Jesus and Josephus, Revisited

In the first year I wrote my Ready to Give a Defense column, I published a three-part series entitled, “Was Jesus a Myth?” i Part three of that series examined the early testimony of non-Christian writers and historians who treated Jesus as an actual, historical person. Here is what I wrote concerning one of those historians: 

The Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus (c. A.D. 36-97), also provides us with two important references to Jesus. Josephus was born into the Jewish aristocracy and became a Pharisee as a teenager. He joined the resistance when the Romans, under Vespasian and his son, Titus, invaded Judea in AD 66. Captured by the Romans, Josephus moved to Rome after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and became Vespasian’s court historian. 

In Jewish Antiquities, written c. AD 93, Josephus says, in his first reference to Jesus: 

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not extinct to this day. ii 

Most scholars, including conservatives, believe that the portions of the passage calling Jesus the “Christ,” speaking of His resurrection, and mentioning His fulfillment of biblical prophecy are later Christian interpolations. Nevertheless, even without those sections, Josephus confirms Jesus was an actual person who drew a following of both Jews and Gentiles; he was crucified by Pilate; and His followers, called Christians, were still around near the end of the first century. 

The second reference to Jesus, which appears later in Antiquities, is actually focused on James, the brother of Jesus. Josephus writes, “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he [Ananus] assembled the sanhedrin of 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.” iii 

Porcius Festus was the Roman governor of Judea from c. AD 59-62 (see Acts 25). After his death, he was replaced by Lucius Albinus (AD 62-64). However, Josephus tells us that while Albinus was traveling from Alexandria to his new post in Judea, the high priest Ananus took the opportunity to execute some of the Christian leaders, including James, the brother of Jesus. Note that Josephus does not call Jesus the Christ here, but rather says he “was called Christ.”  

Historian Lawrence Mykytiuk explains why Josephus mentions both Jesus and James. “James is otherwise a barely noticed, minor figure in Josephus’s lengthy tome. The sole reason for referring to James at all was that his death resulted in Ananus losing his position as high priest.”iv Because both Jesus and James were such common names in first-century Judea, Josephus identifies this James as the brother of Jesus who was called Christ. Note that these references to James and Jesus make no sense in this context unless they refer to real people. 

Now, four years later, I am reconsidering my interpretation of Antiquities 18.3.3, which scholars refer to as the Testimonium Flavianum (TF). The reason for revisiting this passage is a new book by T. C. Schmidt, titled Josephus & Jesus.v The author acknowledges the scholarly skepticism concerning the TF, which I cited above, and he also notes that, according to the early Christian theologian Origen of Alexandria (c. 185- c. 253), Josephus never converted to Christianity, adding another layer of doubt concerning the TF.vi 

Nevertheless, Schmidt believes the TF has been misinterpreted by modern scholars as an interpolated pro-Christian statement when it should be viewed as “a generally neutral account of Jesus or even a slightly skeptical one.” vii 

If he is correct, the significance of this passage is huge. “If authentic,” Schmidt says, “this paragraph would not only be the earliest witness to Jesus outside of Christian tradition, but also a remarkable affirmation of Christian beliefs about him, especially regarding his resurrection, messianic status, and fulfillment of prophecy—at least as the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) is usually understood.” viii 

Schmidt offers four arguments to support his claim that the TF is authentic but not pro-Christian. First, he cites twelve early Greek Christian writers, including Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263-326), and Isidore of Pelusium (c. 450), who refer to the TF, sometimes quoting it verbatim, with no apparent concerns about its authenticity. Yet only five of them note the Christian content of the TF, and only two of those do not find the material unbelievable, considering its Jewish source! Therefore, Schmidt says, “All this urges the conclusion that in the TF most Greek authors noticed no spectacular claims of any kind.” ix 

Second, the author turns to Western (Latin) and Eastern (Syriac and Arabic) writers for their take on the TF. The most important of these are Jerome of Stridon (c. 393), the famous translator of the Bible into Latin, Michael the Syrian (c. 1199), and Agapius of Menbij (Arab) (c. 941). Schmidt says of them, “all of whom do not present the TF as saying that Jesus was the Christ,’ but rather that he was, respectively, ‘believed to be’ or ‘thought’ to be, or ‘was perhaps’ the Christ.”x 

Third, Schmidt argues that comments made about Jesus in the TF are very similar both to comments Josephus made about other people and to comments made about Jesus in Jewish and pagan non-Christian sources. For example, Josephus refers to Jesus as “a certain Jesus,” which may indicate “a sense of contempt” for Him. Josephus used the same term to introduce Menahem, a false messiah.xi In Acts 25:19, Festus identifies Jesus the same way, although English translations render the Greek “named Jesus.” 

Additionally, Josephus’ characterization of Jesus as “a wise man” was not meant as a term of praise, but rather as a means of categorizing Jesus with others like Him. For example, Josephus uses the same term, “wise” (sophos), to identify Pharaoh’s magicians. xii  

However, what about the next phrases which follow: “if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works”? Schmidt explains that Josephus considered Moses’ power and wisdom to be beyond human, but there is no indication that he thought Moses was in any sense divine. Moreover, the word Josephus used for Jesus’ “wonderful works” is paradoxon, “incredible deeds,” not any of the usual New Testament terms for miracle: “power” (dynamis), “wonder” (teras), “sign” (semeion), and “work” (ergon). The only time paradoxon is used of Jesus’ miracles in the Gospels is Luke 5:26, where the crowd says, “We have seen remarkable things today!” xiii Some translations render the term “strange things.” Schmidt concludes that “it seems far more plausible that Josephus was responsible for this phrase than it being the result of Christian interpolation.” xiv 

Fourth, Schmidt tackles the question of what sources Josephus relied on for his references to Jesus. Keep in mind that Josephus was born about three years after Jesus’ resurrection and wrote Antiquities about the same time John wrote Revelation. The theory that Josephus used the Gospel of Luke or a source like Luke for his information is quickly rejected by Schmidt, as none of Josephus’ phraseology matches Luke’s. 

Instead, Schmidt argues that Josephus, born (c. AD 36) and raised in Jerusalem, the child of aristocrats, was immersed in the religious and political culture of Judea. His parents, Matthias and his unnamed wife, would have been in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ execution. Matthias was a priest, and through him Josephus was well acquainted with several High Priests and the chief men of the Sanhedrin. Some of these men may have been involved in the trial of Jesus.