Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ

by T. C. Schmidt

This book brings to light an extraordinary connection between Jesus of Nazareth and the Jewish historian Josephus. Writing in 93/94 CE, Josephus composed an account of Jesus known as the Testimonium Flavianum. Despite this being the oldest description of Jesus by a non-Christian, scholars have long doubted its authenticity due to the alleged pro-Christian claims it contains. This book, however, authenticates Josephus' authorship of the Testimonium Flavianum and reveals a startling Josephus was directly familiar with those who put Jesus on trial. Consequently, Josephus would have had access to highly reliable information about the man from Nazareth. The book concludes by describing what Josephus tells us about the Jesus of history, his miracles, and his resurrection.

An open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence.

Genres: History, Religion, Christian, Theology, Ancient History, Christianity, Nonfiction

336 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2025

Reviews

[Jim · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think his argument about the TF being genuine is pretty good. The speculation about who and what Josephus knew is where he loses me a bit. I wouldn't place much weight on the gospels or Acts or even the Mishnah for historical data, especially for the first century.

It did give me some things to think about which isn't all bad. I give this a recommend for the main arguments.

[JonM · Rating 5 out of 5]

Schmidt's research is outstanding because it delivers—in methodically healthy, irenic fashion, too—a fundamental challenge to inherited dogmas orbiting the Testimonium’s authenticity. By offering a fresh interpretation of the passage, based on a much closer historical and linguistic analysis than scholars preceding him, Schmidt demonstrates that Josephus portrays Jesus in a noticeably skeptical light.
This new perspective reveals Josephus’s doubts rather than unwavering support for Jesus, which typically contributes to doubt of the Testimonium's authenticity.
In doing so, Schmidt’s research undermines and overturns the misleading conjecture of scholars who insist upon the traditional binary dogmas of forgery vs. interpolation.

[Philip Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic. This warrants a much slower read. But I got the gist, and I liked that gist: The Testimonium Flavianum is legit, Josephus really wrote it, assumings it's some super pro Christian take is to miss the point and not by and large how early Christians took it, and Josephus had access by very few degrees of seperation to key people involved in the trial of Jesus Christ and his apostles.

[Paul Clark · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is potentially a very important book as it may lead to a paradigm shift in the way scholars approach the Testimonium Flavianum, a reference to Jesus in a book written by Flavius Josephus around the year 90 of the Common Era.

Josephus played a leading part in the massive and ultimately disastrous Jewish rebellion against Roman rule in 66-70 CE. When captured in 67 CE, he defected to the Romans and thrived thanks to the protection of the future Emperor Vespasian.

Years later, Josephus wrote a history of the Jewish War and a wider history, or Antiquities, of the Jews. In the Antiquities, there are two short passages that refer to Jesus. The second refers to the execution of “James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ” and need not detain us here.

THE TESTIMONIUM

The first passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is commonly translated as follows:

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 miraculous deeds, a teacher of men who receive truths 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 on the third day he appeared to them 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.

PROBLEMS WITH THE TESTIMONIUM

Many parts of the Testimonium are considered problematic. Why would a Jewish writer, who you would expect to be unsympathetic toward Christian teachings, say these things about Jesus?

• If one ought to call him a man
• A doer of miraculous deeds
• A teacher of truth
• He was the Christ (Messiah)
• He appeared to them alive again
• The prophets had spoken such things and thousands of other wonderful things about him

This has led the majority of scholars to believe that the Testimonium isn’t wholly authentic, that a later Christian scribe has interpolated pro-Christian phrases into it.

A BETTER TRANSLATION

Schmidt disagrees. He says the Testimonium is wholly authentic but has been misunderstood, in large part because the original Greek has been translated badly. Far from being pro-Christian, the Testimonium is in fact neutral or possibly hostile toward Jesus:

• If one ought to call him a man – Schmidt suggests that Josephus uses this phrase because he knows people have very different opinions of Jesus. Some see him as the Son of God but others regard him as a demon.
• Miraculous deeds – Schmidt prefers to translate this as “paradoxical” or even “magical” deeds. Magic was severely taboo among Jews, so this would be a hostile comment.
• A teacher of men who receive truths with pleasure – this could be translated as “truisms”, indicating that Jesus’ message was inane and his followers naïve. Equally “led many” can be read as “led many astray”.
• He was the Christ (Messiah) – Schmidt suggests this should be “was believed to be the Christ”, i.e. by his followers.
• He appeared to them alive again – again, he seemed to his followers to be alive again.
• The prophets had spoken such things and thousands of other wonderful things about him – this refers to what his followers believe, not what Josephus believes.

EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS

Schmidt marshals his evidence systematically. He notes that early Christian writers didn’t make a big deal of the Testimonium. This is odd, since one would expect them to do so if it were pro-Christian. This is one reason why many scholars believe the Testimonium contains later interpolations.

