Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ
Schmidt (Thomas C.)
This Page provides (where held) the Abstract of the above Book and those of all the Papers contained in it.
Text Colour-ConventionsDisclaimerPapers in this BookBooks / Papers Citing this BookNotes Citing this Book


OUP Abstract


OUP Contents
    Advanced Praise for Josephus and Jesus
    Introduction
  1. Part 1 The Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum
    1. The Greek Reception
    2. The Western and Eastern Reception
    3. An Authorial Commentary on the Testimonium Flavianum
    4. Authenticity and Possible Translations of the Testimonium Flavianum
  2. The Sources of Josephus and the Meaning of the Testimonium Flavianum
    1. Josephus’ Sources: Clues in His Background
    2. Identifying the ‘First Men among Us’: Possible Candidates
    3. Summary and Conclusion: The Jesus of History
  3. Appendices
    1. Eusebius, His Citational Practices, and the Testimonium Flavianum
    2. James the Brother of Jesus: Antiquities 20.200
    3. The Trial of Jesus and Passover
    4. Ananus II and the Trial of Jesus
    5. The Great Sanhedrin and Its Records of the Trial of Jesus
    6. Josephus’ Silence Regarding Jesus in the War
  4. End Matter
    • Bibliography
    • Introduction to the Manuscript Images
    • Ancient Sources Index
    • Biblical Sources Index
    • Josephan Sources Index
    • Subject Index

Josephus, Antiquities 18.63–43 c.93-4 CE, Traditional Translation

Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοϕὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή· ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο· ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες· ἐϕάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προϕητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων. εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ ϕῦλον. And in this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man, for he was a doer of miraculous deeds, a teacher of men who receive truth with pleasure. And he led many from among the Jews and many from among the Greeks. He was the Christ. And, when Pilate had condemned him to the cross at the accusation of the first men among us, those who at first loved him did not cease to do so, for he appeared to them alive again on the third day given that the divine prophets had spoken such things and thousands of other wonderful things about him. And up till now the tribe of the Christians, who were named from him, has not disappeared.

Schmidt’s Preferred Translation

Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς τις σοϕὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή· ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο· ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος [mestabrā itaw] ἦν. καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες· ἐϕάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προϕητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων. εἰς τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ ϕῦλον. And in this time there was a certain Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man, for he was a doer of incredible deeds, a teacher of men who receive truisms with pleasure. And he brought over many from among the Jews and many from among the Greeks. He was [thought to be] the Christ. And, when Pilate had condemned him to the cross at the accusation of the first men among us, those who at first were devoted to him did not cease to be so, for on the third day it seemed to them that he was alive again given that the divine prophets had spoken such things and thousands of other wonderful things about him. And up till now the tribe of the Christians, who were named from him, has not disappeared.

