On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum

(avg. read time: 18–35 mins.)

It has been a while since I wrote something about Josephus. It is now time to wade in on the Josephan text that has received more scholarly attention than any other: the Testimonium Flavianum (hereafter, TF). This is the name given to the text of Jewish Antiquities 18.63–64, which contains a statement about Jesus. It is the most extensive such statement about Jesus among ancient non-Christian authors. And it is by the one contemporary historian of Jesus’s home region whose work is still extant. It is an important text for first-century history, for non-Gospel evidence of Jesus’s historical existence, for early non-Christian perspectives on Jesus and the Christians, and for how Christians interacted with or preserved non-Christian texts (since we would not have Josephus’s works today if not for the work of Christians in preserving them).

However, much of the attention the passage has drawn concerns its authenticity. A sizable minority of scholars has denied the authenticity of the whole passage, insisting that it is all a Christian interpolation into Joesphsus’s text. The majority of scholars regard it as generally authentic with some Christian alterations and interpolations mixed in with text that Josephus actually wrote. But another smaller minority of scholars has argued that the text is authentic as far as it goes; if anything, the text as we have it now is missing elements that Josephus originally wrote. This last position is one advocated by T. C. Schmidt in his recent dissertation (which he has generously made freely available). This dissertation was not the occasion for my writing on this subject, but it auspiciously coincided with my plan to write something this month. I thank God for that.

To begin with, we will note the Greek that appears in one of the standard references—the Loeb Classical Library—and the English translation of the same, though we will have occasions for addressing issues with both the Greek text and the translation as we proceed through the analysis:

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· [64] 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.

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats 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 Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.¹

One can see some remarks that prima facie seem remarkable for a non-Christian Jew of the first century to say, especially the simple statement, “He/This one was the Messiah/Christ.” This seems to be too positive. But as a whole, it is debatable whether Josephus’s text as a whole is truly positive, or if it is more reasonable to interpret it as a neutral or even negative statement.² We will need to address this as we go, as the best way of examining the text’s authenticity is to go piece-by-piece to determine if Josephus could have written any of it.

General Considerations

But before that, we must discuss general considerations that concern the text’s authenticity. First, there is the matter of textual evidence. According to this list of Greek mss, I have counted at least twenty mss containing the TF. Nine others may contain it, but the list does not specifically say so. But nor does the list mention any ms containing the pertinent context that is missing the TF. Indeed, I have never seen an example cited of a witness in any language containing the pertinent context that omitted the TF. At the same time, the earliest mss come from several centuries after Josephus wrote, and the earliest one that I know of containing the TF is from the 10^th or 11^th century. One could further mitigate the force of this unanimous testimony if the TF existed in some form throughout but there were incredible divergences, such that it was obvious multiple scribes made attempts to compose their own Josephan testimonies to Jesus without reference to a common source. But this is not what we find in the textual evidence. As such, we lack any positive ms evidence for the claim that the whole text was an interpolation (which is in contrast even to texts I have defended as authentic previously).

Second, there is the testimony of earlier authors who referenced Josephus. Origen explicitly says that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah in contexts where he references Josephus’s narration of the death of James, the brother of Jesus (Origen, Cels. 1.47; Comm. Matt. 10.17).³ Although he does not quote the TF, Origen apparently had some source for knowing what Josephus thought about Jesus to make such declarations. Eusebius is the first to quote the TF, which he does on three occasions (Hist. eccl. 1.11.4–9; Dem. ev. 3.5.105–108; Theoph. 5.43–45). It is sometimes supposed by scholars who think the entire text is an interpolation (e.g., Ken Olson and the late Louis Feldman) that Eusebius himself composed it. But the complete fabrication of this quote would be against Eusebius’s tendencies in quoting sources and in quoting Josephus specifically. Nor does Eusebius on any occasion use the supposed declaration of Jesus being the Messiah as evidence in favor of an apologetic point. While he quotes these words of Josephus, he never draws attention to his apparent affirmation of some of the most central Christian beliefs about him.⁴ He only cites him for other purposes. Much the same could be said for others who quote the TF before our first Greek ms evidence for it, including Isidore of Pelusium (Letter 1259), Oecumenius (Comm. Rev. 4.10.7), Pseudo-Sophronius’s Greek translation of Jerome’s On Illustrious Men (23), George the Monk (Chronicon), and the Dissertatio contra Judaeos (2.386–409). Jerome’s Latin version contributes to his profile of Josephus, and it has some variations from the Greek, most significantly including saying Jesus “was believed to be the Christ” (Vir. ill. 13). Others did, in fact, take the text as pro-Christian, including Pseudo-Hegesippus in his paraphrase (On the Ruin of the City of Jerusalem 2.12.1), Sozomen in his paraphrase (Hist. eccl. 1.1.5–6), John Malalas in his paraphrase (Chron. 10.26), and two anonymous works from between the fifth and seventh centuries: Acta Sanctorum Donati et sociorum 3.11 and Dialogue with the Jews 10.342–382.⁵ An Arabic version quoted by Agapius of Manbij (itself quoted by al-Makīn Ğirğis ibn al-‘Amīd) has a different rendition of the claim of Jesus being Messiah, the role of Jewish leaders in his death is absent, and the reference to Jesus’s resurrection is simply said to be the report of his disciples:

