Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum

Sid Sudiacal
Sid Sudiacal

Introduction

When asked to provide for the proof of Jesus’ existence outside the canonical scriptures

of Christianity, many turn their eyes to the Jew, Flavius Josephus to posit an answer. Josephus

was the first official historian1 and such a position of power gives credence to his words. In his

Jewish Antiquities, the controversial Testimonium Flavianum attests to the historicity of Jesus’

life. Many Christians have used this passage to prove that there was a man named Jesus who

walked, talked and lived among people. However, in light of recent scholarship, this piece of text

is now being closely scrutinized and examined. Current literature is divided about its

authenticity. Some scholars i) regard it to be true, ii) regard it to be false, or iii) that Josephus did

write it, but Christian interpolations have been added to it. This paper will examine the Christian

interpolations woven through the current Testimonium, the possibility of Josephus and Luke

sharing the same source materials, various passages that prove the Testimonium as distinctly

Josephan, look at the authorship issues surrounding Eusebius and give a hypothesis for the

reason why changes were made in the Testimonium. It is this author’s intent to maintain the

claim that the Testimonium Flavianum, while originally written by Josephus, has been handed

down to us in a revised form as it passed through the hands of Christian scribes.

Testimonium Flavianum

In chapter 18 of Josephus’ work, The Jewish Antiquities, we find a piece of text most

commonly known as the Testimonium Flavianum.

1
Sanford, Propaganda, 129.
Sid Sudiacal

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he
was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And
he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was
the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among
us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do
so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had
spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very
day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.
Meier believes that there are three Christian interpolations within this text: i) “if indeed one

should call him a man” ii) “he was the Messiah” and iii) the affirmation of an appearance after

death in “For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had

spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him.” 2 The first interpolation, “if

indeed one should call him a man”, is a statement that seems implausible coming from a Jew.

Granted, Josephus sets a precedent elsewhere in his work, in describing men like Daniel and

Solomon to be wise.3 However, “a Christian scribe would not deny that Jesus was a wise man,

but would feel that label insufficient for one who was believed to be God as well as man.”4 The

second interpolation is “clearly a Christian profession of faith.”5 It is nearly impossible for a Jew

of Josephus’ stature to proffer such a statement. Thus, its veracity is seriously questioned. The

fact that Origen mentions that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah lends

credence to the fact that this may have been a later addition 6 or the fact that he did not have

access to this passage.7 Origen was a

keen linguist, and even the presence of a word for "certain" would have been enough to
allow him to understand the true position of Josephus. As he died about 253 CE, the

2
Meier, Jesus in Josephus, 84.
3
Vermes, Jesus Notice, 3.
4
Meier, Jesus in Josephus, 85.
5
Meier, Jesus in Josephus, 85.
6
Zeitlin, Christ passage, 234.
7
Bammel, Variant form, 147.
Sid Sudiacal

chances are that he had seen that ηιρ and had understood it correctly. He would know that
Josephus had promised to relate everything as he found it, leaving out nothing, and he
would value the testimonium accordingly, not as a Christian endorsement but as a Jewish
admission of known facts.8
The third interpolation is another example of a Christian profession. When this line is removed,

the text flows in a more acceptable way. Without these interpolations, this is the revised text that

we are left with

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a
teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both
among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when [or better: although]
Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to
the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this
very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) has not died out.9
According to Meier, “the simple extraction of the three obviously Christian statements within the

Testimonium yields the original or "core" text Josephus wrote, with no need to rewrite any words

or phrases in the core.”10 The removal of the aforementioned interpolations also adds to a clear

flow of thought within the passage.

Lukan influence on Josephus

Goldberg examines the possibility that Josephus and Luke may have shared a common

source based on the similarity of the Testimonium with the Emmaus narrative in Luke.11 Through

most of the Antiquities, Josephus uses the third person instead of the first person when talking

about the Jews. How then does “the principal men among us” fit within this schema? In other

passages, when Josephus uses the first person, there is a clear reason for it. For example, he

8
Magoun, Eisler, 86.
9
Meier, Jesus in Josephus, 87.
10
Meier, Jesus in Josephus, 77.
11
Goldberg, Coincidences, 8.
Sid Sudiacal

would say “our customs” or “our laws” to non-Jewish readers.12 In this passage, however, there

seems to be no clear reason for doing so. But, this passage resembles Cleopas’ speech in the

Emmaus narrative. When talking to the stranger (Jesus in disguise), he refers to “the chief priests

and leaders of us.” If Josephus and Luke had a similar source, this could be merely a reflection of

Jewish Christian ideas that Josephus employs in the Testimonium Flavianum. This, then, would

mark it as distinctly Josephan and not a complete interpolation as some might suggest.

