New Insights into the Testimonium Flavianum
A recently published research work by a highly respected historian has challenged a popular assertion regarding a first-century source for the life of Jesus. A 90-word paragraph by the first century historian Flavius Josephus which briefly describes the life, death and supposed resurrection of Jesus has commonly been dismissed by the majority of historians as inauthentic (either in part or the whole). For many years the consensus of scholarship has maintained that this brief passage about Jesus is at least partially a later insertion by a Christian copyist rather than arising solely from the pen of Josephus. But Dr Tom Schmidt’s new book, Josephus and Jesus, examines convincing new evidence that the controversial paragraph was, indeed, written wholly by Josephus in the first century and is not a later insertion.
Flavius Josephus was a first century Jewish historian whose prolific writings are our major source for our understanding of events in the Roman and Syrian world at that time. In particular, his 20-volume work on the history of the Jews, entitled Antiquities of the Jews, is a monumental and highly regarded historical document.
But contained within this 20-volume work (in Book 18) is an extraordinary paragraph about Jesus. It is worth quoting in its entirety in its commonly understood English translation, with the disputed statements in bold type:
“At this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man, for he was a doer of miraculous deeds, a teacher of men who received truth with pleasure. And he led many from among the Jews and many from among the Greeks. He was the Christ, and when Pilate had condemned him to the cross at the accusation of the first men among us, those who had first loved him did not cease to do so, for he appeared to them alive again on the third day, given that the divine prophets had spoken such things and thousands of other wonderful things about him. And until now, the tribe of Christians who are named from him has not disappeared.”
This brief passage, consisting of a mere 90 words (in the original Greek language) has proven to be so significant and controversial that it has been given its own name: the Testimonium Flavianum – the testimony of Flavius Josephus.
Until now, however, about 80% of historians have claimed that this paragraph has been tampered with by a later Christian copyist who inserted his own comments about Jesus. The disputed statements, commonly thought to be later insertions, are indicated in bold type in the quote above. This has been the overwhelming consensus of opinion historical circles for many decades.
But Dr Tom Schmidt’s new work, Josephus and Jesus, disputes this popular view, offering powerful historical evidence that the entire quote was, indeed, written by Josephus. If this is true, the Testimonium Flavianum is a significant source of confirmation for the biblical Jesus, because Josephus was a Jew, not a Christian, and such a description by an unbiased first century historian cannot be lightly ignored.
So, what new light does Dr Schmidt throw upon this controversial passage? A brief post such as mine cannot do justice to his arguments, and to that end I recommend the recent podcast on the “Undeceptions” website, called “Jesus Proof?”, where Dr John Dixon interviews Dr Tom Schmidt and they discuss his findings in detail. But for those who will not delve that deeply into the topic, and at the risk of doing an injustice to Dr Schmidt’s arguments, I will attempt to summarise them here. I will do so in reference to the numerous arguments commonly raised AGAINST the authenticity of the passage and briefly point out Dr Schmidt’s responses.
- Lexical Uniqueness
Some scholars have claimed that the Testimonium Flavianum contains words that are found in no other passages written by Josephus, indicating the strong likelihood that this passage is not authentic. In response to this claim, Dr Schmidt used AI to analyse the complete works of Josephus and it was discovered that the only word that is unique to this passage is the word “Christians”. This is hardly surprising, since Josephus is specifically discussing the Christian movement in this passage. Furthermore, Josephus’s description of Christians as a “tribe” is not the language that a Christian would use to describe the followers of Jesus but, rather, is precisely the kind of language we would expect an outsider like Josephus to employ.
Additionally, the AI analysis of Josephus’s complete works discovered that he uses a unique word on average every 87 words. It is not surprising, therefore, that a passage comprised of 90 words contains one unique word, not used elsewhere. Some scholars have also claimed that several verb forms in the passage are unique to that passage and are not used by Josephus in any other of his writings, but AI analysis of his entire works has now shown that claim to be false. The argument of lexical uniqueness (and therefore lexical incompatibility with Josephus’s other writings) is completely demolished.
