View source for Josephus on Jesus

{{Short description|none}}
[[File:Josephus Antiquitates Iudaice.jpg|thumb|A 1466 edition of ''[[Antiquities of the Jews]]'']]
{{Jesus|expanded=perspectives}}
[[Flavius Josephus]] was a first-century Jewish historian who provided external information on some people and events found in the New Testament.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Josephus |first1=Flavius |last2=Whiston |first2=William |last3=Maier |first3=Paul L. |title=The New Complete Works of Josephus |date=1999 |publisher=Kregel |location=Grand Rapids, Michigan |isbn=978-0-8254-2948-4 |pages=7–8}}</ref> 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.{{sfn|Schmidt|2025|pp=9,145-147,149-151,188}} The extant [[manuscript]]s of Josephus' book ''[[Antiquities of the Jews]]'', written {{circa|AD&nbsp;93–94}}, contain two references to [[Jesus]] of Nazareth and one reference to [[John the Baptist]].{{sfnm |1a1=Feldman |1a2=Hata |1y=1987 |1pp=54–57 |2a1=Flavius Josephus |2a2=Maier |2y=1995 |2p=12}}

The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the ''Antiquities'', found in [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XVIII#Chapter 3|Book 18]], states that Jesus was the [[Messiah]] and a wise teacher who was crucified by [[Pontius Pilate]]. It is commonly called the ''{{lang|la|[[#The Testimonium Flavianum|Testimonium Flavianum]]}}''.{{sfnm |1a1=Feldman |1a2=Hata |1y=1987 |1pp=54–57 |2a1=Maier |2y=2007 |2pp=336–337 |3a1=Schreckenberg |3a2=Schubert |3y=1992a |3pp=38–41}} The passage exists in all extant manuscripts of ''Antiquities''.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Whealey |first1=Alice |title=A Companion to Josephus |date=2015 |publisher=Wiley Blackwell |isbn=978-1-118-32516-2 |page=345 |chapter=The Testimonium Flavianum |quote=By far the most famous part of Josephus's works is the so-called Testimonium Flavianum, a brief passage about Jesus of Nazareth that appears in all extant manuscripts of the eighteenth book of Jewish Antiquities (18.63–64).}}</ref>{{sfn|Schmidt|2025|pp=1}} 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 the Greek text.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Whealey |first1=Alice |title=A Companion to Josephus |date=2015 |publisher=Wiley Blackwell |isbn=978-1-118-32516-2 |page=354 |chapter=The Testimonium Flavianum |quote=By the late twentieth century, the view that the text was partly authentic gained scholarly ground: in part because stylistic studies revealed it to be closer to Josephus’s language than was once assumed, and in part because scholars of the primitive church no longer assume that a Jew of priestly background—like Josephus—could not have written in such a positive way about Jesus or those he attracted. The discovery that a literal Syriac translation of the text containing a phrase parallel to Jerome’s phrase reading “he was believed to be the Christ” reveals that there must once have been a Greek Testimonium with such a reading, and this has played a role in shifting the view that the text is at least partly authentic towards what seems to be a current scholarly consensus}}</ref>{{sfnm |1a1=Maier |1y=2007 |1pp=336–337 |2a1=Schreckenberg |2a2=Schubert |2y=1992a |2pp=38–41 |3a1=Dunn |3y=2003 |3p=141 |4a1=Kostenberger |4a2=Kellum |4a3=Quarles |4y=2009 |4pp=104–108 |5a1=Evans |5y=2001 |5p=316 |6a1=Wansbrough |6y=2004 |6p=185 |7a1=Van Voorst |7y=2003 |7pp=509–511}}<ref name="Ehrman" /> However, the exact nature and extent of the original statement remains unclear.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Cohen |first=Shaye J. D. |title=Josephus |encyclopedia=The Jewish Annotated New Testament |editor1-last=Levine |editor1-first=Amy-Jill |editor2-last=Brettler |editor2-first=Marc Zvi |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-19-529770-6 |url=https://archive.org/details/jewishannotatedn0000unse/page/576 |page=[https://archive.org/details/jewishannotatedn0000unse/page/576 576] |quote=Most modern scholars believe that Josephus could not have written this text as we have it... Scholars disagree about exactly how to reconstruct the original of the passage.}}</ref><ref>Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Robert McLachlan Wilson, ''New Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and Related Writings'', p. 490 (James Clarke & Co. Ltd, 2003). {{ISBN|0-664-22721-X}}</ref> Many modern scholars believe that an Arabic version that was discovered by [[Shlomo Pines]] reflects the state of Josephus' original text.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|p=106}}  

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the ''Antiquities'', found in [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX#Chapter 9|Book 20, Chapter 9]], which mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".<ref name=Feldman557>[[Louis Feldman]] ({{ISBN|90-04-08554-8}} pp. 55–57) states that the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James has been "almost universally acknowledged".</ref>{{sfnm |1a1=Van Voorst |1y=2000 |1p=83 |2a1=Feldman |2a2=Hata |2y=1987 |2pp=54–57 |3a1=Flavius Josephus |3a2=Maier |3y=1995 |3pp=284–285 |4a1=Bauckham |4y=1999 |4pp=199–203 |5a1=Painter |5y=2005 |5pp=134–141}}<ref name=refsummary>Sample quotes from previous references: Van Voorst ({{ISBN|0-8028-4368-9}} p. 83) states that the overwhelming majority of scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as authentic". Bauckham ({{ISBN|90-04-11550-1}} pp. 199–203) states: "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic". Meir ({{ISBN|978-0-8254-3260-6}} pp. 108–109) agrees with Feldman that few have questioned the authenticity of the James passage. Setzer ({{ISBN|0-8006-2680-X}} pp. 108–109) also states that few have questioned its authenticity.</ref><ref>{{cite book |first=Luke Timothy |last=Johnson |year=2005 |title=The letter of James: a new translation with introduction and commentary |publisher=New Haven; London: Yale University Press |page=98}}</ref>

Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XVIII#Chapter 5|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]].{{sfnm |1a1=Evans |1y=2006 |1pp=55–58 |2a1=Bromiley |2y=1982 |2pp=694–695 |3a1=White |3y=2010 |3p=48}} A number of differences exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the death of John the Baptist and the [[New Testament]] accounts.{{sfnm |1a1=Evans |1y=2006 |1pp=55–58 |2a1=Painter |2y=2005 |2pp=143–145}} 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.{{sfnm |1a1=Evans |1y=2006 |1pp=55–58 |2a1=Eddy |2a2=Boyd |2y=2007 |2p=130 |3a1=Painter |3y=2005 |3pp=143–145}} Scholars have provided explanations for their inclusion in Josephus' later works.{{sfn|Feldman|1984|p=826}}

== Extant manuscripts ==
[[File:WorksJosephus1640TP.jpg|thumb|upright=0.85|A 1640 edition of the ''Works of Josephus'']]
Josephus wrote all of his surviving works after his establishment in Rome ({{circa|AD&nbsp;71}}) under the patronage of the Flavian Emperor [[Vespasian]]. As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no known manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the eleventh century, and the oldest which do survive were copied by Christian monks.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1989|p=431}} Jews are not known to have preserved the writings of Josephus perhaps because he was considered a traitor,{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Leeming|Osinkina|Leeming|2003|p=26}} or because his works circulated in Greek, the use of which declined among Jews shortly after Josephus' era.

There are about 120 extant Greek manuscripts of Josephus, of which 33 predate the fourteenth century, with two thirds from the [[Komnenos]] period.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=369}} The earliest surviving Greek manuscript that contains the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is the eleventh-century Ambrosianus 370 (F 128), preserved in the [[Biblioteca Ambrosiana]] in Milan, which includes almost all of the second half of the ''Antiquities''.{{sfn|Mason|2001|p=LI}} There are about 170 extant Latin translations of Josephus, some of which go back to the sixth century. According to [[Louis Feldman]] these have proven very useful in reconstructing the Josephus texts through comparisons with the Greek manuscripts, confirming proper names and filling in gaps.{{sfn|Feldman|1984}} One of the reasons the works of Josephus were copied and maintained by Christians was that his writings provided a good deal of information about a number of figures mentioned in the New Testament, and the background to events such as the death of James during a gap in Roman governing authority.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=83}}

=== Slavonic Josephus ===
{{Main|Slavonic Josephus}}
The three references found in [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XVIII|Book 18]] and [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX|Book 20]] of the ''Antiquities'' do not appear in any other versions of ''[[The Jewish War]]'' except for a [[Church Slavonic language|Slavonic]] version of the ''Testimonium Flavianum'' (at times called ''{{lang|la|Testimonium Slavonium}}'') which surfaced in the west at the beginning of the twentieth century, after its discovery in Russia at the end of the nineteenth century.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=85}}{{sfn|Creed|1932}}

Although originally hailed as authentic (notably by [[Robert Eisler]]), it is now almost universally acknowledged by scholars to have been the product of an eleventh-century creation as part of a larger ideological struggle against the [[Khazars]].{{sfn|Bowman|1987|pp=373–374}} As a result, it has little place in the ongoing debate over the authenticity and nature of the references to Jesus in the ''Antiquities''.{{sfn|Bowman|1987|pp=373–374}} [[Craig A. Evans]] states that although some scholars had in the past supported the ''Slavonic Josephus'', "to my knowledge no one today believes that they contain anything of value for Jesus research".{{sfn|Chilton|Evans|1998|p=451}}

=== Arabic and Syriac Josephus ===
In 1971, a tenth-century Arabic version of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' from the [[chronicle]] of [[Agapius of Hierapolis]] was brought to light by [[Shlomo Pines]], who also discovered a twelfth-century [[Syriac language|Syriac]] version of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' in the chronicle of [[Michael the Syrian]].{{sfn|Pines|1971|p=19}}{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336–337}}{{sfn|Feldman|2006|pp=329–330}} These additional manuscript sources of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' have furnished additional ways to evaluate Josephus' mention of Jesus in the ''Antiquities'', principally through a close textual comparison between the Arabic, Syriac and Greek versions to the ''Testimonium''.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=105–106}}{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=97}}

There are subtle yet key differences between the Greek manuscripts and these texts. For instance, the Arabic version does not blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. The key phrase "at the suggestion of the principal men among us" reads instead "Pilate condemned him to be crucified".{{sfn|Habermas|1996|p=194}}{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|p=106}} Instead of "he was Christ", the Syriac version has the phrase "he was believed to be Christ".{{sfn|Vermes|2011|pp=33–44}} Drawing on these textual variations, scholars have suggested that these versions of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' more closely reflect what a non-Christian Jew might have written.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336–337}}

==== Potential dependence on Eusebius ====
In 2008, however, [[Alice Whealey]] published an article arguing that Agapius' and Michael's versions of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' are not independent witnesses to the original text of Josephus' ''Antiquities''. Rather, they both ultimately derive from the Syriac translation of the ''[[Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius)|Ecclesiastical History]]'' written by [[Eusebius]], which in turn quotes the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}''. Whealey notes that Michael's Syriac ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' shares several peculiar choices of vocabulary with the version found in the Syriac translation of the ''Ecclesiastical History''. These words and phrases are not shared by an independent Syriac translation of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' from Eusebius' book ''Theophania'', strongly indicating that Agapius's text is simply a paraphrased quotation from the Syriac ''Ecclesiastical History'', and not a direct quotation of Josephus himself. Michael's text, in contrast, she concludes is much closer to what Josephus actually wrote.{{sfn|Whealey|2008|pp=578-579}}

One of the key prongs in her argument is that Agapius' and Michael's ''{{lang|la|Testimonia}}'' share the unique peculiarity that they both explicitly state that Jesus died after being condemned to the cross, while the Greek original does not include this detail. According to Whealey, the differences between the two ''{{lang|la|Testimonia}}'' are simply due to the fact that Agapius' chronicle more freely paraphrases and abbreviates its sources, whereas Michael's version is probably a verbatim copy.{{sfn|Whealey|2008|p=578}} The implication of this argument, if valid, is that Agapius' abbreviated ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' cannot be an earlier version of the passage than what we find in extant manuscripts of Josephus' ''Antiquities''.