The “wise man” and “doer of astonishing deeds”

Josephus uses the term ζοθὸρ ανήπ to describe the wisdom of Solomon and Daniel. He also uses

παπαδοξων επγων ποιηηηρ to refer to the actions of Elisha.13 These terms then cannot be deemed

as Christian interpolations. Looking at the New Testament, the word “wise” tends to be used in a

pejorative sense. For example, in Matt. 11:25, the “wise” are seen in a negative lens compared to

the “babes.”14 It would be strange for a Christian interpolator to say something that does not even

support his own theological convictions, much less to attribute it to another individual. “In the

few instances where the term is employed positively, it relates to Christian teachers, but never to

Jesus himself.”15 Also, instead of παπαδοξων επγων, a “Christian forger would have selected a

New Testament term such as 'mighty deeds' (δςωαμειρ) or 'signs' (ζημεια).”16 The use of

παπαδοξων in Josephus’ work also betrays the Jewish influence that is in the Testimonium.

Vermes states that “as a matter of fact, students of Josephus seem to agree that the word best

12
Goldberg, Coincidences, 10.
13
Vermes, Jesus Notice, 3.
14
Vermes, Jesus Notice, 5.
15
Vermes, Jesus Notice, 5.
16
Vermes, Jesus Notice, 6.
Sid Sudiacal

expressing his notion of 'miracle' is ζημειον, sign.”17 The “astonishing deeds” mentioned in the

passage does not have the same connotation of miracle that it has today. Vermes remarks that

it is possible therefore that by describing Jesus as 'wise man' and 'performer of

paradoxical deeds', Josephus achieved what few if any of his successors, ancient or
modern, have done, namely that by neither approving nor disproving of him, he managed
to sketch a portrait of the Galilean master that is in a true sense sine ira et studio.18

Dealing with James, the brother of Christ

Though much controversy surrounds the Testimonium, the majority of scholars recognize

that the passage about James, the brother of Christ is authentic. In Chapter 20 of Antiquities, we

find this passage

Ananus thought that he had a favourable opportunity because Festus was dead and
Albinus was still on the way. And so he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and
brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ,
and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them
up to be stoned.
Five arguments are put forth to prove the authenticity of this passage:

i) Ιt occurs in all the surviving manuscripts of Antiquitates Judaicae 20.

ii) Ιt is told in typically Josephan language, and it contains no glorification of James
or of Jesus which we would expect a Christian interpolator to have used.
iii) Α Christian interpolator would not say that Jesus "was called the Christ" or that
James was "the brother of Jesus."
iv) Τhe account of James' death differs in chronology and circumstances from the
Christian accounts recorded by Clement and Hegesippus, which a Christian
interpolator would presumably have followed.
v) Origen and Eusebius provide early outside attestation of the passage.19

17
Vermes, Jesus Notice, 7.
18
Vermes, Jesus Notice, 10.
19
Olson, Eusebius, 314.
Sid Sudiacal

The manner in which James is referenced in this passage has no precedence in either the New

Testament or among early Christian writers. Usually, he is treated with more reverence and

addressed as “the brother of the Lord” or “the brother of the Saviour.” The rather matter-of-fact

way in which he is addressed in the passage cannot be attributed to a Christian author.20 This is

also the only other passage where Jesus is mentioned in all of Josephus’ works which denotes its

importance in reference to the more contested Testimonium passage. Because this comes after the

Testimonium, some scholars suggest that there must have been a previous mention by Josephus

about the identity of Jesus as Christ to let his readers know which Jesus he is referring to.21

Magous refers to this when he says that

the Ananus passage is never questioned; but if it is genuine, it is impossible to escape the
conclusion that Josephus had previously referred to Jesus in the way just mentioned, since,
otherwise, this later statement about James becomes pointless so far as Jesus is concerned. The
reference as it stands is plainly intended to suggest a Jesus already mentioned in some previous
connection, and that connection must have been in the disputed passage, because no other exists
in his writings in which this Jesus is mentioned.22

Eusebius: author of the Testimonium Flavianum?