And likewise Josephus the Hebrew, for he says in his treatises which he wrote concerning the evil of the Jews: “There was in this time a wise man who was called Jesus and his conduct was good and it was known that he was righteous and that many from among the people—from both Jews and the surrounding nations—became his followers. And Pilate sentenced him to crucifixion and to death. And those who followed him did not forsake following him, but they reported that he appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Perhaps he was the Christ of whom the prophets spoke marvels.”⁶

Similarly, near the end of the twelfth century, Michael the Syrian quoted a Syriac version of the TF:

Also the author Josephus says in the treatise concerning the Government of the Jews: “In these times there was a certain wise man whose name was Jesus, if it is lawful for us to call him a man, for he was a doer of glorious works and a teacher of the truth. And he made disciples of many from the Jews and from the peoples. It was thought that he was the Christ. And it was through the testimony of the leaders of the people, on account of this, that Pilate gave him over to the punishment of the cross and he died. But those who loved him did not cease from his love [as] he appeared to them after three days alive. For the prophets of God spoke such astonishing things concerning him. And until today the people of the Christians have not disappeared and have been named from him.”⁷

For all that the details have some interesting variations, all of these witnesses attest to Josephus writing about Jesus.

Third, we must consider the context in which the reference to Jesus appears. One could suppose that the reference to Jesus was inserted here simply because Josephus referenced Pontius Pilate, but he does not say anything else about Jesus here, making the reference appear extraneous. In a different vein, we have seen previously how Jerry Vardaman supposed that Jesus’s ministry began no later than 15–19 CE because of where the reference to Jesus appears in Josephus’s work.⁸

Of course, Josephus narrates events in a broadly chronological fashion throughout Jewish Antiquities (as in Jewish War). But he also has achronological digressions to mention other details as he shifts back and forth in his contextualizing of events, whether flashing back to examine causation or flashing forward to examine consequence or something else of significance. If we restrict our attention to this book of Jewish Antiquities, he has already moved from talking about Judas the Galilean and the revolt he led in 6 CE to the time when the movement he began came to fruition during the tenure of Gessius Florus, and then back again (18.1–10, 25). Later in the book, he will mention John the Baptist’s death and provide a digression on John similar to that of Jesus, as he links Herod Antipas killing John with Antipas’s defeat by Aretas IV (18.116–119), after which Josephus also reviews the family history of the Herodian dynasty (18.126–142). In any case, it is not as if the reference is chronologically inapt. Josephus notes that Annius Rufus was the governor when Caesar Augustus died in 14 CE (18.32), he was succeeded by Valerius Gratus (presumably, sometime in 15 CE), and Gratus worked in Judea for eleven years before he was succeeded by Pontius Pilate (18.33–35), which would imply that Pilate took office in ~26 CE. It is in connection with Pilate, not any of the other events, regardless of how they are dated, that Josephus mentions Jesus.

Fourth, in the broader context of Antiquities, Josephus has a second reference to Jesus when he discusses the death of James, “the brother Jesus, the one called/said to be the Messiah/Christ” (Ant. 20.200). This is the text Origen referenced in the aforementioned instances (also see Cels. 2.13). With how abbreviated this reference is, it suggests that Josephus had discussed this Jesus previously. Josephus mentions a number of figures named “Jesus” in this work alone (Ant. 11.297–301; 12.237–239; 15.322; 17.341; 20.203, 213, 223), but this Jesus is the only one linked with the terminology of “the Messiah” in a previous instance of Ant. 18.63–64. As there is no reason to regard this abbreviated reference as textually suspect with the lack of textual evidence suggesting otherwise, the text contributes to the likelihood that Josephus wrote more about Jesus than this phrase. However, that is merely suggestive. The only way to be more confident is to examine the text itself.

“Now … Was/Became” (Γίνεται δὲ)

The opening of Γίνεται δὲ is properly Josephan. Besides here, he uses it at the beginning of clauses that open sections numerous times,⁹ or as the beginning of clauses in other cases.¹⁰ Of course, both terms and the overall phrase are quite common (some earlier authors like Hippocrates and Aristotle used it much more often). It is, at best, weak evidence for authenticity.