Whealey furthermore notices that Michael's version of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' shares common features with Jerome's Latin translation. Most importantly for her, instead of "he was the Messiah", as in the Greek ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'', Jerome's and Michael's versions both read, "he was thought to be the Messiah". She considers it likely, therefore, that the Latin and Arabic translations go back to an original Greek version with the same reading.{{sfn|Whealey|2008|pp=580–581}} Since they otherwise have no substantial disagreement from the Greek version we possess, and since that sole variant is sufficient to explain the most powerful objections to the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}''{{'}}s integrity, she concludes that it is "the only major alteration" that has been made to what Josephus originally wrote.{{sfn|Whealey|2008|p=588}}

== The ''<span lang="la">Testimonium Flavianum</span>'' ==
{{quote box|align=right|width=35%|title=''{{lang|la|Testimonium Flavianum}}''|quote=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.|source=—''Antiquities of the Jews'', [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XVIII#Chapter 3|Book 18, Chapter 3, 3]]<ref>''Antiquities of the Jews'', [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XVIII#Chapter 3|Book 18, Chapter 3, 3]], based on the translation of [[Louis H. Feldman]], The Loeb Classical Library. http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm</ref><ref name="Antiquities 18.3.3" />}}

The ''{{lang|la|Testimonium Flavianum}}'', meaning 'the testimony of Flavius Josephus', is a passage found in [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XVIII#Chapter 3|Book 18, Chapter 3, 3]]<ref name="Antiquities 18.3.3">Or see the [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0145%3Abook%3D18%3Awhiston+chapter%3D3%3Awhiston+section%3D3 Greek text].</ref> of the ''Antiquities'' which describes the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the Roman authorities.{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Whiston|Maier|1999|p=662}}{{sfn|Schreckenberg|Schubert|1992a|pp=38–41}} The ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is probably the most discussed passage in Josephus.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|pp=54–57}}

The earliest secure reference to this passage is found in the writings of the fourth-century [[Christian apologist]] and historian [[Eusebius]], who used Josephus' works extensively as a source for his own ''[[Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius)|Ecclesiastical History]]''. Writing no later than 324,{{sfn|Louth|1990|}} Eusebius quotes the passage{{sfn|McGiffert|2007}} in essentially the same form as that preserved in extant manuscripts. It has therefore been suggested by a minority of scholars that part or all of the passage may have been Eusebius' own invention, in order to provide an outside Jewish authority for the life of Christ.{{sfn|Olson|1999}}{{sfn|Wallace-Hadrill|2011}} Some argue that the wording in the {{lang|la|Testimonium}} differs from Josephus' usual writing style, and that a traditional Jew would not have proclaimed {{lang|grc|ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν}} ('he was the Christ', at Josephus' time simply meaning 'Messiah'.)<ref>Kenneth A. Olson, ''Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum''. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (2): 305, 1999</ref> See also the arguments for authenticity in the sections below.

The consensus among scholars is that while the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium Flavianum}}'' cannot be entirely authentic as received, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to [[Interpolation (manuscripts)|interpolation]].{{sfn|Schreckenberg|Schubert|1992a|pp=38–41}}{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=105–106}}{{sfn|Evans|2001|p=316}}{{sfn|Wansbrough|2004|p=185}}<ref>''The Jesus Legend'' by G. A. Wells 1996 {{ISBN|0-8126-9334-5}} p. 48: "... that Josephus made <em>some</em> reference to Jesus, which has been retouched by a Christian hand. This is the view argued by Meier as by most scholars today particularly since S. Pines..."</ref> [[James Dunn (theologian)|James Dunn]] states that there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=141}} Among other things, the authenticity of this passage would help make sense of the later reference in ''Antiquities'' [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX#Chapter 9|Book 20, Chapter 9, 1]] where Josephus refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus".{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Maier|1995|pp=284–285}}{{sfn|Vermes|2011|pp=33–44}}

=== Three perspectives on authenticity ===
[[File:Flavius Josephus 1582 by Froben.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|''The Complete Works of Josephus'', 1582]]
[[Paul L. Maier]] and Zvi Baras state that there are three possible perspectives on the authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'':
# It is entirely authentic.
# It is entirely a Christian forgery.
# It has authentic material about Jesus, but Christian interpolations exist in some parts.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336–337}}{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=339}}

Paul Maier states that the first case is generally seen as hopeless given that as a Jew, Josephus would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and that the second option is hardly tenable given the presence of the passage in all extant Greek manuscripts; thus a large majority of modern scholars accept partial authenticity.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336–337}} Baras adds that partial authenticity is more plausible because it accepts parts of the passage as genuine, but discounts other parts as interpolations.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=339}} [[Craig A. Evans]] and [[Robert E. Van Voorst]] state that most modern scholars accept the position that the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is partially authentic, had a kernel with an authentic reference to Jesus, and that the analysis of its content and style support this conclusion.{{sfn|Evans|2001|p=43}}{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|pp=509–511}}

While before the advent of [[literary criticism]] most scholars considered the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' entirely authentic, thereafter the number of supporters of full authenticity declined.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=89–90}} Most scholars now accept partial authenticity and many attempt to reconstruct their own version of the authentic kernel, and scholars such as [[Géza Vermes]] have argued that the overall characterizations of Jesus in the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' are in accord with the style and approach of Josephus.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=89–90}}{{sfn|Wansbrough|2004|p=185}}{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|p=106}}{{sfn|Vermes|2011|pp=40–44}}{{sfn|Evans|2001|p=316}}

=== Arguments for complete authenticity ===
==== Pre-modern criticism ====
Until the rise of modern criticism, many scholars believed the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' was nearly or completely authentic with little or no Christian interpolations.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=89}} Some of these arguments relied on the language used in the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}''. For instance, Jesus is called "a wise man" (and Josephus described others like Solomon, Daniel, and John the Baptist in the same fashion), which would not have been a common Christian label for Christ at the time. He referred to Jesus merely as "a worker of amazing deeds" and nothing more, again disagreeing with how Christians viewed Christ. Referring to Jesus as "a teacher of people who accept the truth with pleasure", where "pleasure" ({{lang|grc|ἡδονή}}) connotes [[hedonistic]] value, is not in line with how Christians saw the point of Jesus' teachings. Claiming that Jesus won over "both Jews and Greeks" is a misunderstanding that a Christian scribe would not likely have made, knowing that Jesus mainly ministered to Jews. Also, the phrase "Those who had first loved him did not cease doing so" is Josephan in style, and calling Christians a "tribe" would not have made sense to a Christian writer.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=89–90}}

==== Modern defense ====
In 2025, T. C. Schmidt defended the essential authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'', arguing that the passage only lost two or three words during its textual transmission. These are the Greek word "certain" ({{lang|grc|τις}}) in the opening sentence (which appears in Eusebius' quotation of Josephus in ''Ecclesiastical History'') and the phrase "thought to be the Christ" instead of "was the Christ", which is supported by several [[Latin]], [[Syriac language|Syriac]], [[Arabic]], and [[Armenian language|Armenian]] textual witnesses.{{sfn|Schmidt|2025|pp=5, 133–135}} From his statistical analysis of the vocabulary and frequency of terms from all the works of Josephus and the passage, the passage is Josephan.{{sfn|Schmidt|2025|pp=119,122}}

Schmidt argues that when adding those missing words the text of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' becomes ambiguous and can plausibly be interpreted as either a negative or neutral portrayal of Jesus, which is how most ancient Christian sources interpreted the passage.{{sfn|Schmidt|2025|p=5}} He also argues that the style and vocabulary of the passage find numerous parallels elsewhere in Josephus' works, and that other ancient Jewish and pagan writers frequently made comments about Jesus that were similar to those found in the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'', supporting the authenticity of the text.{{sfn|Schmidt|2025|pp=8, 128}}

Schmidt further argues that Josephus' sources for his account of Jesus can be identified, since the Jewish historian wrote that the "first men" ({{lang|grc|πρώτων ἀνδρῶν}}) were "among us" ({{lang|grc|παρ’ ἡμῖν}}), a phrase which Josephus always uses to refer to someone with whom he was personally acquainted. Josephus writes several times elsewhere that he was closely familiar with the "first men" ({{lang|grc|πρῶτοι}}) of Jerusalem beginning in the early 50s AD. Since he also knew some chief priests in Jerusalem and at least one leading member of the [[Sanhedrin]] at that time, Schmidt suggests that Josephus probably knew some of the "first men among us" who [[Sanhedrin trial of Jesus|accused Jesus]] a few decades before.{{sfn|Schmidt|2025|p=199}}

=== Paraphrase model ===
The ''paraphrase model'', advanced by G. J. Goldberg in 2022, is based on the observation that Josephus wrote most of the ''Jewish Antiquities'' by paraphrasing Greek and Hebrew sources.<ref name="Goldberg2022">{{Cite journal |last=Goldberg |first=Gary J. |date=Feb 2022 |title=Josephus's Paraphrase Style and the Testimonium Flavianum |url=https://brill.com/downloadpdf/journals/jshj/20/1/article-p1_2.xml |journal=Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus |volume=20 |issue=1 |pages=1–32 |doi=10.1163/17455197-bja10003 |s2cid=244296505 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Goldberg proposes that the Jesus passage in the ''Antiquities'' is also a paraphrase in the same manner. Josephus's methods of revising his sources have been well established and can be used to objectively test whether a proposed candidate source could have been adapted in the same way for the Jesus passage. In a phrase-by-phrase study, Goldberg finds that the Jesus account can be derived from Luke's Emmaus narrative using transformations Josephus is demonstrated to have employed in paraphrasing known sources for the ''Antiquities''. He finds these paraphrase precedents in word adoption, word and phrase substitution, content order preservation and content modification. As these stylistic pairings are unlike the relationships found among any other ancient Jesus texts, Goldberg proposes the most plausible explanation of these findings is that the Jesus passage in the ''Antiquities'' is indeed Josephus's paraphrase of a Christian text very much like, if not identical to, Luke's Emmaus narrative (Luke 24:18–24).

This paraphrase model, Goldberg argues, is not only a natural application of Josephus's writing processes but also resolves the questions that researchers have raised about the passage, shedding light on the origin of specific difficult phrases and accounting for its brevity and its mixture of Josephan language with a Christian credal structure. While many had previously suspected that an original Josephus passage had been edited by a later Christian to give the credal appearance, the paraphrase model argues such edits cannot explain the end-to-end consistency of a paraphrase relationship with the Emmaus text. The more plausible explanation is rather the reverse: an original Christian document was edited by Josephus by applying his usual revision method for the ''Antiquities''.