Book Outline

I argue for the above points via the following contributions.
  1. Part 1: The Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum
    1. First, Chapter 1, shows that Greek-speaking Christians in the ancient and medieval worlds tended to interpret the TF not as a pro-Christian confession, but rather as a neutral, ambiguous, or even slightly negative account of Jesus, one that did not afford easy apologetic gain. Such observations suggest that if any Christian interpolations occurred, they were likely quite minimal given that the majority of readers viewed the TF as not all that favorable to Jesus. This explains why certain writers like Origen chose not to mention the TF — for he, as with many others, likely found it to be unremarkable or even risky to use. These observations also clarify why so many of those Christians who did take notice of the TF emphasized its more mundane details rather than its alleged spectacular content, since for them it had few if any sensational claims. Yet the very ambiguity which I argue is present within the TF also allowed a minority of writers to interpret (or misinterpret) it almost as a confession of faith. In this chapter the manuscripts of important authors are consulted directly.
    2. Chapter 2 canvasses various western and eastern versions of the TF — in Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Armenian — while consulting several manuscripts and correcting past transcriptions. Most significantly, a certain Syriac text shows that the most suspicious statement in the extant version of the TF, ‘he was the Christ’, instead likely read ‘he was thought to be the Christ’. This reading is found in an important Syriac translation of the TF which new evidence suggests should be traced back to Jacob of Edessa (c.708 CE), a noted translator of Greek works and one of the most educated men of his day. Jacob’s translation is crucially matched by another famous translator, St. Jerome (c.420 CE), who rendered the phrase almost synonymously into Latin as ‘he was believed to be the Christ’. This correspondence indicates that both translators had before themselves a much more ancient Greek text, a text which I argue contained the original wording of Josephus. Such a reading also explains, once again, why Origen and others asserted that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ. And, furthermore, it agrees with Josephan style, thereby giving the reading a ring of verisimilitude. Be that as it may, many Christian readers still do not seem to have read the altered phrase ‘he was the Christ’ (ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν) as a confession of faith. Instead, they simply assumed that Josephus was identifying Jesus with the alternative name of ‘Christ’, much like how many ancient non-Christian writers were quite willing to call Jesus the name of ‘Christ’, without thinking that such signaled faith in him.
    3. Chapter 3 provides a close analysis of the TF, demonstrating that many non-Christian sources (both Jewish and pagan) frequently made comments about Jesus that were strikingly similar to those found in the TF, as when they attribute miracles to Jesus or when they claim that Jewish leaders were responsible for his death. Hence, such content in the TF should not be viewed suspiciously by scholars, nor even interpreted as positive valuations. The analysis also highlights numerous linguistic parallels shared between the TF and Josephus, some of which are brought forth for the first time, and many of which cast the TF in quite an ambiguous light — far different from the positive reading of the TF advanced by many scholars.
    4. Chapter 4 analyzes the TF’s various lexemes and phrases stylostatistically in order to determine whether the TF’s frequency rate of common words and rare words matches the frequency rate of comparable words elsewhere in Josephus’ corpus. The results plainly indicate that both common and rare words are present in the TF at the same frequency one would expect if Josephus were the author. The chapter further discusses the placement of the TF within the Antiquities, its textual preservation, and possible ways to translate it.
  2. Part 2: The Sources of Josephus and the Meaning of the Testimonium Flavianum
    1. Chapter 5 examines Josephus’ background with a view to discovering his potential sources of information about Jesus. Josephus, as it happens, was born of an eminent priestly family and circled among elite echelons of Jerusalem society during the 50s CE. In this time, he also became closely familiar with the Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees. Later, in the 60s CE, Josephus was stationed in Galilee for several years at which time he visited many places where Jesus once ministered, such as Cana and Capernaum. All these locales — Jerusalem and towns in Galilee — would have been peopled with those who remembered Jesus directly, and from them Josephus could have become well apprised of the man from Nazareth. Josephus further tells us how, beginning in 51-2 CE, he had frequent interactions with the ‘first’ men (πρῶτοι) of Jerusalem. As mentioned above, this group matches the ‘first men among us’ (πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν) whom Josephus describes in the TF as bringing judicial proceedings against Jesus. The evidence thus suggests that Josephus would have known some of these ‘first men among us’ who accused Jesus. Such is confirmed by examining the dozens of other times Josephus deploys the phrase ‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν). These instances show that Josephus used the phrase ‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν) as a way of indicating direct knowledge of a subject. The data therefore stipulates that by saying in the TF that it was ‘the first men among us’ who accused Jesus, Josephus is claiming to have himself known some of those who accused Jesus.
    2. Chapter 6 investigates Josephus’ social network and identifies individuals through whom Josephus may have learned first-hand details of Jesus. These include members of six leading Jewish families: The royal family of the Herodians, the rabbinic family of Hillel, and the high priestly families of Ananus I, Boethus, Camith, and Phiabi. Josephus was directly familiar with all six families and all six had members well placed to have encountered Jesus face to face. Some of these families even aided in bringing accusations against him. What is more, Josephus’ contacts can be traced out so completely that it is even possible to identify the names of several who would have likely attended the trial of Jesus and others who attended trials of Jesus’ followers. I show that of no candidate is this so probable as with the High Priest Ananus II, a sometime ally and then later enemy of Josephus.
    3. In the Conclusion, I summarize my findings, and argue that a neutral or ambiguous account of Jesus is precisely what one would expect from Josephus given his social network and given the similar ways he treated known associates of Jesus in John the Baptist and James, the brother of Jesus. To illustrate the basic ambiguity of the TF, I include an English translation highlighting such aspects of the TF. I also discuss what the TF can tell us about the Jesus of history and the early Christian movement, particularly regarding how the claims of Jesus’ miracles and his resurrection developed.
  3. Lastly, I also provide several Appendices which include the following:
    1. A response to accusations that Eusebius of Caesarea forged the TF.
    2. A discussion on Origen of Alexandria and his knowledge of Josephus’ passage on James, the brother of Jesus, in Antiquities 20.200
    3. An essay regarding whether, according to the Gospels, Jesus was arrested on Passover.
    4. An investigation on whether the Jewish Toledot Yeshu can provide independent evidence that Ananus II participated in the trial of Jesus.
    5. A discussion of the Great Sanhedrin and its records of the trial of Jesus.
    6. An excursus on Josephus’ silence regarding Jesus in the War.
    7. Select photographs of important manuscripts.
Book Comment