“at this time” (κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον)

Josephus uses this phrase four other times (Ant. 13.46; 17.19; 18.39, 80). This phrase is not nearly as common as the previous one, but it is hardly unheard of for other historical works to use it (Thucydides 4.70.1; Xenophon, Hel. 3.2.13; Polybius 18.10.6; 28.3.1; Diodorus Siculus 14.55.4; 20.35.2; 23.9.5). Yet it is interesting that the majority of Josephus’s five uses cluster in book 18. It is, again, weak evidence for authenticity, though perhaps more suggestive than the first item.

A “Certain” Jesus?

Obviously, Josephus was capable of referring to Jesus, but there is a question of whether he wrote more than a simple reference. Unlike all the extant Greek mss of the TF, one ms (Codex Parisinus Graecus) of Eusebius’s Church History includes in the quote of the TF an indefinite pronoun (τις) after “Jesus,” which could give the sense of “a certain Jesus” or “Jesus, a certain wise man,” if it belongs with the following phrase. The Greek ms is also supported by the Syriac and Armenian translations of Eusebius and the Syriac quote of Josephus noted above. The indefinite pronoun is ambiguous and could even lend itself to a negative interpretation as a derogatory indefinite (as in Josephus, Ant. 4.14; 5.33; 13.293; 15.344; 16.387; J.W. 2.57, 433, 600; 3.450; 4.155, 503; 5.326; 6.92; 7.47; cf. Ant. 20.97),¹¹ but it need not be so (as in Josephus, Ant. 5.276; 8.355; 9.248, 250; 12.17, 160; J.W. 4.66; 5.474, 534;6.300; 7.58). As the indefinite pronoun is ambiguous and can permit a negative interpretation, it makes more sense that it came from a non-Christian source than that it was itself a Christian invention. For as common as the indefinite pronoun is, its use here, as attested outside of the extant Greek mss of the TF, is more suggestive or moderate evidence of authenticity.

“A Wise Man” (σοφὸς ἀνήρ)

The description of Jesus matches a description Josephus uses elsewhere for Daniel (Ant. 10.237), and it is similar to a description he used for Solomon (Ant. 8.53). He also uses the adjective more generally to refer to wise men (J.W. 2.376; 6.313; Ag. Ap. 1.236, 256; 2.140, 168; cf. Ant. 2.285–286). The term has a positive sense by default, but it can be used in negative contexts, as in J.W. 6.313 (and as Paul uses it in 1 Cor 1:18–25). Other non-Christians referred to Jesus as a “wise man” (the Letter of Mara bar Serapion; Augustine, Civ. 19.23; Lactantius, Inst. 4.13.11). Conversely, this was not a way Christians would tend to describe Jesus. They would rather say the he is Wisdom as such.¹² This is stronger (at least moderate-to-strong) evidence for an authentic composition by Josephus.

“If Indeed One Ought to Call Him a Man” (εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή)

The clause in its entirety appears nowhere else in Josephus, although the constituent parts appear elsewhere (such as Ant. 17.181, 311; 18.9, 128; 20.41; J.W. 1.16; 3.391; 7.417). However, this is the first clause that prominently raises red flags of a Christian rather than Jewish composition. One could read it as superseding the force of the previous declaration. With that sense, it is understandable why it seems as if a Christian would have interpolated it into the text. One could even imagine it was once a marginal note made by a Christian that a later scribe (mistakenly or otherwise) included in the text.

But again, the phrase is ambiguous, and it could suggest someone being less than a man or not human per se. It would make more sense for Eusebius or a Christian of similar persuasion to phrase the declaration as that it was not “sufficient” to call him a man. That is not the sense of χρή here. Josephus could well have been using sarcasm, which the clause’s ambiguity lends itself to. On the other hand, this clause could make sense as Josephus acknowledging (in one tone or another) the ongoing dispute over who Jesus was and the sense of there being something potentially supernormal about him. Even the pagan critic Porphyry said something similar (Eusebius, Dem. ev. 3.7.1), and Jewish critics could acknowledge Jesus being supernormal while claiming he was in league with demons (as they did even in the time of his earthly ministry: Matt 9:34; 10:25; 12:24–28; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:14–20; John 7:20; 8:48–52; 10:20–21; cf. Justin, Dial. 69.7; Toledot Yeshu; b. Sanh. 43a.20). And Josephus could suggest superhuman qualities about people he did not doubt were human (Ant. 3.180, 318–320; 8.34–35; 10.35).

At best, this is neutral evidence. It could suggest inauthenticity, though it would make more sense then as having a source that is not an orthodox Christian or a Christian who was at least not careful in speech/writing. It could also suggest authenticity, in which case it is unclear if the phrasing is positive (but not as positive as Christians might wish), neutral, or negative.

