![\"Marko](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Marko-Marina-Author-Bart-Ehrman.png\" "\\"Marko")
<\/span><\/p>\nWritten by Marko Marina, Ph.D.<\/a><\/p>\n Author | Historian<\/p>\n Author | Historian | BE Contributor<\/p>\n Verified! See our guidelines<\/a><\/p>\n Verified! See our editorial guidelines<\/a><\/p>\n \nDate written: June 4th, 2025<\/p>\n\nDate written: June 4th, 2025\n Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. – Dr. Bart D. Ehrman<\/p>\n I bet Josephus never imagined he would be this important in the history of Western civilization. A 1st-century Jewish historian writing under Roman patronage, Josephus had no intention of founding a religion or shaping the theological imagination of billions.<\/p>\n And yet, when it comes to the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth really existed<\/a>, few ancient voices are invoked as often (or as passionately debated) as his. The topic of Josephus on Jesus has become a cornerstone in discussions of the historical reliability of non-Christian sources, and the conversation shows no signs of fading.<\/p>\n For many readers today, the New Testament provides all they need to know about Jesus. But historians are naturally more cautious. They want evidence that goes beyond the confessional. Sources that are external, independent, and, ideally, uninterested in promoting Christian faith.<\/p>\n Josephus is often celebrated for providing just that. The mere fact that a Jewish historian writing near the end of the 1st century mentions Jesus at all has generated both curiosity and intense scrutiny. Is the text authentic? Did later Christians alter it? What did Josephus actually say?<\/p>\n In what follows, I\u2019ll explore these questions in depth. First, I\u2019ll briefly introduce who Josephus was and why he matters. Then I\u2019ll turn to the central focus of this article: the two brief, but historically significant, references to Jesus found in his writings.<\/p>\n Before we dive in, take a moment to check out Bart Ehrman\u2019s outstanding course<\/strong>, \u201cThe Genius of Mark: Revealing the Mysteries of the Gospel of Mark<\/a>.\u201d In this eight-part series, Dr. Ehrman explores the earliest surviving account of Jesus\u2019 life, uncovering surprising insights and overlooked features in the Gospel of Mark. This is a must-watch for anyone interested in the historical Jesus.<\/p>\n Despite his importance for understanding 1st-century Judaism and early Christianity, there are surprisingly few external sources about Josephus\u2019 life. In other words, nearly everything we know about him comes from his writings (more on those later).<\/p>\n According to his autobiographical account, Josephus was born in 36 or 37 C.E.<\/strong>, just a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus<\/a> in Jerusalem and around the same time that Paul experienced his conversion to Christianity.<\/p>\n Josephus claimed descent from an ancient and prestigious priestly lineage. He belonged to the first of the 24 priestly courses established in Jerusalem and, within that elite class, to one of its most distinguished families.<\/p>\n His upbringing and education were steeped in Jewish tradition, and he quickly rose through the ranks of Jewish society. During the Jewish revolt against Rome that erupted in 66 C.E., Josephus was appointed commander of Jewish forces in Galilee.<\/p>\n At first glance, it might seem that such a man (aristocratic, learned, and a military leader against the Roman occupation) would be celebrated within the Jewish tradition. Well, not so much. Why?<\/p>\n Per Bilde explains in his Biography of Josephus<\/a>:<\/p>\n (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!<\/em>)<\/p>\n The reason is that the Jews, or the majority of them, have always regarded Josephus as a traitor to the nation<\/strong>. Many consider him a renegade from Judaism, an apostate. The reason for this evaluation is that, at one point during the Jewish rebellion, Josephus failed to take his own life and instead contrived to save it, thereafter surrendering to the Romans. After two years as a prisoner of war, he was set free, but he then preferred to remain in the Roman camp, from where he was in a position to follow the events of the War and collect material for his later writings.<\/p>\n That controversial decision (choosing survival over martyrdom) defined the rest of Josephus\u2019 life. Well, who can blame him?! Anyway, while still in Roman custody, he predicted that his captor, General Vespasian, would become emperor.<\/p>\n Remarkably, the prophecy proved accurate: After Nero\u2019s suicide<\/a> in 68 C.E. and a year of civil war that saw three emperors rise and fall, Vespasian was declared emperor by his troops. Grateful for the prediction, the new ruler rewarded Josephus handsomely: He received Roman citizenship, a pension, and an apartment in Rome, where he would live out the rest of his life under Flavian patronage.<\/p>\n From that point on, Josephus became a Roman insider<\/strong>. He lived in the imperial capital, enjoying the protection and support of the very regime he had once opposed on the battlefield. While this arrangement secured his safety and enabled his writing career, it also ensured that Jewish tradition would remember him with suspicion, if not outright contempt.<\/p>\n He died sometime around the year 100 C.E., having spent nearly half his life chronicling the events that had shaped his world and his place within the Jewish tradition. <\/p>\n Of course, there\u2019s much more to the story, including a few colorful details that we didn\u2019t have space for here. For those interested in the full picture of Josephus\u2019 life, we have<\/strong>a whole article<\/a>dedicated just to him<\/strong>.<\/p>\n For us, though, the more pressing question is this: when it comes to Josephus on Jesus, what did he actually say, and can we trust it?<\/p>\n TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE of the Historical Jesus!