The historical implications of the model, Goldberg argues, include the following. First, it shows Jesus was a historical figure and not a myth, based on the reasoning that Josephus's treatment of his source indicates he thought it reliable; it must have conformed with what he knew of events under Pilate. The model also provides unique evidence about the dating of at least one passage of Luke's Gospel. And as the paraphrase shows Josephus had obtained a Christian source and treated it with a degree of respect, it provides an unexpected window into a cordial relationship between Christians and Jews in Rome at the end of the first century.

=== Arguments for presence of Christian interpolations ===
The ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' has been the subject of a great deal of research and debate among scholars, being one of the most discussed passages among all antiquities.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=f3KwlJSQr4cC&pg=PA55 55]}} Louis Feldman has stated that in the period from 1937 to 1980 at least 87 articles had appeared on the topic, the overwhelming majority of which questioned the total or partial authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}''.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1989|p=430}} While early scholars considered the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' to be a total forgery, the majority of modern scholars consider it partially authentic, despite some clear Christian interpolations in the text.{{sfn|Whealey|2003|pp=206–207}}{{sfn|Schwartz|2024|pp=75–77}}<ref>Meier, 1990 (especially note 15)</ref>

The arguments surrounding the authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' fall into two categories: internal arguments that rely on textual analysis and compare the passage with the rest of Josephus' work; and external arguments, that consider the wider cultural and historical context.<ref name="Paget">{{cite journal |last1=Paget |first1=J. C. |title=Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity |journal=The Journal of Theological Studies |volume=52 |issue=2 |year=2001 |pages=539–624 |issn=0022-5185 |doi=10.1093/jts/52.2.539}}</ref> Some of the external arguments are "arguments from silence" that question the authenticity of the entire passage not for what it says, but due to lack of references to it among other ancient sources.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=91–92}}

The external analyses of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' have even used computer-based methods, e.g. the matching of the text of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' with the [[Gospel of Luke]] performed by Gary Goldberg in 1995.<ref name="Goldberg1995">Goldberg, G. J. 1995 "The Coincidences of the [[Emmaus]] Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus" ''The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha'' 13, pp. 59–77 [http://www.josephus.org/GoldbergJosephusLuke1995.pdf]</ref> Goldberg found some partial matches between the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' and Luke 24:19–21, 26–27 stating "the Emmaus narrative more closely resembles the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' in its phrase-by-phrase outline of content and order than any other known text of comparable age."<ref name="Goldberg1995" /> Goldberg's analyses suggested three possibilities: that the matches were random, that the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' was a Christian interpolation based on Luke, or that both the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' and Luke were based on the same sources.<ref name="Goldberg1995" /> In a later work, published in 2022, Goldberg investigated Josephus's paraphrase style and concluded only the last of these possibilities could explain why the Emmaus-''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' language relationships were end-to-end consistent with Josephus's methods of revision.<ref name="Goldberg2022" />

=== Internal arguments ===
[[File:Works Translated by William Whiston.djvu|page=40|thumb|upright=0.7|right|An 1879 copy of the ''Antiquities'']]

==== Christian phraseology ====
One of the key internal arguments against the complete authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is that the clear inclusion of Christian phraseology strongly indicates the presence of some interpolations.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=91}} For instance, the phrases "if it be lawful to call him a man" suggests that Jesus was more than human and is likely a Christian interpolation.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=91}} Some scholars have attempted to reconstruct the original ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'', but others contend that attempts to discriminate the passage into Josephan and non-Josephan elements are inherently circular.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=340}}

==== Eusebian phraseology ====
Another example of the textual arguments against the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is that it uses the Greek term {{tlit|grc|poietes}} to mean "doer" (as part of the phrase "doer of wonderful works"), but elsewhere in his works Josephus only uses the term {{tlit|grc|poietes}} to mean "poet", whereas this use of {{tlit|grc|poietes}} seems consistent with the Greek of Eusebius.<ref>''Josephus and the New Testament'' by Steve Mason 2003 {{ISBN|1-56563-795-X}} p. 231</ref>

=== External arguments ===
[[File:Eusebius of Caesarea.jpg|thumb|upright=0.7|[[Eusebius]]]]

==== Origen's references to Josephus ====
According to Wataru Mizugaki, the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' passage that [[Origen]] had seen in the third century was likely to have been neutral or skeptical on Jesus without Christian interpolation and this may have looked unsatisfactory to a Christian editor.{{sfn|Mizugaki|1987|pp=340–341}} Origen's statement in his ''Commentary on Matthew'' ([[Wikisource:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book X/Chapter 17|Book X, Chapter 17]]) that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ", is usually seen as a confirmation of the generally accepted fact that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=97}}<ref>''Jesus in his Jewish context'' by Géza Vermès 2003 {{ISBN|0-334-02915-5}} pp. 91-92</ref> This forms a key external argument against the total authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' in that Josephus, as a Jew, would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and the reference to "he was the Christ" in the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' must be a Christian interpolation.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336–337}} Based on this observation alone, [[Paul L. Maier]] calls the case for the total authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' "hopeless".{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336–337}} Almost all modern scholars reject the total authenticity of the ''Testimonium'', while the majority of scholars still hold that it includes an authentic kernel.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336–337}}{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|pp=509–511}}{{sfn|Schwartz|2024|pp=75–77}}

=== Arguments from silence ===
A different set of external arguments against the authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' (either partial or total) are [[arguments from silence]], e.g. that although twelve Christian authors refer to Josephus before Eusebius in AD&nbsp;324, none mentions the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}''.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=57}}{{sfn|Rothschild|2011|p=274}}

Even after Eusebius' AD&nbsp;324 reference, it is not until [[Jerome]]'s ''{{lang|la|[[De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)|De Viris Illustribus]]}}'' ({{circa|AD&nbsp;392}}) that the passage from Josephus is referenced again, even though the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}''{{'}}s reference to Jesus would seem appropriate in the works of many intervening [[patristic]] authors.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=57}}{{sfn|Rothschild|2011|p=274}} However, [[Bart D. Ehrman]] and [[John P. Meier]] have argued that this silence is mainly due to the fact that the original ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' probably had a neutral tone toward Jesus and did not contain elements that would have been useful to Christian apologetics, since it did not recognize him as the Messiah, nor did it speak about his resurrection; it was, therefore, not a useful instrument in their polemics with pagan writers.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Meier |first=John P. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zODYAAAAMAAJ |title=A Marginal Jew: The roots of the problem and the person |date=1991 |publisher=Doubleday |isbn=978-0-385-26425-9 |page=68}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Ehrman |first=Bart D. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hf5Rj8EtsPkC |title=Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth |date=2012-03-20 |publisher=Harper Collins |isbn=978-0-06-208994-6 |pages=64, 350}}</ref>

Some scholars also point to the silence of [[Photios]] as late as the ninth century, and the fact that he does not mention the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' at all in his broad review of Josephus.{{sfn|Schreckenberg|Schubert|1992b|p=39}} However, Photios argues in his ''{{lang|la|[[Bibliotheca (Photius)|Bibliotheca]]}}'' that Josephus's works mention the [[Massacre of the Innocents]] and the [[virgin birth of Jesus]] (which no works of Josephus make any reference to), leading many scholars to think that he actually had a scant knowledge of the writings he was reviewing or that the documents he was working on were grossly interpolated. Also, Photios had clearly read Eusebius's ''Ecclesiastical History'' and Jerome's ''{{lang|la|De Viris Illustribus}}'', since he lists them both in his ''{{lang|la|Bibliotheca}}''.<ref>[[Photios]], ''Bibliotheca'', Chapter 33</ref>

==== Table of Josephus excludes the ''<span lang="la">Testimonium</span>'' ====
A separate argument from silence against the total or partial authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is that a fifth- or sixth-century table of contents of Josephus (albeit selective) makes no mention of it.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=57}}

==== Arabic ''<span lang="la">Testimonium</span>'' lacks Christian terminology ====
[[Andreas J. Köstenberger]] argues that the fact that the tenth-century Arabic version of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' (discovered in the 1970s) lacks distinct Christian terminology while sharing the essential elements of the passage indicates that the Greek ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' has been subject to interpolation.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|p=106}}

==== No parallel in other works ====
A final argument from silence relates to Josephus' own writings and questions the authenticity of ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' based on the fact that it has no parallel in the ''[[The Wars of the Jews|Jewish War]]'', which includes a discussion of Pontius Pilate at about the same level of detail.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=88}}{{sfn|Feldman|1984|p=826}}

==== Timing of the interpolations ====
Zvi Baras believes that the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' was subject to interpolation before Eusebius wrote.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=340}} Baras believes that Origen had seen the original ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' but that the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' seen by Origen had no negative reference to Jesus, else Origen would have reacted against it.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=340}} Baras states that the interpolation in the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' took place between Origen and Eusebius.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=340}}

[[Paul L. Maier]] states that a comparison of Eusebius' reference with the tenth-century Arabic version of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' due to [[Agapius of Hierapolis]] indicates that the Christian interpolation present in the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' must have come early, before Eusebius.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336–337}} Robert E. Van Voorst also states that the interpolation likely took place some time between Origen and Eusebius.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=97}}

=== Arguments for partial authenticity ===
[[File:Rakow josephus.jpg|thumb|upright=0.7|right|A copy of Josephus' ''Antiquities'' c. 1200]]

==== Arguments from style and content ====

==== Lack of Jewish deicide ====
[[Craig A. Evans]] states that an argument in favor of the partial authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is that the passage does not stress the role played by the Jewish leaders in the death of Jesus. According to Evans, if the passage had been an interpolation after the emergence of conflicts between Jews and Christians, it would have had a more accusatory tone, but in its current form reads as one would expect it to read for a passage composed by Josephus towards the end of the first century.{{sfn|Evans|2001|p=43}} [[Géza Vermes]] concurs, arguing that if the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' had been the work of a Christian forger, it would have placed blame on the Jewish leaders, but as is it is "perfectly in line" with the attitude of Josephus towards Pilate.{{sfn|Vermes|2011|pp=42–43}} Vermes also states that the detached depiction of the followers of Jesus is not the work of a Christian interpolator.{{sfn|Vermes|2011|p=43}} Vermes calls the Jesus notice in the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' a "veritable tour de force" in which Josephus plays the role of a neutral witness.{{sfn|Vermes|2011|p=43}}

==== Josephan vocabulary and style ====
[[Andreas J. Köstenberger]] argues that the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' includes vocabulary that is typically Josephan, and the style is consistent with that of Josephus.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|p=106}} Köstenberger (and separately Van Voorst) state that the Josephus' reference to the large number of followers of Jesus during his public ministry is unlikely to have been due to a Christian scribe familiar with the New Testament accounts, and is hence unlikely to be an interpolation.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|p=106}}{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=90}}

==== Josephan beliefs about Jesus ====
Claudia Setzer holds that while "tribe is an odd way to describe Christians", it does not necessarily have negative connotations.<ref name=Setzer106>''Jewish responses to early Christians'' by Claudia Setzer 1994 {{ISBN|0-8006-2680-X}} pp. 106–107</ref> Setzer argues for the existence of an authentic kernel because "the style and vocabulary are Josephan" and specific parts (e.g. the use of "wise man") are not what one would expect from a Christian forger.<ref name=Setzer106 /> Setzer argues that the Testimonium indicates that Josephus had heard of Jesus and the basic elements surrounding his death, and that he saw Jesus as primarily a miracle worker.<ref name=Setzer106 /> Van Voorst also states that calling Christians a "tribe" would have been very out of character for a Christian scribe, while Josephus has used it to refer both to Jewish and Christian groups.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=89–90}}