“For He Was a Doer of Incredible/Wondrous Deeds” (ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής)

As with aforementioned critics of Christianity, it was possible for non-Christians to acknowledge Jesus did wondrous deeds without being a devotee (in addition to those cited in the previous two sections, see Arnobius, Against the Nations 1.43, 48–49, 53). Celsus’s Jew in his work even uses the same term in reference to Jesus (Origen, Cels. 1.6; cf. 1.28; 2.48–53). The key adjective may have more negative connotations than others used to describe miracles. As such, Josephus uses it for describing the work of Pharaoh’s sorcerers (Ant. 2.285), amidst other descriptors that are similar to terms used for Jesus (2.285–286). In another case, it refers to something extraordinary but deceptive in appearance (Ag. Ap. 2.114). However, it is not as strongly negative in some cases, even if it may signify something being off-putting or unbelievable to someone (Ant. 2.267, 295; 3.347; 5.125; 6.171; 8.317; 10.235; 12.88; 15.261, 379; 16.343; J.W. 4.239; 6.102; Ag. Ap. 1.53), or it may simply emphasize the wonder of some divine deeds (Ant. 2.345; 3.1, 14, 31, 38; 5.38; 9.14, 58, 60, 182; 10.28; 13.282; 14.455) or even human deeds (6.290; 8.130; 12.63; 13.140; J.W. 6.63). Moreover, Josephus uses some form of ποίησις with a genitive multiple times in this book (18.15, 21–22, 55, 314) and the surrounding ones (17.94; 19.71).

Two other points are worth noting about this description. On the one hand, Christian writers did not tend to use the key term for miracles, especially for referring to Jesus’s miracles, as they preferred using terms like δύναμις, σημεῖον, τέρας, and even the simple ἔργον in certain contexts, whereas this term only appears in the NT in Luke 5:26. On the other hand, Josephus refers to others who prophesy (as referenced in my post on the historiography of Josephus) or perform miracles where the ambiguous sense is not present or he is not taking explicit account of how his audience might receive the report, and he does not use this terminology (Ant. 2.272–276; 8.42–49, 231–234; 14.22–24; 18.285–286). In this light, it is unlikely that a Christian (much less Eusebius specifically) would invent this description of Jesus’s deeds. This appears to be moderate-to-strong evidence of authenticity.

“A Teacher of People Who Receive Truth/Truisms with Pleasure” (διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων)

Josephus refers to teachers on many occasions (both positive and negative), though the genitive phrasing tends to indicate the content of teaching. But here and in J.W. 7.444, the genitive can be used for those who are taught. The description of “receive with pleasure” fits Josephan tendencies particularly in this area of his writings (Ant. 17.329; 18.6, 59, 70, 236, 333; 19.127, 185). Even this crasis form of “truth/truism” appears several times in his works (as some examples: Ant. 3.74, 308; 4.219; 8.23; 14.3; J.W. 1.16; 3.438; Life 262). Yet again, the phrase as a whole is ambiguous and capable of being taken as positive, neutral, or negative, depending on how one takes the reference to “pleasure.” Jerome, a scribe of Eusebius’s Demonstration, and the Syriac version noted above thus omit reference to pleasure. Moreover, the term for “truth/truism” is not one we would expect a Christian to interpolate, as there is a clear preference in Christian writings for ἀλήθεια. Josephus also uses that term for more profound truth (Ant. 1.4, 247; 2.276; 8.56; 16.108; 18.252; 20.128; Life 361, 364, 367; Ag. Ap. 1.154, 214; 2.169). In light of all of these factors, this is moderate-to-strong evidence of authenticity.

“And Many Jews/Judeans, and Many also of the Greek[s] He Brought over/Convinced” (καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο)

The general structure of this statement is consistent with Josephan style in many places, including in this same book (18.353, 372). The combination of the adjective with the verb appears in texts like Ant. 20.7, 78; and J.W. 7.164. The singular use of “Greek” is unusual and awkward here, particularly since it is not modifying anything else, but one can find similar uses in J.W. 2.268 and Life 74. Notably, the description here could be seen as in conflict with the emphases of the Gospels, as they only reference a few exceptional gentiles who encountered Jesus and could potentially be characterized as early followers, whereas Jesus’s focus in his earthly ministry was on Israel. And on multiple occasions, Eusebius cites Josephus to support his own claims and emphases of Jesus having Jewish and gentile followers (Dem. ev. 3.5.105–108; Theoph. 5.43–45). That hardly seems like a reason to make this whole interpolation, of course. As it is, the claim is more likely to have originated from a Jewish source who is less concerned with the precise details of how Jesus’s following developed, given the rhetoric we see in John 12:19 and the Toledot Yeshu. Moreover, the verb can have a negative connotation, as in the inducement to rebellion in J.W. 7.164 or the Alexander impostor misleading those who received his words with pleasure in Ant. 17.327–329.