However, early commentaries and Latin and Syriac translations contain features closer to Schmidt’s interpretation of the text as something neutral or hostile toward Jesus.

AUTHENTICITY

Schmidt goes into a detailed and forensic examination of the language of the Testimonium. He argues that it is entirely consistent with the language Josephus uses in the rest of Antiquities and that it is highly unlikely that a later Christian scribe could have imitated his style so accurately.

There are a number of phrases that a Christian writer wouldn’t use if he were forging parts of the Testimonium, among them “wise man” (associated with Greek philosophers, not the Son of God), questioning Jesus’ humanity (Christians insisted Jesus was fully human) and the presence of Greek followers (the gospels insist that all Jesus’ followers during his lifetime were Jews). Schmidt suggests the latter point is probably a mistake by Josephus because by the late first century, the vast majority of Christians were gentiles.

He notes the context in which the Testimonium is located – a section about the various disturbances which occurred during Pontius Pilate’s reign in Jerusalem. Would a Christian interpolator really have inserted a passage about Jesus in a list of disturbances?

JOSEPHUS’ SOURCES

The final part of Schmidt’s argument concerns Josephus’ sources, which Schmidt says were very good indeed. Josephus was born a few years after the crucifixion and grew up in Jerusalem, the child of an aristocratic priestly family. It is almost certain that he knew personally some of the people involved in arresting Jesus and handing him over to the Romans, and he definitely knew Ananus II, the High Priest who had James the brother of Jesus executed.

He was also commander of the rebel Jewish army in Galilee and visited many of the places where Jesus had ministered a few decades earlier. Schmidt speculates that it is possible that he will have met people who knew Jesus or heard him preach.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

I am not competent to judge whether Schmidt is right about the language used in the Testimonium or how it should best be translated. All I can say is that his book is published by a reputable academic publisher and his arguments seem logical and coherent to me.

I don’t agree with everything he says. Most scholars are less convinced by the historicity of Luke and Acts than Schmidt. He seems to find the gospel accounts of John the Baptist’s death credible, but for me the tale of Salome’s dance leading to the Baptist’s head on a platter is precisely the kind of salacious detail I would expect Josephus to include in his account of the Baptist’s execution. The fact that he doesn’t suggests to me that this story is not to be trusted.

However, none of this detracts from the power of Schmidt’s arguments. I wait with interest to see how the wider academic community responds to this book. I suspect we may see a paradigm shift in which the Testimonium comes to be regarded as wholly authentic but in no sense pro-Christian.

If Schmidt is correct, then the Testimonium can be viewed as strong evidence for the existence of Jesus as a real historical figure who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. This, by itself, would mean that arguments promoted by the likes of Richard Carrier and (to his shame) Richard Dawkins that Jesus was a purely mythical figure are almost certainly false.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 1 out of 5]

If Schmidt's purpose was to convince people like me of his thesis, it actually backfired.

Could Josephus have written the Testimonium Flavianum himself, including the very Christian-looking ending?

Absolutely, technically and logically. That said, a unicorn could produce baby unicorns by farting fairy dust, too, but I'm not holding my breath over that likelihood either.

So, Josephus himself wrote the Testimonium Flavianum in the Antiquities? That’s the contention of T.C. Schmidt in his new book.

I’m not buying it, and wasn’t buying it by 40 pages into the book, due to tendentious translation, dubious text-critical claims and a variety of special pleadings.

First, as a reminder, from book 18 of the Antiquities, here is that Testimonium Flavianum, per the translation by Schmidt. That part, the end of that sentence, itself needed emphasis:

“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. [My note: Why “truisms”? EVERY other translation I’ve seen, it’s “truths.” Is this designed to buttress Schmidt’s claims of the “slightly negative” aspect?] And he brought over many from among the Jews and many from among the Greeks. He was [thought to be {My note: Schmidt will claim these are “missing words.”}] 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.”

Schmidt claims that’s backed up by stylistic analysis, and he also claims that the testimony is not nearly as favorable as claimed. I'll challenge that as part of this review.

He also cites Josephus’ own claim to have known people in the trials of the apostles and even that of Jesus, by 51-52 CE. Really?

First of all, Caiaphas died in 46. So the high priest who reportedly condemned Jesus would not have been directly known to him.

Secondly, even at 51/52, Josephus is just 14 or so.

Second main point contra that is that Josephus was a braggart and self-turd polisher. Skipping way ahead in the book, we have:

“What follows is a sketch of six leading families with whom Josephus was familiar and whose members were also likely party to the execution of Jesus. These include the royal family of the Herodians, the rabbinic family of Hillel, and the high priestly families of Camith, Boethus, Phiabi, and especially Ananus I.”

