community rely on (mis)characterizations of the community as a marginal sect? Third, what social and economic forces prompted John’s ‘individual decision’ to relocate to the wilderness?

Response to the Respondents: Competition, Qumran and Supersessionism

The critics of JBHT in this issue have questioned three main aspects of the book: its assertion that early Christians competed with people who believed that John the Baptist was the principal figure in the history of salvation, its assertion that early in his career the Baptist was a member of the Qumran community, and the way in which the book situates the Baptist in relation to Second Temple Judaism in general. The article addresses these concerns, rebutting certain objections but acknowledging areas in which the book could have been more nuanced or further developed.

A Review of Joel Marcus, John the Baptist in History and Theology

This essay offers a brief review of Joel Marcus, John the Baptist in History and Theology.