=== Arguments from external attestation ===

==== Origen's complaint about Josephus referencing Jesus ====
[[Lester L. Grabbe]] notes that in two works (''Commentary on Matthew'' 10.17 and ''Contra Celsum'' 1.47; see {{section link||Early references}}) Origen had actually complained that Josephus had mentioned Jesus, while not recognizing Jesus as the messiah, and this provided an early independent support of the partial ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' in a more neutral form.<ref>{{cite book |author1=Lester Grabbe |editor1-last=Verenna |editor1-first=Thomas S. |editor2-last=Thompson |editor2-first=Thomas L. |title="Is This Not The Carpenter?": The Question of The Historicity of the Figure of Jesus |date=2013 |isbn=978-1-84465-729-2 |pages=61–67 |chapter=3. Jesus Who is Called the Christ: References to Jesus Outside Christian Sources |publisher=Acumen Publishing Limited}}</ref> Zvi Baras argues from this that Origen had seen a version of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' that included no interpolations.{{sfn|Baras|1987|pp=340–341}} Baras asserts that a ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' seen by Origen must have had a neutral tone, and included no derogatory references towards Christians, and hence required no reaction from Origen.{{sfn|Baras|1987|pp=340–341}} He claims that the neutral tone of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' was then modified between the time of Origen and Eusebius.{{sfn|Baras|1987|pp=340–341}} John P. Meier similarly argues that the fact that Origen complains that Josephus had not recognized Jesus as the Messiah points to the fact that Origen had read the original version of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'', since such a clear statement could not have simply arisen from the "James, brother of Jesus" passage.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Meier |first=John P. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zODYAAAAMAAJ |title=A Marginal Jew: The roots of the problem and the person |date=1991 |publisher=Doubleday |isbn=978-0-385-26425-9}}</ref>

==== Arabic ''<span lang="la">Testimonium</span>'' as the more authentic version ====
[[Andreas J. Köstenberger]] argues that a comparison of the Greek manuscripts with the Arabic quotation discovered by [[Shlomo Pines]] in the 1970s provides an indication of the original Josephan text.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=105–106}} Köstenberger states that many modern scholars believe that the Arabic version reflects the state of Josephus' original text before it was subject to Christian interpolation.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|p=106}} This version reads as follows:
<blockquote>At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good,
and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.{{sfn|Pines|1971|pp=9–10}}</blockquote>

=== Other arguments ===

==== Comparison to Philo's works ====
[[Steve Mason (biblical scholar)|Steve Mason]] has argued for partial authenticity for the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'', because no other parts of any of the works of Josephus have been contested to have had scribal tempering, Christian copyists were usually conservative when transmitting texts in general, and seeing that the works of [[Philo]] were unaltered by Christian scribes through the centuries strongly support that it is very unlikely that the passage was invented out of thin air by a Christian scribe. Philo often wrote in a way that was favorable to Christian ideas and yet no Christian scribes took advantage of that to insert Jesus or Christian beliefs into Philo's text.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Mason |first1=Steve |title=Josephus and the New Testament |date=2011 |publisher=Baker Academic |isbn=978-0-8010-4700-8 |pages=232–233 |edition=2nd}}</ref>

==== Authenticity of the James passage ====
[[Bruce Chilton]] and [[Craig A. Evans]] state that the general acceptance of the authenticity of the James passage lends support to the partial authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' in that the brief reference to "Jesus, who was called Christ" in ''Antiquities'' [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX#Chapter 9|XX, 9, 1]] "clearly implies a prior reference" and that "in all probability the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is that prior reference".{{sfn|Chilton|Evans|1998|pp=187–198}} [[Paul L. Maier]] concurs with the analysis of Chilton and Evans and states that Josephus' first reference was the ''Testimonium''.{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Maier|1995|pp=284–285}} [[Géza Vermes]] also considers the "who was called Christ" reference in the James passage as the second reference to Jesus in the ''Antiquities'' and states that the first reference is likely to be the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}''.{{sfn|Vermes|2011|p=40}}<ref>''The Changing Faces of Jesus'' by Geza Vermes 2001 {{ISBN|0-670-89451-6}} p. 276</ref>

=== Reconstruction of an authentic kernel ===
[[File:Works Translated by William Whiston.djvu|page=11|thumb|upright=0.5|''The Works of Josephus'', 1879]]
[[Robert E. Van Voorst]] states that most modern scholars believe that the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is partially authentic, and has a reference to Jesus.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} However, he states that scholars are divided on the tone of the original reference and while some scholars believe that it had a negative tone which was softened by Christian interpolators, others believe that it had a neutral tone, in keeping with the style and approach of Josephus regarding the issue.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} According to Van Voorst, scholars who support the negative reconstruction contend that the reference read something like "source of further trouble in Jesus a wise man" and that it stated "he was the so-called Christ".{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} Van Voorst states that most scholars support a neutral reconstruction which states "Around this time lived Jesus, a wise man" and includes no reference to "he was the Christ".{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} Van Voorst states that if the original references to Jesus had had a negative tone, the Christian scribes would have likely deleted it entirely.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} Van Voorst also states that the neutral reconstruction fits better with the Arabic ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' discovered by [[Shlomo Pines|Pines]] in the 1970s.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=97}} Van Voorst states that the neutral reconstruction is supported by the majority of scholars because it involves far less conjectural wording and fits better with the style of Josephus.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}}

==== Exclusion of three divisive elements ====
[[Craig Blomberg]] states that if the three elements "lawful to call him a man", "he was the Christ" and the reference to the resurrection are removed from the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' the rest of the passage flows smoothly within the context, fits the style of Josephus and is likely to be authentic.<ref name=Blomberg434>''Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey'' by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 {{ISBN|0-8054-4482-3}} pp. 434–435</ref> Blomberg adds that after the removal of these three elements (which are likely interpolations) from the Greek versions the remaining passage fits well with the Arabic version and supports the authenticity of the reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate.<ref name=Blomberg434 /> [[Joel B. Green]] also states that the removal of some elements from the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' produces a passage that is likely to be an authentic reference to the death of Jesus.<ref name="Joel B">[[Joel B. Green]] "Crucifixion" in the ''Cambridge Companion to Jesus'' edited by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl 2001 {{ISBN|0-521-79678-4}}, p. 89.</ref>

In the estimation of [[James Dunn (theologian)|James Dunn]], there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding what the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' would look like without the interpolations.{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=141}} According to Dunn's reconstruction, the original passage likely read:{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=141}}<ref name="Joel B" />{{quote box|align=left|Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.}}

In this passage, which is based on [[John P. Meier]]'s reconstruction, Jesus is called a "wise man", but "lawful to call him a man" and "he was the Christ" are removed, as is the reference to the resurrection.{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=141}}<ref name="Joel B" /> According to [[Bart D. Ehrman]], Meier's reconstruction is currently the most accepted among scholars.<ref name="Ehrman">{{Cite web |last=Ehrman |first=Bart D. |date=March 10, 2019 |title=Do Any Ancient Jewish Sources Mention Jesus? |url=https://ehrmanblog.org/do-any-ancient-jewish-sources-mention-jesus-weekly-mailbag/ |website=The Bart Ehrman Blog |quote=If this is something Josephus wrote, as most scholars continue to think, then it indicates that Jesus was a wise man and a teacher who performed startling deeds and as a consequence found a following among both Jews and Greeks; it states that he was accused by Jewish leaders before Pilate, who condemned him to be crucified; and it points out that his followers remained devoted to him even afterward (Ant. 18.3.3).}}</ref>

[[Géza Vermes]] has performed a detailed analysis of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' and modified it to remove what he considers the interpolations.{{sfn|Wansbrough|2004|p=185}}{{sfn|Vermes|2011|pp=40–44}} In Vermes' reconstruction "there was Jesus, a wise man" is retained, but the reference to "he was the Christ" is changed to "he was called the Christ" and the resurrection reference is omitted.{{sfn|Vermes|2011|pp=40–44}} Vermes states that the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' provides Josephus' authentic portrayal of Jesus, depicting him as a wise teacher and miracle worker with an enthusiastic group of followers who remained faithful to him after his crucifixion by Pilate, up to the time of Josephus.{{sfn|Vermes|2011|pp=40–44}} Vermes's version reads:<blockquote>Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. He was called the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2009-12-14 |title=Jesus in the Eyes of Josephus |url=https://standpointmag.co.uk/jesus-in-the-eyes-of-josephus-features-jan-10-geza-vermes/ |access-date=2021-09-06 |website=Standpoint |archive-date=2021-09-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210918163503/https://standpointmag.co.uk/jesus-in-the-eyes-of-josephus-features-jan-10-geza-vermes/}}</ref></blockquote>

=== Arguments for complete forgery ===

==== Textual similarities to Eusebian works ====
In addition to the arguments listed above, a minority of scholars have put forward arguments to the effect that the entire ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is a Christian interpolation. For example, Kenneth Olson has argued that the entire ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' must have been forged by Eusebius himself, basing his argument on textual similarities between the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' and Eusebius' writings in the ''Demonstrations of the Gospels''.{{sfn|Olson|1999}}

Sabrina Inowlocki argues that it is unlikely that Eusebius forged the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'', as that would have been contrary to his methodology and purposes.<ref>{{cite book |title=Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context |last=Inowlocki |first=Sabrina |publisher=Brill |year=2006 |isbn=978-90-04-14990-8 |pages=207–210 |url=https://www.academia.edu/114444568}}</ref>

==== Three Eusebian phrases ====
In 2012, Josephus scholar [[Louis Feldman]] reversed his prior support for the partial authenticity of the ''Testimonium'', proposing that the passage was interpolated in its entirety by Eusebius. In support of this view, Feldman points out, following Olson, that the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' features three phrases ("one who wrought surprising feats", "the tribe of the Christians", and "still to this day") which are used nowhere else in the whole of Greek literature except Eusebius.<ref>{{cite book |last=Feldman |first=Louis H. |author-link=Louis Feldman |title=New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations |series=The Brill Reference Library of Judaism |volume=33 |publisher=Brill |location=Leiden |editor1-last=Carlebach |editor1-first=Elisheva |editor2-last=Schacter |editor2-first=Jacob J. |year=2012 |pages=11–30 |isbn=978-90-04-22118-5 |doi=10.1163/9789004221185_003 |chapter=On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum Attributed to Josephus}}</ref> Feldman's new theory was criticized by [[James Carleton Paget]], who accused Feldman of misreading the data and of using anachronistic criteria.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Paget |first=James Carleton |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AFLJ682D9QUC&pg=PA245 |title=Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity |date=2010 |publisher=Mohr Siebeck |isbn=978-3-16-150312-2 |page=245}}</ref>