Most of the discussion so far asserts that the Testimonium is Josephan in nature, although

tainted by Christian interpolations. There are some scholars who would argue that the

Testimonium not only contains Christian interpolation, but instead is a complete fabrication by

Eusebius. Olson argues that

no author cites the Testimonium before Eusebius, nor does any author cite it for nearly a
century after Eusebius. Eusebius himself cites it three times, always to refute pagan
attacks on Jesus'character, and we know from other examples that Eusebius incorrectly
attributes to Josephus views that support his own. The passage is made up of vocabulary
20
Meier, Jesus in Josephus, 80.
21
Mason, Josephus and the NT, 172.
22
Magoun, Eisler, 79.
Sid Sudiacal

and concepts paralleled in Eusebius' works Contra Hieroclem, Demonstratio evangelica,

and Historia ecclesiastica. Complete certainty is unattainable, but we have very good
reasons to suppose that Eusebius wrote the Testimonium.23

He further states that “Josephus uses the word phylon, "race, nation, tribe," to describe the Jewish

nation and specific Gentile nations, but it is unlikely that he regarded Christians as a new nation,

distinct from Jews and Gentiles, as Christian writers did.”24 However, the phrase “tribe of

Christian” can be found twice in Eusebius’ works but not found elsewhere among early Christian

writers.25

Sanders opine that “the historical works of Flavius Josephus have been constantly subject

to interpolation, revision and censorship in the interest of various religious and political views.”26

Christianity has much to gain in Josephus after all. In Josephus, Christians have an outsider who

can give an account of the life of its leader, thus proving its legitimacy to those sceptical of it.

Eusebius knew and was familiar with Josephus’ writings. It may be that the very reason why the

Testimonium possesses its Josephan flavour is due to the skill with which Eusebius has forged

his style. The Testimonium, after all, is the only account of Jesus in Josephus’ body of work. If

Eusebius was capable of authoring the Testimonium, it can mean that other Christian scribes also

have the ability to modify the James passage since

the texts containing the passage about James also contain the Testimonium, which is
admitted to contain Christian interpolations. If Christian interpolations managed to find
their way into these texts in the case of the Testimonium, we have no reason to believe
that they could not have done so in the case of the passage about James as well.27

23
Olson, Eusebius, 322.
24
Olson, Eusebius , 312.
25
Olson, Eusebius , 312.
26
Sanford, Propaganda, 127.
27
Olson, Eusebius, 315.
Sid Sudiacal

As was previously stated, there is no mention of the Testimonium before Eusebius. As well, there

are only three copies of Books 18-20 of the Antiquities in existence.28 The oldest of these

manuscripts date back to the eleventh century.29 In authoring the Testimonium, Eusebius is able

to further Christianity’s legitimacy. It is because of the Testimonium and Eusebius’ lavish use of

it that Josephus’ works were faithfully transcribed over the years.30 Scribes were essential in

transmitting the written work of many authors. Because transcribing works of literature was such

a laborious process, only certain books were written and re-written over time. Without this

controversial piece of text, one could only wonder if Josephus would be even known today.

Among the different opinions and arguments against the Testimonium, the argument that

Eusebius wrote the entire Testimonium is one that needs to be seriously considered. It is one

thing to accept the possibility that Christian scribes and copyists may have added Christian

interpolations into the text but the assertion that it is a complete fabrication needs to be

vigorously examined. Eisler deals with this accusation and retorts that

if Eusebius had invented the Testimonium Flavianum he would not cite in three different
works of his three different versions of it, repeating with scrupulous exactitude what he
read in the various Josephus MSS. in the libraries of Caesarea, Aelia Capitolina
(Jerusalem) and Constantinople. If he quoted his own forgery, he could not reproduce it
with variae lectiones, among them the haughty, markedly anti-Christian expression
=Ihsouρ tiρ" a certain Jesus," "one Jesus," which the revisers expurgated in all extant
MSS. of Josephus.31

Josephus mentions that Jesus “equally (pollous men. .. pollous de kai) won a large following

among both Jews and Gentiles.”32 Yet, this opinion is markedly different from what can be seen

28
Olson, Eusebius, 322.
29
Pharr, Testimony, 140.
30
Sanford, Propaganda, 132.
31
Eisler, Josephus on Jesus, 26.
32
Meier, Jesus in Josephus, 94.
Sid Sudiacal

in the Gospels. The Gospels are replete with examples of Jesus relating and ministering to the