- The Paragraph Interrupts The Flow of Book 18
Some historians argue that the passage seems to have no relevance to the narrative of Book 18 of Josephus’s “Antiquities of the Jews”; they claim it sticks out like a sore thumb, as if it has been inserted by a later copyist. Dr Schmidt, however, argues that it is entirely in keeping with the theme of Book 18 which deals with the governorship of Pontius Pilate where Josephus lists various uprisings and disturbances that took place during Pilate’s reign. The description of the influence of Jesus and the movement he founded is entirely in keeping with the theme of this book and is one of five or six such examples that Josephus lists of similar disturbances.
Furthermore, one of the other disturbances he lists is that of John the Baptist and his followers. But surprisingly, he discusses this AFTER his description of Jesus, not before. This is not how a Christian who is inserting this passage years later would order these events. A Christian copyist would want to show John the Baptist as the forerunner to Jesus, but Josephus is not even trying to make that point. This is another strong argument for the passage’s authenticity.
- The Passage is Too Brief.
Some historians claim that the passage is too brief for a discussion of a supposedly significant person such as Jesus and the significant movement that he founded. Once again, however, AI analysis of Josephus’s writing indicates that he often deals with significant historical figures with marked literary brevity. He is often frustratingly uninterested in providing significant detail about first century religious leaders. For instance, Josephus tells us even less about the High Priest, Caiaphas, than he does about Jesus. He tells us less about the leaders of the Sanhedrin than he does about Jesus. He tells us less about the leaders of the Pharisees than he does about Jesus. Some of these first century religious leaders were personally known to Josephus, yet he tells us almost nothing about them. So, his apparent brevity in his discussion of Jesus is entirely in keeping with his style elsewhere.
- The Passage is Stylistically Different to Josephus’s Writings
Some scholars have claimed that the style of the Testimonium Flavianum is out of keeping with Josephus’s writing style – that the combined feel of the passage, including grammar and literary flow, does not accord with his writing elsewhere. Once again, however, using AI technology (technology which has only now become available to us), stylometric analysis of this passage including the frequency rate of rare words indicates that it is entirely in keeping with Josephus’s style of writing elsewhere. Contrary to the claims of some scholars, both rare words and common words are deployed in this passage at the same rate Josephus uses them elsewhere. This powerful new use of AI analysis proves that the claim of stylistic incompatibility is without merit.
But what about these controversial statements about Jesus? Surely a Jew would never have described Jesus the way that this passage does? Let us now deal with the specific content of the passage.
- “If indeed one ought to call him a man”
Is Josephus claiming that Jesus is more than a man? Is he subtly stating his faith in Jesus’ divinity? How can we possibly believe this is from the pen of a committed Jew? Firstly, Dr Tom Schmidt points out that we shouldn’t impose a binary viewpoint on this statement, believing that first century Jews always either fully believed Jesus and followed him as divine, or rejected him and believed him to be a human false teacher. Schmidt argues that it was not uncommon for a first century Jew to express uncertainty – wondering whether there was something more to Jesus; something divine. However, Schmidt points out a further nuance to this statement. The Greek expression used here expressing doubt about whether the person could rightly be called a man was commonly used as an insult. The word used by Josephus here for “man” is not the generic word for human, “anthropos”, but the word for maleness or manliness. This could be a dig at Jesus’ ‘softness’ and love. Alternately, it could be a subtle expression of concern that he was ‘otherworldly’ in a negative way – perhaps under the influence of demons. This leads us to Josephus’s next expression.