Both Carleton Paget and Alice Whealey had already responded to Olson's argument, rejecting its arguments and conclusion.<ref name="Paget" /><ref>{{cite book |title=Josephus und das Neue Testament |last=Whealey |first=Alice |publisher=Mohr Siebeck |year=2007 |isbn=978-3-16-149368-3 |location=Tübingen |pages=73–116 |editor-last=Böttrich |editor-first=Christfried |chapter=Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum |editor-last2=Herzer |editor-first2=Jens |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JRl1T876naAC&pg=PA73}}</ref> In his 2000 book Van Voorst had also argued that the word "tribe" is actually used by Josephus to describe other Jewish groups, while Géza Vermes argued in 2009 that the expression "surprising feats" ({{tlit|grc|paradoxon ergon}}) is repeatedly used by Josephus in his works to describe many miracles associated with the Old Testament (such as the [[burning bush]] and the miracles of [[Moses]] and [[Elisha]]).{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=90–91}}<ref>{{Cite magazine |date=2009-12-14 |title=Jesus in the Eyes of Josephus |url=https://standpointmag.co.uk/jesus-in-the-eyes-of-josephus-features-jan-10-geza-vermes/ |access-date=2021-07-10 |magazine=Standpoint |archive-date=2021-09-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210918163503/https://standpointmag.co.uk/jesus-in-the-eyes-of-josephus-features-jan-10-geza-vermes/}}</ref>

==== Fourth-century Christian credal statements ====
In 2014, [[Paul J. Hopper]] wrote a book chapter in which he argued that the style and narrative structure of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is sharply in contrast with the rest of Josephus' work. According to Hopper, the language of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' has more in common with fourth-century Christian credal statements than the [[historiographical]] work of first-century authors, including Josephus. He concluded that the most likely explanation is that the passage was simply interpolated in its entirety by a Christian scribe.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Hopper |first=Paul J. |author-link=Paul J. Hopper |editor1-last=Fludernik |editor1-first=Monika |editor2-last=Jacob |editor2-first=Daniel |encyclopedia=Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |location=Berlin/Boston |year=2014 |title=A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63 |pages=147–171 |isbn=978-3-11-030756-6 |url=https://www.academia.edu/37321029}}{{dead link|date=December 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

The concordance of the language used in the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'', its flow within the text, and its length have formed components of the internal arguments against its authenticity, e.g. that the brief and compact character of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' stands in marked contrast to Josephus' more extensive accounts presented elsewhere in his works.<ref name=Wells49 /> For example, Josephus' description of the death of [[John the Baptist]] includes consideration of his virtues, the theology associated with his baptismal practices, his oratorical skills, his influence, the circumstances of his death, and the belief that the destruction of Herod's army was a divine punishment for Herod's slaughter of John.<ref>{{cite journal |title=John the Baptist in Josephus: philology and exegesis |journal=Journal of Biblical Literature |first=John P. |last=Meier |volume=111 |issue=2 |pages=225–237 |jstor=3267541 |year=1992}}</ref> [[G. A. Wells]] has argued against the authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'', stating that the passage is noticeably shorter and more cursory than such notices generally used by Josephus in the ''Antiquities'', and that had it been authentic, it would have included more details and a longer introduction.<ref name=Wells49 />

==== Intrusion that breaks the narrative ====
A further internal argument against the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}''{{'s}} authenticity is the context of the passage in the ''Antiquities of the Jews''.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} Some scholars argue that the passage is an intrusion into the progression of Josephus' text at the point in which it appears in the ''Antiquities'' and breaks the thread of the narrative.<ref name=Wells49>''The Jesus Legend'' by George Albert Wells and R. Joseph Hoffman 1996 {{ISBN|0-8126-9334-5}} pp. 49–56</ref>

== "James, the brother of Jesus" passage ==
{{quote box|align=right|width=40%|title=Josephus' reference to James the brother of Jesus|And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the [[sanhedrin]] of [[shophet|judges]], and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.|source=Flavius Josephus: ''Antiquities of the Jews'' [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX#Chapter 9|Book 20, Chapter 9, 1]]<ref>Flavius Josephus: ''Antiquities of the Jews'', [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX#Chapter 9|Book 20, Chapter 9, 1]], based on the translation of [[Louis H. Feldman]], The Loeb Classical Library.</ref> For Greek text see [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=J.+AJ+20.9.1&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0145]}}

In ''Antiquities'' ([[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX#Chapter 9|Book 20, Chapter 9, 1]]) Josephus refers to the stoning of "[[James the brother of Jesus]]" (James the Just) by order of [[Ananus ben Ananus]], a [[Herodian dynasty|Herodian-era]] [[High Priest of Israel|High Priest]].{{sfn|Harding|2003|p=317}}{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=134–141}} The James referred to in this passage is most likely the James to whom the [[Epistle of James]] has been attributed.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=134–141}}{{sfn|Freedman|Myers|Beck|2000|p=670}}{{sfn|Neale|2003|pp=2–3}} The translations of Josephus' writing into other languages have at times included passages that are not found in the Greek texts, raising the possibility of interpolation, but this passage on James is found in all manuscripts, including the Greek texts.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=134–141}}

The context of the passage is the period following the death of [[Porcius Festus]], and the journey to [[Alexandria]] by [[Lucceius Albinus]], the new [[Roman Empire|Roman]] [[Roman Judaea#List of governors (6–135 CE)|Procurator of Judea]], who held that position from AD&nbsp;62 to 64.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=134–141}} Because Albinus' journey to Alexandria had to have concluded no later than the summer of AD&nbsp;62, the date of James' death can be assigned with some certainty to around that year.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=134–141}}{{sfn|Mitchell|Young|2006|p=297}}{{sfn|Harding|2003|p=317}} The second-century chronicler [[Hegesippus (chronicler)|Hegesippus]] also left an account of the death of James, and while the details he provides diverge from those of Josephus, the two accounts share similar elements.{{sfn|Painter|2004|p=126}}{{sfn|Bauckham|1999|pp=199–203}}{{sfn|Mitchell|Young|2006|p=297}}

Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"<ref name=Feldman557 /> ({{lang|grc|τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ}}) and has rejected its being the result of later [[Christian interpolation]].{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=83}}<ref>[[Richard Bauckham]] states that although a few scholars have questioned this passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic" {{harv|Bauckham|1999|pp=199–203}}.</ref>{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|pp=54–57}}{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Maier|1995|pp=284–285}}<ref name=refsummary /> Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable.{{sfn|Painter|2004|p=126}} However, a few scholars question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in ''[[The Jewish War]]'' differ from it.{{sfn|Habermas|1996|pp=33–37}}

=== Early references ===
==== Origen of Alexandria ====
In the third century, [[Origen of Alexandria]] claimed in two works that Josephus had mentioned James, the brother of Jesus. In Origen's commentary on [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]], he writes:
{{Blockquote|And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against <strong>James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ</strong>. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.|''Commentary on Matthew'', [[Wikisource:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book X/Chapter 17|Book X, Chapter 17]] (emphasis added)}}
In Origen's apologetic work ''[[Contra Celsum]]'', he made a similar remark:
{{Blockquote|Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless—being, although against his will, not far from the truth—that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of <strong>James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)</strong>,—the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.|''Contra Celsum'', [[Wikisource:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XLVII|Book I, Chapter XLVII]] (emphasis added)}}
Many commentators have concluded that Origen is making reference to the "James, the brother of Jesus" passage found in ''Antiquities'', Book 20 here, but there are some problems with this view.{{sfn|Mizugaki|1987}}{{sfn|Painter|2005|p=205}} Origen is attributing statements to Josephus that he never wrote in any of his extant works (such as the claim that the killing of James caused the destruction of the Jerusalem temple),{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=132–137}} suggesting that he is at least partially confused.

==== Eusebius of Caesarea ====
In [[Wikisource:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book II/Chapter 23|Book II, Chapter 23.20]] of his ''[[Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius)|Ecclesiastical History]]'', Eusebius mentions Josephus' reference to the death of James. Eusebius attributes the following quote to Josephus: "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man." However, this statement does not appear in the extant manuscripts of Josephus.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=132–137}} Moreover, in Book III, chapter 11, Eusebius states that the conquest of Jerusalem immediately followed the martyrdom of James setting the martyrdom at {{circa|AD&nbsp;70}} rather than the {{circa|AD&nbsp;62}} given by Josephus.{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|p=189}}<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Book III], ch. 11.</ref>

=== Arguments for authenticity ===
[[Louis Feldman]] states that the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James has been "almost universally acknowledged".{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|pp=55–57}} Feldman states that this passage, above others, indicates that Josephus did say something about Jesus.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=56}} Feldman states that it would make no sense for Origen to show amazement that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus as Christ ([[Wikisource:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book X/Chapter 17|Book X, Chapter 17]]), if Josephus had not referred to Jesus at all.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=56}} [[Paul L. Maier]] states that most scholars agree with Feldman's assessment that "few have doubted the genuineness of this passage"{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Maier|1995|pp=284–285}} Zvi Baras also states that most modern scholars consider the James passage to be authentic.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=341}}

[[File:Jakov brat gospodnji.jpg|thumb|upright=0.85|A thirteenth-century icon of James, Serbian monastery [[Gračanica Monastery|Gračanica]], [[Kosovo]]]]
According to [[Robert E. Van Voorst]] the overwhelming majority of scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as authentic.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=83}}{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} Van Voorst states that the James passage fits well in the context in the ''Antiquities'' and an indication for its authenticity is the lack of the laudatory language that a Christian interpolator would have used to refer to Jesus as "the Lord", or a similar term.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=83–84}} Van Voorst also states that the use of a neutral term "called Christ" which neither denies nor affirms Jesus as the Messiah points to authenticity, and indicates that Josephus used it to distinguish Jesus from the many other people called Jesus at the time, in the same way that James is distinguished, given that it was also a common name.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=83–84}}

[[Richard Bauckham]] states that although a few scholars have questioned the James passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic", and that among the several accounts of the death of James the account in Josephus is generally considered to be historically the most reliable.{{sfn|Bauckham|1999|pp=199–203}} Bauckham states that the method of killing James by stoning, and the description provided by Josephus via the assembly of the Sanhedrin of judges are consistent with the policies of the Temple authorities towards the early Christian Church at the time.{{sfn|Bauckham|1999|p=231}}

[[Andreas Köstenberger]] considers the James passage to be authentic and states that the James passage attests to the existence of Jesus as a historical person, and that his followers considered him the Messiah. Köstenberger states that the statement by Josephus that some people recognized Jesus as the Messiah is consistent with the grammar of Josephus elsewhere but does not imply that Josephus himself considered Jesus the Messiah. Köstenberger concurs with John Meier that it is highly unlikely for the passage to be a Christian interpolation given that in New Testament texts James is referred to as the "brother of the Lord" rather than the "brother of Jesus", and that a Christian interpolator would have provided a more detailed account at that point.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104–105}}

Claudia Setzer states that few have questioned the authenticity of the James passage, partly based on the observation that a Christian interpolator would have provided more praise for James.<ref name=Setzer108>''Jewish responses to early Christians'' by Claudia Setzer 1994 {{ISBN|0-8006-2680-X}} pp. 108–109</ref> Setzer states that the passage indicates that Josephus, a Jewish historian writing towards the end of the first century, could use a neutral tone towards Christians, with some tones of sympathy, implying that they may be worthy of Roman protection.<ref name=Setzer108 />