Jews, but his interaction with Gentiles is limited. Meier notes that

unless we want to fantasize about a Christian interpolator who is intent on inserting a

summary of Jesus' ministry into Josephus and who nevertheless wishes to contradict what
the Gospels say about Jesus' ministry, the obvious conclusion to draw is that the core of
the Testimonium comes from a non-Christian hand, namely, Josephus'.33

If this statement is true, there still remains a need to struggle with the reason behind such a

statement by Josephus. Meier’s analysis of the situation leads him to believe that

Josephus simply retrojected the situation of his own day, when the original "Jews for
Jesus" had gained many Gentile converts, into the time of Jesus. Naive retrojection is a
common trait of Greco-Roman historians.34

While there are parts of the Testimonium that have distinct Christian flavour, it cannot be said

that the whole is a fabrication. The Jews around the time of Eusebius would have been familiar

with Josephus’ work and a fabrication of this magnitude to go unnoticed seems unlikely.35

The whole controversy surrounding the Testimonium and the studies conducted

concerning this issue is driven by the desire to find out what was the original form of the

Testimonium. Bell, influenced by Pharr’s thesis, speculates that the Testimonium may have

“originally contained a derogatory account of the manner of Jesus' birth.”36 As a result, when

Christianity came into power, the offending passage was removed and altered. However, one

does not need to go to such extremes to try and explain the Christian interpolations. Meier claims

that

the neutral, or ambiguous, or perhaps somewhat dismissive tone of the Testimonium is

probably the reason why early Christian writers (especially the apologists of the second

33
Meier, Jesus in Josephus, 94.
34
Meier, Jesus in Josephus, 94.
35
Magoun, Eisler, 91.
36
Bell, Satirist, 22.
Sid Sudiacal

century) passed over it in silence, why Origen complained that Josephus did not believe
that Jesus was the Christ, and why some interpolators) in the late third century added
Christian affirmations.37

This interpretation best realizes the position being defended in this essay: that Josephus was the

main author of the Testimonium but Christian interpolations were added later on, precisely

because of Josephus’ neutral stance on the issue.

Conclusion

In the ninth century, Bishop Amulo complained that many were forsaking the study of

the Bible as they study the works of Josephus instead.38 The works of Josephus were largely read

by Eastern and Western Christianity for a very long time. After all, he was the Jew who affirmed

the identity of Jesus. Further investigation and examination of the Testimonium passage leads to

a deeper understanding that even “if the whole is not authentic, there is at least a Josephan

nucleus.”39 Josephus, the Jew, is still able to give Christianity the evidence they need to prove

the existence of the historical Jesus.

37
Meier, Jesus in Josephus, 99.
38
Clemen, Christianity, 361.
39
Thackeray, Josephus, 138.
Sid Sudiacal

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bammel, Ernst. "A New Variant Form of the Testimonium Flavianum." The Expository Times 85
(1974): 145-147).

Bell Jr., Albert A.. "Josephus the Satirist? A Clue to the Original Form of the "Testimonium
Flavianum"." The Jewish Quarterly Review 67, no. 1 (1976): 16-22.

Clemen, Carl. "Josephus and Christianity." The Biblical World 25, no. 5 (1905): 362-375.

Eisler, Robert. "Flavius Josephus on Jesus Called the Christ." The Jewish Quarterly Review 21,
no. 1/2 (1930).

Goldberg, Gary . "The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of
Josephus." The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 7, no. 13 (1995): 59-77.

Magoun, Herbert William. "Eisler on the Josephus passage." Bibliotheca Sacra 92, no. 365
(1935): 77-94.

Mason, Steve. Josephus and the New Testament. Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1992.

Matthews Sanford, Eva. "Propaganda and Censorship in the Transmission of Josephus."

Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 66 (1935): 127-
145.

Meier, John P.. "Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52, no. 1
(1990): 76-103.

Olson, K.A.. "Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 2
(1999): 305-322.

Pharr, Clyde. "The Testimony of Josephus to Christianity." The American Journal of Philology
48, no. 2 (1927): 137-147

Thackeray, John. Josephus: the Man and the Historian. New York: Jewish Institute Of Religion
Press, 1929.

Thackeray, John. Josephus: the Man and the Historian. New York: Jewish Institute Of Religion
Press, 1929.

Vermes, Geza. "The Jesus Notice of Josephus Re-Examined." Journal of Jewish Studies 38, no.
1 (1987): 1-10.
Sid Sudiacal

Zeitlin, Solomon . "Josephus on Jesus." The Jewish Quarterly Review 21, no. 4 (1931): 377-417.