Of course, this is not to say the phrasing is negative in its characterization. But it is ambiguous enough that it can be. And that is another reason working against it being a Christian interpolation. For whatever reason Josephus makes this claim and whatever his source is for it, it is at least moderate evidence for authenticity.

“He Was [Believed to Be/Thought to Be/Perhaps] the Christ/Messiah” (ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν)

This appears to be the clearest cut case of interpolation in the entire passage. If the Greek as we have it now is as it was first written, it is difficult to believe that a non-Christian Jew like Josephus would make such a statement. Indeed, Origen explicitly said that Josephus did not think Jesus was the Messiah. Some later Christian authors who understood Josephus to say Jesus was the Messiah/Christ had difficulty explaining why he said this and remained a Jew. To hear them tell it, he had a sudden moment of clarity, seemingly in spite of himself, that lasted only for as long as he took to write this statement. Nor can one simply claim that Josephus is using “Christ” here as another name for Jesus, as Christians sometimes used it in that fashion. While this could make sense for others to read the statement in this way (as pagan writers would refer to the name of Christus/Chrestus without making an assertion of Jesus being Messiah), the fact is that Josephus himself never uses the construction οὗτοςἦνto convey this point; instead, he uses constructions like we see in Ant. 20.200 to signify that this is what he was called. As it stands, this would appear to be the strongest evidence against authenticity.

But the matter is not so simple. The use of the imperfect tense copula is questionable as a Christian invention. One might expect an overzealous Christian interpolator to say that this one “is” the Messiah/Christ.

More importantly, we have seen evidence in Latin from Jerome, an Arabic quote (though of secondary value), and an Aramaic quote that suggest Josephus wrote something else. Likewise, Pseudo-Hegesippus, though his reference is a paraphrase, says “they believed in him.” Witnesses separated by such distance and language conveying similar meanings about others believing Jesus to be the Messiah/Christ make it more likely that they had a common source, albeit one that no longer exists in the evidence we have of the Greek transmission. It could be that originally the participle here that was after the pronoun was λεγόμενος, as in 20.200. The notion that he is “said to be/called/declared” is particularly close to the Syriac form while the Latin and Arabic would be more paraphrastic by this reconstruction. Both the Latin and the Syriac attest to an infinitive copula as well (before the participle), which has also dropped out of Greek transmission. However, it is unclear if the copula was actually present or if it was gapped, as it is the most common gapped verb. The Latin and Syriac may have included what is now dropped out, or they may have both made explicit what the Greek left implicit. Alternatively, the participle could have been πιστευόμενος or νομιζόμενος, which could make the Latin or Syriac closer to the Greek original. Josephus also wrote constructions comparable to this elsewhere (Ant. 2.186; 7.212; 8.177; 9.246; 11.337; 13.177; 14.166, 455; 15.419; 17.110). If one of these reconstructions based on non-Greek textual evidence better reflects what was originally written, it makes sense for a non-Christian Jew to write in this fashion, and it could fit how Josephus refers to Jesus elsewhere. When one combines the declarations of Origen, the textual evidence from Latin, Syriac, and Arabic source, and other considerations we have noted here, the more extensive construction would be weak-to-moderate evidence of authenticity, as it is unlikely that a Christian inventor would set out to write the text in this fashion.¹³ But later scribes may have simplified the grammar and left us with a more straightforward statement, albeit one that was not as Josephus originally wrote it.

“And When at the Accusation of the First Men Among Us Pilate Had Condemned Him to the Cross” (καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾿ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου)

Yet again, this phrasing is at home in Josephus’s writings. Josephus begins sentences in this fashion elsewhere (Ant. 5.252; 10.14; 17.221; J.W. 1.487; 6.89). The term for the accusation is not common, but it appears two other times, both in Antiquities (13.306; 19.113). He references “first men” on several occasions (Ant. 17.81; 18.99, 376; Life 56; 169; cf. Ant. 4.21; 17.342; 18.7, 121, 353). The prepositional phrase appears fifty-one times across his writings. He references crosses or crucifixions numerous times (for the noun alone, see Ant. 11.261, 266–267; J.W. 2.308; 3.215; 5.451, 469–470; 7.202). Most of the uses of the verb (here in participial form) are from the Antiquities (5.105; 16.262, 355; 18.68, 107, 183, 256, 351; 19.202). And as this is not the first time he has mentioned Pilate, every piece fits Josephan writings. Nor is it unlikely that Josephus would link Jewish leaders with Jesus’s death, particularly if he knew some of the leaders involved, and since other Jews acknowledged their role as well (Justin, Dial. 108.2; Origen, Cels. 2.9; b. Sanh. 43a.20, 22–26; Toledot Yeshu). Moreover, the tendency among early Christians, especially by the time of Eusebius, was to deemphasize Pilate’s role (if not exculpate him or redeem him altogether, like in the Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate), and so this hardly seems like a Christian invention, even if it does generally comport with the Gospels. This whole clause thus provides moderate-to-strong evidence of authenticity.