[[John Painter (theologian)|John Painter]] states that nothing in the James passage looks suspiciously like a Christian interpolation and that the account can be accepted as historical. Painter discusses the role of [[Ananus ben Ananus|Ananus]] and the background to the passage, and states that after being deposed as High Priest for killing James and being replaced by [[Jesus son of Damneus|Jesus the son of Damnaeus]], Ananus had maintained his influence within Jerusalem through bribery.{{sfn|Painter|2005|p=136}} Painter points out that as described in the [[Antiquities of the Jews]] ([[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX#Chapter 9|Book 20, Chapter 9, 2]]) Ananus was bribing both [[Lucceius Albinus|Albinus]] and Jesus the son of Damnaeus so that his men could take the tithes of other priests outside Jerusalem, to the point that some priests then starved to death.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=139–142}} Philip Carrington states that there is no reason to question the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James, and elaborates the background by stating that Ananus continued to remain a power within the Jewish circles at the time even after being deposed, and that it is likely that the charges brought against James by Ananus were not only because of his Christian association but because he objected to the oppressive policies against the poor; hence explaining the later indignation of the more moderate Jewish leaders.<ref>''The Early Christian Church: Volume 1, The First Christian Church'' by Philip Carrington 2011 {{ISBN|0-521-16641-1}} Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–189.</ref>

=== Arguments against authenticity ===
[[File:Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, 1842.djvu|page=7|thumb|upright=0.7|An 1842 copy of Eusebius' ''[[Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius)|Ecclesiastical History]]'']]
A comparative argument made against the authenticity of the James passage by scholars such as [[Tessa Rajak]] is that the passage has a negative tone regarding the High Priest [[Ananus ben Ananus|Ananus]], presenting him as impulsive while in the ''Jewish Wars'' Josephus presents a positive view of Ananus and portrays him as prudent.{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|pp=128–130}}{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=56}}

A textual argument against the authenticity of the James passage is that the use of the term "Christos" there seems unusual for Josephus.{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|pp=128–130}} An argument based on the flow of the text in the document is that given that the mention of Jesus appears in the ''Antiquities'' before that of John the Baptist, a Christian interpolator may have inserted it to place Jesus in the text before John.{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|pp=128–130}} A further argument against the authenticity of the James passage is that it would have read well even without a reference to Jesus.{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|pp=128–130}}

=== Differences with Christian sources ===
Josephus's account places the date of the death of James as AD&nbsp;62.<ref>''International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: A–D'' by Geoffrey W. Bromiley 1979 {{ISBN|0-8028-3781-6}} p. 692</ref> This date is supported by [[Jerome]]'s 'seventh year of the Emperor Nero', although Jerome may simply be drawing this from Josephus.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=221–222}} However, James's successor as leader of the Jerusalem church, [[Simeon of Jerusalem|Simeon]], is not, in tradition, appointed till after the [[Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)|siege of Jerusalem]] in AD&nbsp;70, and Eusebius's notice of Simeon implies a date for the death of James immediately before the siege, i.e. about AD&nbsp;69.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=143–145}} The method of death of James is not mentioned in the New Testament.<ref>''The Bible Exposition Commentary: New Testament'' by Warren W. Wiersbe 2003 {{ISBN|1-56476-031-6}} p. 334</ref> However, the account of Josephus differs from that of later works by Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea in that it simply has James stoned while the others have other variations such as having James thrown from the top of the Temple, stoned, and finally beaten to death by a [[fulling|fuller]]{{Sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|p=189}} as well as his death occurring during the siege of Jerusalem in AD&nbsp;69.

[[File:Nuremberg chronicles f 096v 1.png|thumb|upright=0.6|left|[[Herod Antipas]] from the [[Nuremberg Chronicle]], 1493]]
[[John Painter (theologian)|John Painter]] states that the relationship of the death of James to the siege is an important [[wikt:theologoumenon|theologoumenon]] in the early church. On the basis of the Gospel accounts it was concluded that the fate of the city was determined by the death there of Jesus. To account for the 35-year difference, Painter states that the city was preserved temporarily by the presence within it of a 'just man' (see also [[Sodom and Gomorrah|Sodom]]); who was identified with James, as confirmed by Origen. Hence Painter states that the killing of James restarted the clock that led to the destruction of the city and that the traditional dating of AD&nbsp;69 simply arose from an over-literal application of the theologoumenon, and is not to be regarded as founded on a historical source.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=143–145}} The difference between Josephus and the Christian accounts of the death of James is seen as an indication that the Josephus passage is not a Christian interpolation by scholars such as Eddy, Boyd, and Kostenberger.{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|p=189}}{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104–105}} [[Géza Vermes]] states that compared to the Christian accounts: "the sober picture of Josephus appears all the more believable".{{sfn|Vermes|2011|p=40}} [[G. A. Wells]], on the other hand, has stated that in view of [[Origen]]'s statements these variations from the Christian accounts may be signs of interpolation in the James passage.<ref>''The Jesus Legend'' by G. A. Wells 1996 {{ISBN|0-8126-9334-5}} pp. 54-55</ref>

== John the Baptist passage ==
{{quote box|align=right|width=30%|title=Josephus' reference to John the Baptist|Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion... Accordingly, he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.<ref>Flavius Josephus: ''Antiquities of the Jews'' [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XVIII#Chapter 5|Book 18, 5, 2]] Text at [[Wikisource]]</ref>}}

In the ''Antiquities'' ([[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XVIII#Chapter 5|Book 18, Chapter 5, 2]]) Josephus refers to the imprisonment and death of [[John the Baptist]] by order of [[Herod Antipas]], the ruler of [[Galilee]] and [[Perea]].{{sfn|Evans|2006|pp=55–58}}{{sfn|Bromiley|1982|pp=694–695}} The context of this reference is the AD&nbsp;36 defeat of Herod Antipas in his conflict with [[Aretas IV]] of [[Nabatea]], which the Jews of the time attributed to misfortune brought about by Herod's unjust [[Beheading of John the Baptist|execution of John]].{{sfn|White|2010|p=48}}{{sfn|Dapaah|2005|p=48}}{{sfn|Hoehner|1983|pp=125–127}}

Almost all modern scholars consider this passage to be authentic in its entirety, although a small number of authors have questioned it.{{sfn|Evans|2006|pp=55–58}}{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Whiston|Maier|1999|pp=662–663}}{{sfn|Feldman|1992|pp=990–991}} Because the death of John also appears prominently in the Christian gospels, this passage is considered an important connection between the events Josephus recorded, the [[Chronology of Jesus|chronology of the gospels]] and the dates for the [[ministry of Jesus]].{{sfn|Evans|2006|pp=55–58}} A few scholars have questioned the passage, contending that the absence of Christian tampering or interpolation does not itself prove authenticity.{{sfn|Rothschild|2011|pp=257–258}} While this passage is the only reference to John the Baptist outside the New Testament, it is widely seen by most scholars as confirming the historicity of the baptisms that John performed.{{sfn|Evans|2006|pp=55–58}}{{sfn|Murphy|2003|p=2003}}{{sfn|Jonas|Lopez|2010|pp=95–96}}{{sfn|Chilton|Evans|1998|pp=187–198}} According to Marsh, any contrast between Josephus and the Gospel's accounts of John would be because the former lacked interest in the messianic element of John's mission.{{sfn|Feldman|1984|p=677}}

=== Arguments for authenticity ===
[[File:Oberzell Alte Kirche Decke Johannes im Kerker.jpg|thumb|upright=0.7|left|[[Messengers from John the Baptist|John the Baptist in prison]], by [[Josef Anton Hafner|Hafner]], 1750]]
[[Craig A. Evans]] states that almost all modern scholars consider the Josephus passage on John to be authentic in its entirety, and that what Josephus states about John fits well both with the general depiction of John in the New Testament and within the historical context of the activities of other men, their preachings and their promises during that period.{{sfn|Evans|2006|pp=55–58}}

Louis Feldman, who believes the Josephus passage on John is authentic, states that Christian interpolators would have been very unlikely to have devoted almost twice as much space to John (163 words) as to Jesus (89 words).{{sfn|Feldman|2006|pp=330–331}} Feldman also states that a Christian interpolator would have likely altered Josephus's passage about John the Baptist to make the circumstances of the death of John become similar to the New Testament, and to indicate that John was a forerunner of Jesus.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=56}}

[[James Dunn (theologian)|James Dunn]] states that the accounts of Josephus and the New Testament regarding John the Baptist are closer than they may appear at a first reading.{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=377}} Dunn states that Josephus positions John as a righteous preacher ({{tlit|grc|dikaiosyne}}) who encourages his followers to practice "righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God" and that [[wikisource:Bible (American Standard)/Mark#6:20|Mark 6:20]] similarly calls John "a righteous ({{tlit|grc|dikaios}}) and holy man".{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=377}} Dunn states that Antipas likely saw John as a figure whose ascetic lifestyle and calls for moral reform could provoke a popular uprising on moral grounds, as both Josephus and the New Testament suggest.{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=377}}

[[Justin Meggitt]] states that there are fundamental similarities between the Josephus portrayal of John the Baptist and the New Testament narrative in that in both accounts John is positioned as a preacher of morality, not as someone who had challenged the political authority of [[Herod Antipas]].{{sfn|Meggitt|2003|p=508}} W. E. Nunnally states that the John passage is considered authentic and that Josephus' emphasis on the egalitarian nature of John's teachings fit well into the biblical and historical traditions.<ref>W. E. Nunnally "Deeds of Kindness" in ''The Wiley–Blackwell Companion to Religion and Social Justice'' by Michael D. Palmer and Stanley M. Burgess 2012 {{ISBN|1-4051-9547-9}} p. 303</ref>

In Origen's apologetic work ''[[Contra Celsum]]'', made an explicit reference to the Josephus passage discussing John the Baptist:
{{Blockquote|For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, <strong>Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist</strong>, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite.|''Contra Celsum'', [[Wikisource:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XLVII|Book I, Chapter XLVII]] (emphasis added)}}
Here, Origen provides a clear, unambiguous indication that the passage concerning John the Baptist existed in his early manuscript of ''Antiquities of the Jews''.{{sfn|Mizugaki|1987}} This implies that the John the Baptist passage would have had to have been interpolated into the ''Antiquities'' at quite an early date, before the time of Origen, if it is inauthentic.

In ''[[Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius)|Ecclesiastical History]]'' ([[Wikisource:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book I/Chapter 11|Book I, Chapter XI]]), Eusebius also discusses the Josephus reference to [[Herod Antipas]]'s killing of [[John the Baptist]], and mentions the marriage to [[Herodias]] in paragraphs 1–6.