From here, Schmidt goes on to make other statements, that, on the New Testament side, where connected with Herod Agrippa II, treat the last one-quarter of Acts with a hugely unwarranted degree of historicity. Also vis-a-vis Agrippa, Schmidt makes all sorts of reading between the lines and special pleadings on pages 163ff. He also assumes Jesus was “big enough” historically to have members of the House of Herod who would NOT have included Antipas or Agrippa I (both dying when Josephus was a tot) to remember him to Josephus.

Third, Acts is ahistorical enough even in its first half that we should probably largely ignore the “trials of the apostles.” See this piece of mine for a look at Acts' ahistoricity in general, focused on the last one-quarter of the book. Indeed, a 3-star reviewer here notes a relative lack of critical approach to the historicity of both Acts and the Mishnah. It’s been eons since I read the Mishnah myself, but, per the block quote above, it seems like special pleadings in this portion of the book as well. In addition, to move in the NT from Acts back to the gospels, taking every portrayal of Jesus “versus” the Pharisees at face value is also problematic.

Also related? He assumes that Jesus’ revolt, or whatever we should call it, occurred at Passover, and assumes within that that he Synoptics are right against John on what day the Passover was. (In one of his appendixes, Schmidt offers the “solution” [scare quotes!] that John was talking about the whole feast of Passover week with Unleavened Bread. Sure he was. Why haven't more biblical scholars said this, and written in depth about it?)

After this? Schmidt delves into that font of historicity, the Toledoth Yeshu, to claim that Ananus II, the guy who reportedly had some James, who may have been either a literal or non-literal brother of Jesus, put to death, was at Jesus’ trial.

Fourth? Schmidt’s claim that the Testimonium is neutral to negative? Only if you accept his one interpolation, that “He was [thought to be] the Christ.” Per Wiki, Schmidt claims these are “missing words” not an interpolation. Really? So, they magically fell out of copies of the Antiquities before its current citation? More on that, re Jerome apparently being the first to have “appeared to be,” here .

He also ignores the possibility that translators inserted these words because they thought “Josephus” looked too blatantly Christian otherwise.

That in turn means we have intellectual dishonesty, as I see it.

He goes on to claim that both Jacob of Edessa and Jerome in translation reflect what he postulates as the original indeed being so:

“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.”

Sounds like half a dozen types of special pleading.

It also, by this point, sounds like systematic theology apologetics rather than exegesis.

Let us also remember that even Jerome is translating 300-plus years later than Josephus, and that he is on the far side of Eusebius, whom I see as a veil of sorts on all things Josephus related to Christian history.

Fifth, how does he deal with Origen? He claims that Origin found it “risky to use.” See my note above on Schmidt’s translation. With Origin, and later, he also says that the “incredible deeds” could be seen as negative, open to the claim that Jesus was performing magic. But, that’s only if you accept Schmidt’s interpolation, which as noted above negates his whole claim. And, contra Schmidt, this will be referred to as “interpolation” and not “missing words” throughout this review. I don’t believe in magic ponies. Beyond that, Josephus uses the same words for Elisha’s miracles.

And, even if true, would this be THAT risky?

With that, let’s dig into the book further. Yes, it's getting crushed further.

When we get into how Origin understood what Josephus thought of Jesus, we face issues similar, in a reverse way, to Tacitus (and the likely interpolation of the Fire of Rome) and Suetonius. Even on the Jesus “who was called Christ” as brother of James, this is simply “Ha-Moshiach” and not a Christian title. Nor does Josephus say that everybody proclaimed him as the Messiah. It should also be noted that, because the term in Greek wouldn’t be understood by most Greeks and definitely not by Greek-speaking Romans that, while Josephus will talk about Vespasian fulfilling Messianic prophecies, he never applies this term to him. He may have had other reasons for not doing that, too. One may have been Josephan religious scruples. The other may have been, having toasted Vespasian and with Domitian now on the throne, talk of “Christ” was no bueno.

From here on out, like Schmidt, I will use TF to save time and space. He says Origen surely knew some version of the TF. If we accept that some portion of it is original, but was later interpolated? That’s not a problem for that theory and Origin offers no support for Schmidt.

He wraps up his first section with this, about the TF’s reception in Greek Christianity, namely, why weren’t the parts about the resurrection, testimony of the prophets, miracles, played up more?

“In the present book I suggest a solution to this puzzling reception history. I argue that those statements in the TF which sound so extravagantly suspicious to our modern ears seemed quite different to most ancient and medieval writers who read them as not only ambiguous, but as also quite similar to other non-Christian reports about Jesus. This explains why so many never bothered to make use of the spectacular details in the TF; for to them, the TF did not have anything spectacular about it. Instead, the TF merely presented a neutral, ambiguous, or even vaguely negative account about Jesus that was of little benefit for their purposes. Yet, that very ambiguity allowed a minority of writers—most of whom only summarized or even manipulated its content —to interpret the TF in a way that promoted various Christian claims about Jesus.”