“Those Who Loved Him at First Did Not Cease” (οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες)

While this may sound at first like something a Christian might say to describe Jesus’s first disciples, it just as well fits Josephan style. The verb lacking a direct object (an appropriate use of the middle form) is similar to the uses in Ant. 4.66; 9.266 (using the same middle form); 18.62; and J.W. 1.18 (using the same middle form). The use of “those who first” is also not unknown in Josephus, including in this same book (Ant. 18.278, 333). The participle for love, while a favorite of Christians, is hardly uniquely or especially Christian. Josephus himself uses the term seventy-five times, four of which appear in the same book (Ant. 18.60, 243, 251, 361). He also uses it to describe the devotion of insurrectionists to their leader Aristobulus in J.W. 1.171. Furthermore, this characterization fits better with a Jewish source that does not follow the Gospels’ characterization of the disciples leading up to and immediately following Jesus’s death (cf. the Toledot Yeshu). As such, this description serves as weak-to-moderate evidence for authenticity.

“For He Appeared to Them on the Third Day [to Be] Alive Again” (ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν)

This is another part of the text that is usually linked with a Christian interpolator. It seems like something a Christian would write, particularly since there are no obvious qualifiers to the main verb here. Why would Josephus the Jew write something like this if he did not ultimately join the Christians? But then again, why would the earliest quotes of the TF include this reference to Jesus’s resurrection and yet draw no attention to it?

The more mundane aspects of this statement—such as the use of γὰρ αὐτοῖς, ἔχων, and πάλιν—are at home in Josephus’s works. The key verb is one Josephus uses quite often (and it is a verb that appears tens of thousands of times in extant Greek literature). It is not commonly used for Jesus’s appearances with Mark 16:9 being the sole NT example. But the term can mean “appear” in a veridical sense or “appear/seem” in a non-veridical sense. Thus, the sense could be “he [actually] appeared to them alive,” “he [only seemingly] appeared to them to be alive,” or “he seemed to them [to be] alive.” It is unclear if the copula is implicit here, but it is the most frequently gapped verb, so it is certainly possible. The Arabic supports this sense through the additional statement that this is what was “reported,” while the Latin and Syriac are subject to the same ambiguity as the Greek.

The Arabic and Syriac also report refence to “three days,” while the Latin and Greek say, “third day.” Obviously, as we have seen elsewhere in various parts of my series on resurrection, it was common for Christians to reference the “third day/three days” in connection to Jesus’s resurrection. However, there is literally no extant Greek text that uses this unusual phrase (τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν) or any variation thereof for referring to the timing of Jesus’s appearance, except for texts that are quoting the TF. That does not mean Christians did not use the phrase, but it makes it less probable that this was a Christian way of describing their claims—especially since they developed conventional descriptions—as opposed to a non-Christian presenting it in his own words. After all, Josephus uses similar phrasing elsewhere (Ant. 1.193; 3.290; 5.327; 6.174; 7.1; 19.291).

Finally, we must consider the phrasing about Jesus being alive again. Despite the consternation some have had about describing Jesus’s resurrection as him being “alive again,” that is exactly how Josephus describes their claim of Jesus’s resurrection here. We have seen in the series on resurrection how the term here was used by Christians for resurrection. But Josephus also uses it as one way of describing Elijah’s raising miracle in Ant. 8.326, and he uses this same form in the description of the man who was restored to life after coming into contact with Elisha’s corpse in Ant. 9.183. Josephus uses other terms for resurrection as well (Ant. 8.327; 18.14; cf. J.W. 2.163; 3.374; Ag. Ap. 2.218), as do the early Christians (see here and here for some examples).

Overall, no constituent part of this statement suggests that it was by anyone but Josephus, the statement itself is ambiguous (more so than one would expect from a Christian), and Josephus says nothing direct about his thoughts ofn the veracity of the Christian claims. On balance, the ambiguities and the unusual phrasing make it more likely that Josephus wrote this than that a Christian did. The statement constitutes weak-to-moderate evidence for authenticity.

“Given That the Divine Prophets Spoke These and Myriad Other Wonders Concerning Him” (τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων)

This is not the first time Josephus would refer to “divine” prophets (Ant. 8.243; 10.35). Indeed, the adjective is one he uses over 200 times, some of which apply to humans he considers praiseworthy. The phrase referring to myriad other things appear as well in Ant. 13.382; J.W. 2.361. The other terms have appeared multiple times, including the perfect forms of λέγω that appear nearly 100 times (for this specific form, see Ant. 17.315; Ag. Ap. 1.287; 2.288), and the dozens of appearances of “wonders” (including Ant. 10.35, 232; 12.83; J.W. 6.83, each of which occur in the vicinity of other features we have noted).