=== Arguments against authenticity ===
Rivka Nir argues that the kind of baptism performed by John the Baptist was not considered legitimate in the mainstream Jewish circles to which Josephus belonged, and therefore Josephus could not have described John as positively as he is in ''Antiquities'', Book 18. Nir therefore concludes that the passage is likely a Christian interpolation.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Nir |first=Rivka |title=Josephus' Account of John the Baptist: A Christian Interpolation? |journal=Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus |volume=10 |issue=1 |year=2012 |pages=32–62 |publisher=Brill |doi=10.1163/174551911X618885 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Joel Marcus states that Nir's argument is based on an outdated notion of "mainstream Judaism" which fails to consider the essential diversity of Second Temple Judaism during this period.<ref>{{cite book |title=John the Baptist in History and Theology |last=Marcus |first=Joel |publisher=Univ of South Carolina Press |year=2018 |isbn=978-1-61117-901-9 |page=126}}</ref>

Claire Rothschild has stated that the absence of Christian interpolations in the Josephus passage on John the Baptist can not by itself be used as an argument for its authenticity, but is merely an indication of the lack of tampering.{{sfn|Rothschild|2011|p=271}}

=== Differences with Christian sources ===
The marriage of [[Herod Antipas]] and [[Herodias]] is mentioned both in Josephus and in the gospels, and scholars consider Josephus as a key connection in establishing the approximate chronology of specific episodes related to John the Baptist.{{sfn|Evans|2006|pp=55–58}} However, although both the gospels and Josephus refer to Herod Antipas killing John the Baptist, they differ on the details and motives, e.g. whether this act was a consequence of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias (as indicated in [[wikisource:Bible (American Standard)/Matthew#14:4|Matthew 14:4]], [[wikisource:Bible (American Standard)/Mark#6:18|Mark 6:18]]), or a pre-emptive measure by Herod which possibly took place before the marriage to quell a possible uprising based on the remarks of John, as Josephus suggests in [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XVIII#Chapter 5|''Antiquities'' 18.5.2]].{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|pp=508–509}}{{sfn|Meyers|Craven|Kraemer|2001|pp=92–93}}{{sfn|Jensen|2010|pp=42–43}}{{sfn|White|2010|p=48}}<ref name=Cyndy48>''The Emergence of Christianity: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective'' by Cynthia White 2010 {{ISBN|0-8006-9747-2}} p. 48</ref>{{sfn|Gillman|2003|pp=25–31}} [[Jean Daniélou]] contends that Josephus missed the religious meaning while recording only the political aspect of the conflict between Herod and John, which led to the latter's death.{{sfn|Feldman|1984|p=677}}

While Josephus identifies the location of the imprisonment of John as [[Machaerus]], southeast of the mouth of the Jordan river, the gospels mention no location for the place where John was imprisoned.{{sfn|Freedman|Myers|Beck|2000|p=842}} According to other historical accounts Machaerus was rebuilt by [[Herod the Great]] around 30&nbsp;BC and then passed to Herod Antipas.{{sfn|Freedman|Myers|Beck|2000|p=842}}{{sfn|Gillman|2003|pp=25–31}}{{sfn|Knoblet|2005|pp=15–17}} The AD&nbsp;36 date of the conflict with Aretas IV (mentioned by Josephus) is consistent with the approximate date of the marriage of [[Herod Antipas]] and [[Herodias]] estimated by other historical methods.{{sfn|Gillman|2003|pp=25–31}}{{sfn|Hoehner|1983|p=131}}{{sfn|Bromiley|1982|pp=694–695}}

[[Louis Feldman]] has stated that there is "no necessary contradiction between Josephus and the gospels as to the reason why John was put to death" in that the Christians chose to emphasize the moral charges while Josephus emphasized the political fears that John stirred in Herod.<ref>''Josephus and Modern Scholarship'' by Louis H. Feldman 1984, {{ISBN|3-11-008138-5}} p. 675</ref>

Josephus stated ([[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XVIII#Chapter 5|''Antiquities'' 18.5.2]]) that the AD&nbsp;36 defeat of Herod Antipas in the conflicts with [[Aretas IV]] of [[Nabatea]] was widely considered by the Jews of the time as misfortune brought about by Herod's unjust execution of John the Baptist.<ref name=Cyndy48 />{{sfn|Dapaah|2005|p=48}}{{sfn|Hoehner|1983|pp=125-127}} The approximate dates presented by Josephus are in concordance with other historical records, and most scholars view the variation between the motive presented by Josephus and the New Testament accounts is seen as an indication that the Josephus passage is not a Christian interpolation.{{sfn|Evans|2006|pp=55–58}}

== The three passages in relation to ''The Jewish Wars'' ==
[[File:Gar. 15 f.3r.jpeg|thumb|upright=0.7|left|A fifteenth-century copy of ''[[The Jewish War]]'' in Italian]]
[[Louis Feldman]] states that it is significant that the passages on James and John are found in the ''Antiquities'' and not in the ''Jewish Wars'', but provides three explanations for their absence from the ''Jewish Wars''. One explanation is that the ''Antiquities'' covers the time period involved at a greater length than the ''Jewish Wars''. The second explanation is that during the gap between the writing of the ''Jewish Wars'' ({{circa|AD&nbsp;70}}) and ''Antiquities'' (after AD&nbsp;90) Christians had become more important in Rome and were hence given attention in the ''Antiquities''. Another explanation is that the passages were added to the ''Antiquities'' to highlight the power of the [[Pharisees]], but he considers the last explanation less likely than the others.{{sfn|Feldman|1984|p=826}}

One of the arguments against the authenticity of the James passage has been that in the ''Jewish Wars'' Josephus portrays the High Priest [[Ananus ben Ananus|Ananus]] in a positive manner, while in the ''Antiquities'' he writes of Ananus in a negative tone.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=56}} Louis Feldman rejects these arguments against the authenticity of the James passage and states that in several other unrelated cases the ''Jewish Wars'' also differs from the ''Antiquities'', and that an interpolator would have made the two accounts correspond more closely to each other, not make them differ.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=56}}

The twenty-year gap between the writing of the ''Jewish Wars'' and the ''Antiquities'' has also been used to explain some of the differences in tone between them.<ref name=Thoma /> [[Clemens Thoma]] provides an explanation for this based on the observation that Josephus may have learned of the details of the actions of Ananus in the twenty-year gap between the writing of the Jewish Wars and the Antiquities, and thus avoided a positive tone when writing of Ananus in the ''Antiquities''.<ref name=Thoma>"The High Priesthood in the Judgement of Josephus" by Clemens Thoma, in ''Josephus, the Bible and History'' by Louis Feldman and Gohei Hata 1977 {{ISBN|90-04-08931-4}} pp. 212–213</ref>

[[John Painter (theologian)|John Painter]] also states that the difference in the context for the ''Jewish Wars'' and the ''Antiquities'' may account for some of the differences in tone between them. When writing of Ananus in a positive tone in the ''Jewish Wars'', the context was Ananus' prudence in avoiding a war and hence Josephus considered that a positive aspect.{{sfn|Painter|2005|p=157}} However, when writing in the ''Antiquities'' about the actions of Ananus which resulted in his demotion from the High Priesthood, the context required the manifestation of a negative aspect of Ananus' character.{{sfn|Painter|2005|p=157}}

== See also ==
{{Portal|Christianity}}
* [[Caesar's Messiah]]
* [[Christianity in the first century]]
* [[Historicity of Jesus]]
* [[History of early Christianity]]
* [[Mara bar Serapion on Jesus]]
* [[Roman Judaea]]
* [[Sources for the historicity of Jesus]]
* [[Tacitus on Jesus]]

== References ==
=== Footnotes ===
{{Reflist}}

=== Bibliography ===
{{Refbegin|30em|indent=yes}}

*{{cite book |last=Baras |first=Zvi |title=Josephus, Judaism and Christianity |chapter=The ''Testimonium Flavianum'' and the Martyrdom of James |editor1-last=Feldman |editor1-first=Louis H. |editor1-link=Louis Feldman |editor2-last=Hata |editor2-first=Gōhei |year=1987 |publisher=Brill |isbn=90-04-08554-8}}
*{{cite book |last=Bartlett |first=John R. |title=Jews in the Hellenistic World: Volume 1, Part 1 |year=1985 |isbn=0-521-28551-8}}
*{{cite book |last=Bauckham |first=Richard |author-link=Richard Bauckham |editor1-first=Bruce |editor1-last=Chilton |editor2-first=Craig A. |editor2-last=Evans |editor2-link=Craig A. Evans |title=James the Just and Christian origins |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5SHbjAKaBy0C |year=1999 |publisher=BRILL |pages=199–232 |chapter=For What Offense was James put to Death? |isbn=978-90-04-11550-7}}
*{{cite book |last=Bowman |first=Steven B. |author-link=Steven B. Bowman |chapter=Jewish Responses to Byzantine Polemics from the Ninth through the Eleventh Centuries |editor-last=Garber |editor-first=Zev |title=The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection, Reclamation |publisher=[[Purdue University Press]] |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-55753-579-5}}
*{{cite book |last=Bowman |first=Steven B. |author-link=Steven B. Bowman |title=Josephus, Judaism and Christianity |chapter=Josephus in Byzantium |editor1-last=Feldman |editor1-first=Louis H. |editor1-link=Louis Feldman |editor2-last=Hata |editor2-first=Gōhei |year=1987 |publisher=Brill |isbn=90-04-08554-8}}
*{{cite book |last1=Eddy |first1=Paul |last2=Boyd |first2=Gregory |title=The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition |year=2007 |publisher=Baker |isbn=978-0-8010-3114-4}}
*{{cite book |last=Bromiley |first=Geoffrey W. |title=International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E–J |year=1982 |isbn=0-8028-3782-4}}
*{{cite book |last1=Chilton |first1=Bruce |last2=Evans |first2=Craig A. |author-link2=Craig A. Evans |title=Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research |year=1998 |publisher=Brill |isbn=90-04-11142-5}}
*{{cite journal |last=Creed |first=John Martin |title=The Slavonic Version of Josephus' History of the Jewish War |journal=The Harvard Theological Review |volume=25 |issue=4 |date=Oct 1932 |pages=277–319 |doi=10.1017/S0017816000021301 |s2cid=162926700}}
*{{cite journal |last=Curran |first=John |title="To Be or to Be Thought to Be": The Testimonium Flavianum (again) |journal=Novum Testamentum |volume=59 |issue=1 |year=2017 |pages=71–94 |doi=10.1163/15685365-12341552 |s2cid=164900645 |url=https://pureadmin.qub.ac.uk/ws/files/112911304/The_Testimonium_Flavianum_again_.pdf}}
*{{cite book |last=Dapaah |first=Daniel S. |title=The relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth |year=2005 |publisher=University Press of America |isbn=0-7618-3109-6}}
*{{cite book |editor-last=Davies |editor-first=William David |title=The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 3: The Early Roman Period |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MA-4VX5gWS4C&q=Bibliographical+and+lexical+aids+to+the+study+of+Josephus |year=2000 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=0-521-24377-7}}
*{{cite book |last=Dunn |first=James |author-link=James Dunn (theologian) |title=Jesus remembered |year=2003 |isbn=0-8028-3931-2}}