- “He was a Doer of Miraculous Deeds”
This statement is strongly criticised by many scholars who claim that it could never have come from the pen of a committed Jew. But this view fails to recognise that the Jewish Talmud, one of the sacred texts of the Jews that was being written at the time of Christ, mentions Jesus several times and even refers to his miracles. The Talmud claims that Jesus’ miracles were acts of sorcery, undertaken by the power of the devil. Furthermore, Dr Schmidt points out that the word that is translated as “miraculous deeds” here, was also commonly translated “strange supernatural deeds” or “difficult to believe supernatural deeds”. There is often a negative tone to this expression, and it is quite possible that this is the way it is being deployed in this passage. Rather than Josephus expressing his belief in the miracles of Jesus, he is merely reporting the strange phenomena that surrounded Jesus’ ministry; phenomena that seemed to have a strange supernatural element – at least as it was reported by witnesses.
- “He was the Christ”
How could a Jew write this? Surely this is a later insertion by a Christian!
Dr Schmidt makes a couple of important points. Firstly, a Christian who was inserting this would have used the present tense, “He IS the Christ”, rather than the past tense, “He WAS the Christ”. The use of the past tense here indicates a lack of belief in Christ’s ongoing existence, which we would expect from a Jew, but not from a Christian copyist. The belief that Jesus is now the eternally living Christ (or Saviour) is a core Christian belief and any Christian copyist would certainly have expressed this in the present tense.
Secondly, in the ancient Latin translation of this passage by Jerome in 393AD, it says “He was believed to be the Christ”. As this predates the earliest Greek manuscript of this passage (which is dated in the 11th century), Dr Schmidt believes that this represents Josephus’s original wording. Similarly the very early Syriac translation which also predates the Greek says, “He was thought to be the Christ”. These two very early translations parallel each other and suggest the more accurate original rendering of this phrase.
It is also worth noting that these two translations (the early Latin and Syriac manuscripts) were Christian translations, and the fact that they don’t translate this as “He IS the Christ” is strong evidence that they are faithfully rendering Josephus’s original wording. This is in keeping with a brief second passage in Book 20 of Antiquities of the Jews where Josephus writes about Jesus and his brother James, stating, “Jesus was calledthe Christ”. Thus, in the Testimonium Flavianum, Josephus is not professing personal faith in Jesus but is merely reporting how he was commonly perceived by his followers. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of this original statement.
The fact that the later 11th century surviving Greek manuscript of this passage renders this statement, “He was the Christ” rather than “He was believed to be the Christ” indicates that a word has been omitted (inadvertently or deliberately) in the copying chain throughout the centuries and the 11th century copy does not represent Josephus’s original wording. This accords with the assertion by the third century Christian philosopher, Origen of Alexandria, that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ.
- “For he appeared to them alive again on the third day, given that the divine prophets had spoken such things and thousands of other wonderful things about him.”
Surely this cannot have come from the pen of the Jewish Josephus?
The key word in this passage is “appeared” which is the Greek word, phainomai. Significantly, Josephus uses phainomai in simar ways in other passages, not to indicate “appear” (in the sense of “physically seen”) but to indicate “seem” or “appear to be so but not actually be so”. The best example is when Josephus retells the Old Testament story of Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers who then present his cloak soaked in animal’s blood to his father. Josephus then states that it “phainomai” – that it seemed to Joseph’s father that Joseph had been killed. The exact same grammatical construction (technically, the use of phainomai and a participle along with the dative) is used in the Testimonium Flavianum in regard to the apparent resurrection of Jesus. Dr Tom Schmidt points this out, as well as parallels with Josephus’s use of the word in several other instances.
Interpreting this passage in line with Josephus’s use of this grammatical construction elsewhere, leads to a more nuanced reading, along the lines of “it appeared to them that Jesus was alive again after three days”. In other words, Josephus is not expressing his belief in the resurrection, he is merely accurately reporting the belief of Jesus’ followers in the resurrection. Similarly, his subsequent reference to the wonderful things written about Jesus in the prophets is subordinated to the grammatical construction around phainomai – it hangs off it. Thus, he is merely accurately reporting the prevailing view of Christians that Jesus fulfilled many prophecies on the Old Testament.