I have noted elsewhere how Josephus has a deep interest in the prophets and prophecy, but some regard this part of the text with suspicion because it seems to be a positive affirmation from Josephus that the prophets spoke about Jesus. Yet again, this is ambiguous. The genitive could be read as a continuation of the previous clause, so that it is providing explanation for why Jesus appeared/seemed to them to be alive. Genitives with similar functions appear in Ant. 18.119 and 122. That is, this could be further describing the thoughts of the disciples. Josephus’s inclusion of this idea reflects an awareness of Jesus’s Messiahship, his resurrection, and the fulfillment of Scripture are tied together in Christian proclamation, as indeed we see in the NT (see various posts here). If this is the case, then this clause supplies weak-to-moderate evidence of authenticity.

“And Even [Still] to This Day” (εἰς [ἔτι] τε νῦν)

While Josephus uses the constituent parts of this phrase (for examples in this book, see Ant. 18.44, 266, 304, 345), the phrase as a whole appears nowhere in Josephus. Some scholars make much of this because the only other author who uses it, as least according to a search of the TLG database, is Eusebius (besides the quote of the TF, see Hist. eccl. 2.1.7; Ecl. proph. 168.15). Louis Feldman considered this suggestive evidence for Eusebius being the composer of the TF, particularly since this phrase is (supposedly) unique to him, and he used other phrases in the TF.¹⁴

Roger Pearse has responded well to Feldman’s particular articulation of this point here with a more detailed follow-up here. One issue with attaching a lot of significance to this point is that, as extensive as a database like TLG is, it represents only a small percentage of Greek literature that was ever written (to say nothing of less literary texts). Considering that this phrase that is unusual in the extant literature consists of quite common words, it strains belief that only one writer ever used it (and that twice more beyond the TF and the quote of the same).

Another issue concerns textual criticism in discerning what the actual reading of a text is. On one level, word divisions in searchable texts are the results of editorial choices. And these divisions that the search engine is sensitive to can be disputed. On another level, mss can vary. Indeed, mss of this quote, both among Greek mss of the TF and of some Greek quotes of the same that emerge in a TLG search (including the Greek translation of Jerome’s On Illustrious Men [23]; Dialogue with the Jews 10.358; and other sources beyond those mentioned previously) feature the phrase εἰς τε νῦν, which is not found in Eusebius’s works according to the TLG database.

This mundane phrase, which is simply a combination of ways to signify something being the case even to the present, does not appear in its entirety elsewhere in Josephus, but it does resemble other constructions he wrote. But because the phrase consists of four common words, one cannot make much out of the observation according to TLG that it is rare in our extant texts, nor can similar expressions be dismissed as relevant. Overall, this is neutral evidence on authenticity.

“The Tribe of Christians, from Whom They Were Named, Has Not Disappeared” (τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον)

Josephus does not use the term “Christian” elsewhere. But given his foci, this is unsurprising. On the one hand, this comports with how Jesus followers were referred to at the time (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet 4:16; Ignatius, Eph. 11:2; Magn. 4:1; Trall. 6:1; Rom. 3:2; Pol. 7:3), which was in a fashion resembling political groups like the Herodians to signify their allegiance to the one “from whom they were named.” On the other hand, this strengthens the evidence that Josephus said something previously about Jesus being referred to as “Christ” (i.e., that part would be at least moderate in strength). This would explain why followers of one named “Jesus” were named “Christians.”

The prepositional phrase is unusual, but Josephus does use it (J.W. 3.515). The combination of the following term with the preposition appears mostly in Josephus’s earlier work (Ant. 1.123; J.W. 1.407; 5.162, 166, 171). The verb combined with the negative appears on a few occasions (Ant. 3.29; 7.159; 15.2; J.W. 1.482). Likewise, the reference to a “tribe” combined with a genitive appears a few other times (Ant. 2.306; J.W. 2.366, 374, 397; 3.354; 7.327; Ag. Ap. 2.127), and one can see from these examples that the phrasing is not suggestive of another “nation.”¹⁵ Moreover, other non-Christians used similar descriptions about Christians (Suetonius, Nero 6.16.2; Martyrdom of Ignatius 11.3; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.33.2–4; Sozomen, Hist. eccl. 2.9.5). The Latin and Syriac witnesses do not attest to this precise terminology, but they each support some kind of categorization that refers to the “Christians” as a distinct group named after “Christ.”

This last portion of the TF presents moderate evidence of authenticity. It is linked with a previous part that explains why a group named from Jesus bore the name “Christians.” The terminology fits other Josephan texts. And the apparent surprise that the Christians have not yet disappeared is less likely to have been composed by a Christian. By contrast, it makes sense for Josephus to write this kind of remark, considering that he mentions other would-be messiahs, would-be kings, and would-be prophets whose movements dissolved after their deaths.

