NT scholar Graham Stanton wrote about the Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus, "Once the obvious interpolations are removed, this paragraph gives an ambivalent or even mildly hostile assessment of Jesus" (Gospel Truth, 1995, p. 127). In combination of Josephus's extremely brief secondary reference (Ant 20.200), it at least puts beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus did not escape the notice of our primary source for this period/region. As to the fame of John the Baptist, according to Acts 19:1-5 he was better known in far-flung Ephesus than was Jesus in the mid-first-century.
I have heard one commentator say that in the context of the 1st C Roman world claiming Jesus was famous throughout Galilee while he was alive is the equivalent of saying someone is famous throughout the northeast corner of Kentucky ( I'm not sure what the british geographical equivalent would be for someone who makes a splash locally in a relative backwater, not very heavily-populated region that the rest of the country rarely even thinks about). Thoughts? Is that characterization fair or unfair?
Then the guy leaves his backwater place, goes to a large city where there's some curiosity and a bit of a stir over who is this fellow in town from a rural area where he apparently has something of a following, causes a ruckus, and gets killed by the authorities for his troubles.
Great read John! Thanks for answering my question.
NT scholar Graham Stanton wrote about the Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus, "Once the obvious interpolations are removed, this paragraph gives an ambivalent or even mildly hostile assessment of Jesus" (Gospel Truth, 1995, p. 127). In combination of Josephus's extremely brief secondary reference (Ant 20.200), it at least puts beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus did not escape the notice of our primary source for this period/region. As to the fame of John the Baptist, according to Acts 19:1-5 he was better known in far-flung Ephesus than was Jesus in the mid-first-century.
Great comment Darek!
This is so good. You’re a master at distilling and putting together well balanced academic insights. Keep up the good work 🫡
I have heard one commentator say that in the context of the 1st C Roman world claiming Jesus was famous throughout Galilee while he was alive is the equivalent of saying someone is famous throughout the northeast corner of Kentucky ( I'm not sure what the british geographical equivalent would be for someone who makes a splash locally in a relative backwater, not very heavily-populated region that the rest of the country rarely even thinks about). Thoughts? Is that characterization fair or unfair?
Then the guy leaves his backwater place, goes to a large city where there's some curiosity and a bit of a stir over who is this fellow in town from a rural area where he apparently has something of a following, causes a ruckus, and gets killed by the authorities for his troubles.