Furthermore, Dr Schmidt points out that Josephus’s use of the verb phainomai in this way actually has a negative connotation. Josephus is effectively saying, “this is how it seemed to the Christians, but it really isn’t so”. This negative connotation is the implied meaning in every other use of this word and its grammatical construction in Josephus’s writings.
Thus, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of these statements in the Testimonium Flavianum, as they are completely in accord with Josephus’s own views as a Jew and consistent with his grammatical expression elsewhere. He is NOT expressing his belief in the resurrection of Jesus but merely reporting the belief (the FALSE belief in his view) of Christians.
- Josephus’s Sources
How does Josephus know these things about Jesus and the early Christians? Is he a credible historical source? Dr Schmidt’s research uncovers how deeply connected Josephus was with first century Jewish leaders – priests, rabbis and members of the Sanhedrin. He was personally acquainted with many of them, even some of those directly involved in the condemnation and death of Jesus. Although Josephus was born a few years after Jesus’ death, he developed friendships with many prominent (older) Jews who had lived at the time of Jesus who were witnesses to his life and who were even involved in his denunciation, condemnation and crucifixion. This makes the writings of Josephus a hugely credible historical source.
SUMMARY
The newly published research by Dr Tom Schmidt, published in his book, Josephus and Jesus, refutes the long-held view that Josephus’s references to Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum are inauthentic. Every argument commonly used to claim inauthenticity is dealt with in a scholarly way and shown to be inadequate. The use of newly available AI stylometric analysis, along with textual reconstruction from earlier translations and analysis of grammatical construction leads to a more accurate rendering of the passage that does not conflict with Josephus’s views as a Jew. Taking all this into consideration, Dr Schmidt proposes that a more accurate rendering of the Testimonium Flavianum could be as follows:
“At this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man, for he was a doer of strange supernatural deeds, a teacher of men who received truth with pleasure. And he led many from among the Jews and many from among the Greeks. He was thought to be the Christ, and when Pilate had condemned him to the cross at the accusation of the first men among us, those who had first loved him did not cease to do so, for it seemed to them that he appeared alive again on the third day, given their understanding that the divine prophets had spoken such things and thousands of other wonderful things about him. And until now, the tribe of Christians who are named from him has not disappeared.”
Thus, while this passage does not represent Josephus’s profession of faith in Jesus as the risen Christ, it accurately reflects the strong belief of his followers in such a claim. The passage also presents Jesus as an undeniable first century religious leader who exerted enormous and lasting influence on the ancient world. It presents him as a real historical figure who posed a difficult challenge to the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate, ultimately resulting in Jesus’ condemnation to death by crucifixion.
This nuanced interpretation of the Testimonium Flavianum will not please everyone. Some Christians will be disappointed that it does not portray Josephus as ascribing to Christian belief. Some secular scholars, on the other hand, will be unhappy that their dismissal of the passage as a later insertion by a Christian copyist is now being seriously challenged.
For my own part, I have always found the arguments for the Testimonium Flavianum’s inauthenticity to be laboured, speculative and unconvincing, fuelled (I suspect) by anti-religious presuppositions.
Finally, it is worth noting Dr Tom Schmidt’s own journey in this regard. He did not approach this research as someone desperately trying to prove the authenticity of Joseph’s statements. Although he is a Christian, he admits that for more than twenty years he believed and taught that this passage was heavily impacted by later Christian insertions. For decades he susbscribed to this commonly accepted view. He states that he stumbled, almost by accident, upon evidence that caused him to question this position and, as he continued to investigate that evidence, was surprised by his findings. This is important. Dr Schmidt arrived at his new understanding of the authenticity of this passage despite his pre-existing views to the contrary.
As Tom Schmidt’s research continues to be peer-reviewed I will watch with interest how it modifies the accepted text of the Testimonium Flavianum and its interpretation.