"Wikipedia - Josephus on Jesus"

Source: Wikipedia; Extract taken 13 June 2026


Introduction
  • Flavius Josephus was a first-century Jewish historian, general of Galilee during the First Jewish–Roman War, and relative of the high priestly families of the Second Temple who provided external information on some people and events found in the New Testament. Josephus was a general in Galilee, which is where Jesus ministered and people who knew him still lived; he dwelled near Jesus's hometown of Nazareth for a time, and kept contact with groups such as the Sanhedrin and Ananus II who were involved in the trials of Jesus and his brother James. His knowledge of Galilee was notable since he wrote much about that region and its inhabitants in his autobiography The Life of Flavius Josephus which was an appendix to Antiquities of the Jews, where the references to Jesus are located. The extant manuscripts of Josephus' book Antiquities of the Jews, written c.AD 93–94, contain two references to Jesus of Nazareth and one reference to John the Baptist.
  • The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pontius Pilate. It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum. The passage exists in all extant manuscripts of Antiquities. Since the late 20th century, the general consensus has held that the Testimonium is partially authentic in that an authentic nucleus referencing the life of Jesus was original to Josephus. However, the exact nature and extent of the original statement remains unclear. Many modern scholars believe that an Arabic version that was discovered by Shlomo Pines reflects the state of Josephus' original text.
  • Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9, which mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".
  • Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist also to be authentic and not a Christian interpolation. A number of differences exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the death of John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts. Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, since a Christian interpolator would likely have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them. Scholars have provided explanations for their inclusion in Josephus' later works.
  • Testimonium Flavianum
      About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was 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 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.
      → Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3

Sections
  • Introduction
  • The Testimonium Flavianum
    • Early references on Josephus on Jesus
    • Three perspectives on authenticity
    • Arguments for complete authenticity
      → Pre-modern criticism
      → Modern defense
      → Paraphrase model1
      → Arguments for presence of Christian interpolations
    • Internal arguments
      → Christian phraseology
      → Eusebian phraseology
    • External arguments
      → Origen's references to Josephus
    • Arguments from silence
      → Table of Josephus excludes the Testimonium
      → Arabic Testimonium lacks Christian terminology
      → No parallel in other works
      → Timing of the interpolations
    • Arguments for partial authenticity
      → Arguments from style and content
      → Lack of Jewish deicide
      → Josephan vocabulary and style
      → Josephan beliefs about Jesus
    • Arguments from external attestation
      → Origen's complaint about Josephus referencing Jesus
      → Arabic Testimonium as the more authentic version
    • Other arguments
      → Comparison to Philo's works
      → Authenticity of the James passage
    • Reconstruction of an authentic kernel
      → Exclusion of three divisive elements
    • Arguments for complete forgery
      → Textual similarities to Eusebian works
      → Three Eusebian phrases
      → Fourth-century Christian credal statements
      → Intrusion that breaks the narrative
  • "James, the brother of Jesus" passage
    • Early references to the passage
    • Origen of Alexandria
    • Eusebius of Caesarea
    • Arguments for authenticity
    • Arguments against authenticity
    • Differences with Christian sources
  • John the Baptist passage
    • Arguments for authenticity
    • Arguments against authenticity
    • Differences with Christian sources
  • The three passages in relation to The Jewish Wars
    • The three passages in relation to The Jewish Wars

Paper Comment



In-Page Footnotes ("Wikipedia - Josephus on Jesus")

Footnote 1:
  • I think that if Josephus got his information about Jesus from Luke's Emmaus narrative (Luke 24:18–24) - while this would provide early evidence of the existence of Luke's Gospel (in AD 90, which is hardly doubted) and - maybe - of cordial relations between Romanised / Hellenised Jews and Roman Christians - it would then not really be an independent non-Christian witness to the existence of Jesus, only to what Christians in Rome in the early 90s AD thought about him.
  • The same would be the case if Josephus was a Christian of some sort, which is doubtful.
  • But the idea that Jesus never existed - rather than that he didn't do all that's attributed to him, or didn't rise from the dead - is completely fanciful (this requires some justification!).
  • Anyway, much better if Josephus got his information from his priestly contacts in Jerusalem, and from his time as governor of Galilee, back in AD 50 - 70, as "Schmidt (Thomas C.) - Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ" claims.

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2026
  2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)


© Theo Todman, June 2007 - July 2026. Please address any comments on this page to theo@theotodman.com. File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page