Conclusion

There are more matters to explore related to the TF, including Josephus’s possible sources, analysis of its history of transmission, what it tells us about Jesus and the Christians, and so on. But these go beyond our focus here. Schmidt’s dissertation is a good resource for more information, and he can point readers to still other sources.

Before this deep dive, I was content to accept the majority position that there were some interpolations in the TF. Most of the Greek text made sense as coming from a non-Christian, and I thought there were a few parts that may have been interpolations, such as the references to Jesus as Christ/the Messiah and his resurrection. But on closer inspection, I think I misjudged how positive the presentation in the text is when there are multiple ambiguities that are more likely neutral or negative in meaning. This includes even the reference to how Jesus “appeared to them” to be alive again. In fact, there are good cases for the proposition that the Greek text as we have it is missing words that would make them sound even less like they came from a Christian writer. The apparently most glaring case of interpolation with the declaration that “this one was the Christ” is probably not what Josephus originally wrote, but it also is not as obviously what an overzealous Christian scribe would have written either. More likely, one or two words have fallen out of this statement that has been preserved in texts outside of the Greek.

It is an ambiguous text that, particularly with the missing words, was understandably taken as positive about Jesus, but it is more likely that the text was neutral-to-negative. It also corroborates the NT while differentiating itself from it in a way that one would not expect of a Christian author. It may be that one piece as it stands in the Greek suggests that it was not written by Josephus (though I have argued this was not the earliest reading). Other parts are ambiguous, arguably too ambiguous for an overzealous Christian interpolator to write. Some pieces are simply neutral in force. Others are weak indicators pointing to authenticity without the distinctiveness and broad support that would make for stronger evidence. Still other pieces are moderate or moderate-to-strong evidence for authenticity. In the absence of stronger evidence pointing against authenticity, this positive evidence suffices to indicate authenticity for the text as a whole and the various parts therein. The manuscript evidence, other witnesses (especially the quotes in other languages), and the broader context of this statement all contribute to the conclusion that Josephus did, in fact, write about Jesus and that the text as we have it largely reflects what he wrote, albeit with some words missing here and there.

1. Josephus, Ant. 18.63–64 (Feldman, LCL [433]).

2. For examples, see Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a ‘Neutral’ Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on Antiquitates Judaicae 18.63-64,” JSJ 45 (2014): 326–65; John Curran, “‘To Be or to Be Thought to Be’: The Testimonium Flavianum (Again),” NovT 59 (2017): 71–94.

3. Cf. Theodoret, Comm. Dan. 12.

4. This is especially remarkable in the case of Demonstration, where it would fit his purpose (1.1) to draw attention to Josephus’s apparent support for these claims.

5. It is noteworthy, though, that these authors did not think Josephus was a Christian. Thus, many of them were compelled to offer some explanation of why he remained a Jew.

6. Translation from T. C. Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2025), 49.

7. Translation from Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, 51.

8. Jerry Vardaman, “Jesus’ Life: A New Chronology,” in Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan, ed. Jerry Vardaman and Edwin M. Yamauchi (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989), 55–82.

9. Josephus, Ant. 1.213; 2.4; 3.134; 13.250; 18.310; 20.51, 76, 118, 173, 230; J.W. 1.45, 86, 91, 99, 648; 4.76, 208.

10. Josephus, Ant. 2.209; 17.14; J.W. 1.87, 128, 189, 205, 292, 499, 517, 568.

11. Similar belittling uses of the pronoun specifically with reference to Jesus appear in Acts 25:19 and Justin, Dial. 108.2.

12. Justin Martyr, Dial., 126.1; Irenaeus, Haer., 2.30.10; 3.24.2; 4.7.3; 4.20; 5.18; Origen, Comm. John 1.109–111, 289; Eusebius of Caesarea, Hist. eccl. 1.2.2–3; Cosmas of Maiuma, Kanon for the Fifth Day of Great Week, Ninth Ode; Prudentius, Hymns for Every Day 11, a Hymn for Christmas Day; Athanasius, Inc. 16; 19; 31–32; 46; 48; Augustine, Tract. Ev. John 1.16–17; Augustine, Doctr. chr. 1.12. Also see here, here, here, and here.

13. I would be inclined to weight it more heavily than “weak-to-moderate” if there was testimony to it in Greek sources and the expanded construction had more direct parallels in Josephus.

14. Louis H. Feldman, “On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum Attributed to Josephus,” in New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations: In Honor of David Berger, ed. Elisheva Carlebach and Jacob J. Schachter, BRLA 33 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 13–30, esp. 26–28.

15. Contra Feldman, “Authenticity,” 25. See also Ant. 13.430; 14.115; J.W. 2.128, 379, 381.