This too sounds like special pleading.

I remain unconvinced, wholly unconvinced. The “believed to be,” to riff on Schmidt, may have been original, and removed by whomever surely interpolated the last one-third:

“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.”

The idea that Josephus wrote that himself is laughable. And, the “tribe of Christians,” if Acts is right about Christian self-naming, and when it might have happened, if Acts has an early second century dating, also puts this as post-Josephan.

Early Christian Writings still has the best roundup of evidence, above all based on it interrupting narrative flow, for the whole thing to be an interpolation. It also has a good refutation of some of Schmidt’s stylistic claims, above all the “principal men” issue, and other things mentioned above.

Per ECW? Perhaps the original version of Josephus had calamities or similar attached to his Jesus story, if he was the original author, and that what we have today is more than a partial editorial interpolation, but rather, to invent a word, even more an editorial exterpolation. On this idea, Josephus would have called Jesus a messianic pretender, like others. The calamities, per other events in Chapter 18, so this wasn’t originally interrupting the flow of that book, might have been inflicted by Antipas rather than Pilate, albeit with some pushing by Pilate. Per Luke, yes, Antipas would have seen Jesus as John the Baptizer redivivus — as a Zealot.

One big problem with this theory, though?

Celsus.

We already know Origin doesn’t reference the TF as stands as a tool against Celsus. Had the original been a highly negative narrative like this, Celsus, not Origen, would have cited it and Origin would have moved heaven and earth to refute it or try to.

My conclusion? While I don’t believe in a literal version of Bayes Theorum, because I don’t believe you can in general put precise percentage numbers on belief system probabilities, I’ll play along on the idea on this.

Before reading Schmidt’s book, I would have offered 3 percent for Josephus substantially writing the TF (MINUS the ending; if you make me include that, I’m at 1 percent); 67/69 percent that Josephus wrote some core kernel but it has moderate to extensive editorial interpolation; and 30 percent that most to all the passage is an interpolation.

Schmidt actually lost me. I’m now at 2/0 percent on Josephus writing substantially all, 58/60 percent on option THREE, and 40 percent on option TWO, flip-flopping those. That comes after pondering the “negative Josephus later exterpolated” idea and rejecting it. And, going directly against his alleged elimination of him, I’ll finger Eusebius as the most likely interpolator. He was well-read in both secular and Christian history within the Empire, was at the right hand of Constantine, and had motive.

As for comments about Josephan style and the author’s stylistic analysis emphasis and claims? We’re not talking about 300 lines of text or even 300 words. The TF as received, without the “believed to be” conjecture? Just 84 words in Greek. Someone as well-read as Eusebius could have done a reasonable imitation no problem.

Briefly on other items. If the TF is an interpolation en toto (I won’t follow Schmidt on the “forgery” word) then the James “the brother of Jesus” in Antiquities Book 20 is an insertion, or “gloss” as a better term, for obvious reasons. And, I disagree with Schmidt here, claiming this passage as authentic is an ambiguous to negative portrayal of Jesus, just like he does with the TF. Early Christian Writings, and other sites, address this in more detail. As for the use of “brother”? Paul repeatedly uses it in a non-literalistic sense.

That is plenty enough crushing for here.

BUT? I'll have even more at my critical philosophy, religion and critical thinking site in a few weeks.

That is up, and, having posted a more scholarly version of this to Academia, I had a professor from University College Cork strenuously defend a mildly tweaked version of Schmidt. I didn't respond to him, including the part in my personal website about how Schmidt has been funded for this book by a "fundagelical Daddy Warbucks." But, the last one-quarter of my personal site piece is a base-level refutation of the Irish professor.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have been interested in Testimonium Flavianum since I first encountered it around 25 years ago, and I could then give a reasonable response to why it was a credible source. But, as things have their way, time and time again, after I heard that it was not a good source, I hoped for there to be a better consensus about this, as it is fueled by divisions. T. C. Schmidt comes here along with a great proof of the validity of TF, all into the nitty-gritty details, much more than I would have ever hoped for. This is the latest and best, and worthy of the read, although there is a lot of repetition. There are, of course, people who feel that their take is not answered in this book, as the main point here is that the text was not seen as positive then as it seems to us now, and secondly, that Josephus had access to good source material about Jesus in his position. It delivers. I would recommend this book, not to everybody, but to those who wonder about TF and are interested enough to give a 300-page book about it a read. Without doubt, this will be a book sourced by many in the future.

[Jeff Greason · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought provoking and thorough. In pursuit of making his points defensibly, the argument can get rather lengthy -- so hardly a page-turner. But worth sticking with it. I found the thesis (that the reference to Jesus by Flavius Josephus is likely authentic and not a later addition) persuasive.

[Andrew Goode · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant, engaging, well-researched, and convincing!