*{{cite book |last=Eisenman |first=Robert H. |author-link=Robert H. Eisenman |year=1997 |title=James the Brother of Jesus |publisher=Viking |isbn=0-670-86932-5}}
*{{cite book |last=Evans |first=Craig A. |author-link=Craig A. Evans |chapter=Josephus on John the Baptist |year=2006 |title=The Historical Jesus in Context |editor1-first=Amy-Jill |editor1-last=Levine |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-00992-6 |display-editors=etal}}
*{{cite book |last=Evans |first=Craig A. |author-link=Craig A. Evans |title=Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies |year=2001 |publisher=Brill |isbn=0-391-04118-5}}
*{{cite book |last=Feldman |first=Louis H. |author-link=Louis Feldman |title=Judaism and Hellenism reconsidered |year=2006 |publisher=Brill |isbn=90-04-14906-6}}
*{{cite book |last=Feldman |first=Louis H. |author-link=Louis Feldman |editor-last=Freedman |editor-first=David Noel |title=Anchor Bible Dictionary |chapter=Josephus |volume=3 |pages=990–991 |year=1992}}
*{{cite book |last1=Feldman |first1=Louis H. |author-link1=Louis Feldman |last2=Hata |first2=Gōhei |title=Josephus, the Bible, and history |publisher=Brill |year=1989 |isbn=978-90-04-08931-0}}
*{{cite book |editor1-last=Feldman |editor1-first=Louis H. |editor1-link=Louis Feldman |editor2-last=Hata |editor2-first=Gōhei |title=Josephus, Judaism and Christianity |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=f3KwlJSQr4cC |access-date=13 February 2012 |year=1987 |publisher=Brill |isbn=978-90-04-08554-1}}
*{{cite book |last=Feldman |first=Louis H. |author-link=Louis Feldman |editor1-last=Temporini |editor1-first=Hildegard |editor2-last=Haase |editor2-first=Wolfgang |chapter=Flavius Josephus Revisited: The Man, his Writings and his Significance |pages=763–771 |title=Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Part 2 |year=1984 |isbn=3-11-009522-X}}
*{{cite book |author1=Flavius Josephus |author-link1=Flavius Josephus |last2=Leeming |first2=Henry |last3=Osinkina |first3=Lyubov V. |last4=Leeming |first4=Katherine |title=Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison of the English Translation by H. St. Thackeray with the Critical Edition by N.A. Meščerskij of the Slavonic Version in the Vilna Manuscript Translated into English by H. Leeming and L. Osinkina. |year=2003 |isbn=978-90-04-11438-8 |location=Leiden |publisher=Brill}}
*{{cite book |author1=Flavius Josephus |author-link1=Flavius Josephus |last2=Whiston |first2=William |last3=Maier |first3=Paul L. |title=The New Complete Works of Josephus |publisher=Kregel Academic |date=May 1999 |isbn=0-8254-2948-X}}
*{{cite book |author1=Flavius Josephus |author-link1=Flavius Josephus |last2=Maier |first2=Paul L. |title=Josephus, the essential works: a condensation of Jewish antiquities and The Jewish war |date=December 1995 |publisher=Kregel |isbn=978-0-8254-3260-6}}
*{{cite book |editor1-last=Freedman |editor1-first=David Noel |editor2-last=Myers |editor2-first=Allen C. |editor3-last=Beck |editor3-first=Astrid B. |title=Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans |year=2000 |isbn=90-5356-503-5}}
*{{cite book |last=Gillman |first=Florence Morgan |title=Herodias: at home in that fox's den |year=2003 |publisher=Liturgical |isbn=0-8146-5108-9}}
*{{cite book |last=Habermas |first=Gary R. |title=The Historical Jesus |year=1996 |publisher=College Press |isbn=0-89900-732-5}}
*{{cite book |last=Harding |first=Mark |title=Early Christian Life and Thought in Social Context |year=2003 |publisher=Sheffield Academic |isbn=0-8264-5604-9}}
*{{cite book |last=Hoehner |first=Harold W. |title=Herod Antipas |year=1983 |publisher=Zondervan |isbn=0-310-42251-5 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/herodantipas00hoeh}}
*{{cite book |last=Jensen |first=Morten H. |title=Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources |year=2010 |publisher=Mohr Siebeck |isbn=978-3-16-150362-7}}
*{{cite book |last1=Jonas |first1=Glenn |last2=Lopez |first2=Kathryn Muller |title=Christianity: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Guide |year=2010 |publisher=Mercer University Press |isbn=978-0-88146-204-3}}
*{{cite book |last=Knoblet |first=Jerry |title=Herod the Great |year=2005 |publisher=University Press of America |isbn=0-7618-3087-1}}
*{{cite book |last1=Kostenberger |first1=Andreas J. |last2=Kellum |first2=L. Scott |last3=Quarles |first3=Charles L. |title=The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament |year=2009 |publisher=B&H |isbn=978-0-8054-4365-3}}
*{{cite journal |last=Louth |first=Andrew |title=The Date of Eusebius' " Historia Ecclesiastica" |journal=Journal of Theological Studies |volume=41 |issue=1 |year=1990 |pages=111–123 |doi=10.1093/jts/41.1.111}}
*{{cite book |last=Maier |first=Paul L. |author-link=Paul L. Maier |title=Eusebius: The Church History |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-8254-3307-8}}
*{{cite book |editor-last=Mason |editor-first=Steve |title=Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 9, Life of Josephus, Translation and Commentary by Steve Mason |publisher=Brill |location=Leiden |year=2001 |isbn=90-04-11793-8}}
*{{cite book |last=McGiffert |first=Arthur Cushman |title=Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 1 |editor-last=Schaff |editor-first=Philip |editor-link=Philip Schaff |chapter=Paragraph 7 of "Chapter XI.—Testimonies in Regard to John the Baptist and Christ" from Book I of Eusebius' "The Church History." |chapter-url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vi.xi.html |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=18ikU69I-TwC&q=Nicene+and+Post-Nicene+Fathers:+Second+Series+Volume+I |access-date=14 February 2012 |year=2007 |publisher=Cosimo |isbn=978-1-60206-508-6}}
*{{cite book |last=Meggitt |first=Justin |chapter=John the Baptist |editor-last=Houlden |editor-first=James Leslie |title=Jesus in history, thought, and culture: an encyclopedia |volume=1 |year=2003 |isbn=1-57607-856-6}}
*{{cite book |last1=Meyers |first1=Carol |last2=Craven |first2=Toni |last3=Kraemer |first3=Ross Shepard |title=Women in scripture |year=2001 |publisher=Eerdmans |isbn=0-8028-4962-8}}
*{{cite book |last1=Mitchell |first1=Margaret M. |last2=Young |first2=Frances M. |title=The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1: Origins to Constantine |year=2006 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=0-521-81239-9}}
*{{cite book |last=Mizugaki |first=Wataru |chapter=Origen and Josephus |pages=325–335 |editor1-last=Feldman |editor1-first=Louis H. |editor1-link=Louis Feldman |editor2-last=Hata |editor2-first=Gōhei |title=Josephus, Judaism and Christianity |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=f3KwlJSQr4cC |access-date=13 February 2012 |year=1987 |publisher=Brill |isbn=978-90-04-08554-1}}
*{{cite book |last=Murphy |first=Catherine M. |title=John the Baptist: prophet of purity for a new age |year=2003 |publisher=Liturgical |isbn=0-8146-5933-0}}
*{{cite book |last=Neale |first=John Mason |title=A History of the Holy Eastern Church |year=2003 |publisher=Gorgias |isbn=1-59333-045-6}}
*{{cite journal |last=Olson |first=K. A. |title=Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum |journal=The Catholic Biblical Quarterly |volume=61 |issue=2 |year=1999 |page=305}}
*{{cite book |last=Painter |first=John |author-link=John Painter (theologian) |title=Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition |year=2005 |publisher=Bloomsbury Academic |isbn=0-567-04191-3}}
*{{cite book |last=Painter |first=John |author-link=John Painter (theologian) |editor1-last=Chilton |editor1-first=Bruce |editor2-last=Neusner |editor2-first=Jacob |title=The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission |chapter=Who was James? |year=2004 |publisher=Liturgical |isbn=0-8146-5152-6}}
*{{cite book |last=Pines |first=Shlomo |title=An Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its implications |publisher=Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities |year=1971 |url=http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/pines01.pdf}}
*{{cite book |last=Rothschild |first=Claire |chapter="Echo of a Whisper": The Uncertain Authenticity of Josephus' Witness to John the Baptist |editor1-first=David |editor1-last=Hellholm |editor2-first=Tor |editor2-last=Vegge |editor3-first=Øyvind |editor3-last=Norderval |editor4-first=Christer |display-editors=3 |editor4-last=Hellholm |title=Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |year=2011 |isbn=978-3-11-024751-0}}
*{{cite book |last1=Schreckenberg |first1=Heinz |last2=Schubert |first2=Kurt |title=Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature |volume=2 |year=1992a |publisher=Augsburg Fortress |isbn=90-232-2653-4}}
*{{cite book |last1=Schreckenberg |first1=Heinz |last2=Schubert |first2=Kurt |title=Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christianity |year=1992b |isbn=90-232-2653-4 |publisher=Van Gorcum |location=Assen}}
*{{cite book |last=Schmidt |first=T. C. |date=2025 |title=Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=9780191957697}}
*{{cite book |title=Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 8: Judean Antiquities, Books 18-20 |last=Schwartz |first=Daniel R. |publisher=Brill |year=2024 |isbn=978-90-04-70368-1 |author-link=Daniel R. Schwartz |series=Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary Series |volume=8}}
*{{cite book |last=Van Voorst |first=Robert E. |title=Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence |year=2000 |isbn=0-8028-4368-9 |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans}}
*{{cite book |last=Van Voorst |first=Robert |author-link=Robert Van Voorst |chapter=Josephus |editor-last=Houlden |editor-first=James Leslie |title=Jesus in history, thought, and culture: an encyclopedia |volume=1 |year=2003 |isbn=1-57607-856-6}}
*{{cite book |last=Vermes |first=Géza |author-link=Géza Vermes |title=Jesus in the Jewish World |year=2011 |publisher=Hymns Ancient and Modern |isbn=978-0-334-04379-9}}
*{{cite journal |last=Wallace-Hadrill |first=D. S. |year=2011 |orig-date=1974 |title=Eusebius of Caesarea and the Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII. 63f.) |journal=The Journal of Ecclesiastical History |volume=25 |issue=4 |page=353 |doi=10.1017/S0022046900049435 |s2cid=163661254}}
*{{cite book |last=Wansbrough |first=Henry |title=Jesus and the oral Gospel tradition |year=2004 |publisher=A&C Black |isbn=0-567-04090-9}}
*{{cite book |last=Wells |first=George Albert |author-link=George Albert Wells |title=Did Jesus Exist? |year=1986 |publisher=Pemberton |title-link=Did Jesus Exist? (Wells book)}}
*{{cite book |last=Whealey |first=Alice |title=Josephus on Jesus, The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times |year=2003 |publisher=Peter Lang |isbn=0-8204-5241-6}}
*{{cite journal |last=Whealey |first=Alice |title=The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic |year=2008 |journal=New Testament Studies |volume=54 |issue=4 |pages=573–590 |doi=10.1017/S0028688508000301 |s2cid=38811104}}
*{{cite book |last=White |first=Cynthia |title=The Emergence of Christianity: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective |year=2010 |publisher=Fortress |isbn=978-0-8006-9747-1}}
*{{cite journal |last=Zeitlin |first=Solomon |author-link=Solomon Zeitlin |title=The Hoax of the 'Slavonic Josephus' |journal=The Jewish Quarterly Review |series=New Series |volume=39 |issue=2 |pages=172–177 |date=October 1948 |jstor=1452821}}

{{Refend}}

== External links ==
{{Wikisource|Antiquities of the Jews}}
* {{cite book |author=T C Schmidt |date=2025 |title=Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=9780191957697 |ref=none}}

{{Jesus footer}}
{{Christianity footer}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Jesus in Judaism]]
[[Category:Early Christianity and Judaism]]
[[Category:Ancient Roman writers on Jesus]]
[[Category:Josephus]]
[[Category:James, brother of Jesus]]