<\/p>\n Think you know the Jesus of the Bible? Uncover the historical figure behind the texts!<\/p>\n __CONFIG_colors_palette__{“active_palette”:0,”config”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“name”:”Main Accent”,”parent”:-1}},”gradients”:[]},”palettes”:[{“name”:”Default”,”value”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“val”:”rgb(255, 133, 34)”}},”gradients”:[]},”original”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“val”:”rgb(19, 114, 211)”,”hsl”:{“h”:210,”s”:0.83,”l”:0.45,”a”:1}}},”gradients”:[]}}]}__CONFIG_colors_palette__ <\/span> sTART QUIZ<\/strong><\/span><\/span> <\/a> <\/p>\n It’s free!<\/em><\/p>\n However, before we move into the Josephus on Jesus issue, let\u2019s take a brief look at his literary legacy. After settling in Rome under imperial patronage, Josephus devoted the rest of his life to writing historical works that sought to explain Jewish history and culture to a Greco-Roman audience.<\/p>\n His two most significant contributions (The Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews) are indispensable sources for anyone interested in the world of first-century Judaism and the historical backdrop of early Christianity.<\/p>\n His first major work, The Jewish War<\/strong>, was completed around 75-79 C.E. It offers a dramatic and detailed account of the Jewish revolt against Rome, beginning with the roots of the rebellion and culminating in the catastrophic destruction of Jerusalem and its temple.<\/p>\n Josephus writes as both a participant and a historian, blending his eyewitness testimony with rhetorical flourishes intended to appeal to his Roman patrons. (Here<\/a> you can read this work in a scholarly English translation.)<\/p>\n Simone Claude Mimouni, in his book Le juda\u00efsme ancien du VIe si\u00e8cle avant notre \u00e8re au IIIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re<\/a> (Ancient Judaism from the 6th Century B.C.E. to the 3rd Century C.E.) highlights Josephus\u2019 multifaceted approach:<\/p>\n In The Jewish War, Josephus presents himself as a historiographer closely aligned with his patrons<\/strong>, the Flavian emperors, not only in the perspectives he adopts but even in the sources he employs, which may have included, as some have suggested, war notes from Vespasian and Titus. In this work, Josephus conforms to the historiographical principles of contemporary Hellenistic schools<\/strong>. Yet despite his extensive concessions to Hellenism (both politically and culturally), he remains a Jewish historiographer, faithful to the traditional conception of salvation history. Thus, one detects in his writing a view of history that is in perfect harmony with the long-standing teachings of the Jewish tradition. For example, he explains the catastrophe of 70 C.E. (the destruction of the Temple) in the manner of the ancient prophets, who harshly denounce the people’s breach of the Mosaic covenant (my translation).<\/p>\n Josephus\u2019 later and even more ambitious project was Antiquities of the Jews<\/strong>, written around 93 C.E. Spanning 20 volumes, this massive history attempts to recount the story of the Jewish people from the creation of the world down to Josephus\u2019 own time. Think of it as a kind of Jewish version of Livy\u2019s Ab Urbe Condita, aimed at explaining Jewish tradition and scripture to a Roman readership.<\/p>\n It\u2019s in this work, not The Jewish War, that Josephus famously refers to Jesus<\/strong>, and that\u2019s what we\u2019ll explore in the next section. (Here you can read Antiquities<\/a> in a scholarly English translation.)<\/p>\n If I had a penny for every time someone asked me whether any non-biblical sources confirm Jesus\u2019 existence, I\u2019d be writing this from my private island. The question is a common (and perfectly reasonable) one. After all, outside the New Testament, what ancient evidence do we actually have?<\/p>\n This is where the Josephus on Jesus issue comes into the picture. In what follows, we\u2019ll take a closer look at the two passages in his writings that mention Jesus.<\/p>\n The shorter reference to Jesus in Josephus\u2019 writings appears almost incidentally. While discussing events that took place in Jerusalem just before the outbreak of the Jewish War (in particular, the political maneuvering around the high priesthood), Josephus briefly notes that the high priest Ananus took advantage of a leadership vacuum to convene the Sanhedrin and have a man named James<\/a> put to death.<\/p>\n To identify James more clearly, Josephus adds a phrase that has sparked centuries of scholarly interest:<\/p>\n Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road. So he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus <\/strong>who was called Christ, whose name was James<\/strong>, and some others; [or, some of his companions.] And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.<\/p>\n Most critical scholars regard this passage as authentic, unlike the more complicated reference we\u2019ll examine next.<\/p>\n As John P. Meier argues in his seminal work A Marginal Jew<\/a>, there are compelling reasons to see this as a genuine statement from Josephus:<\/p>\n The way the text identifies James is not likely to have come from a Christian hand or even a Christian source. Neither the NT nor early Christian writers spoke of James of Jerusalem in a matter-of-fact way as \u2018the brother of Jesus\u2019, but rather, with the reverence we would expect, \u2018the brother of the Lord\u2019, or \u2018the brother of the Savior.<\/p>\n In other words, the description is too restrained (and too neutral) to have originated with a Christian scribe. Moreover, the passage is firmly embedded in the Greek manuscript tradition of Jewish Antiquities and already cited by Eusebius<\/a> at the beginning of the 4th century, providing important external attestation<\/strong>.<\/p>\n While brief, this reference to \u201cJesus who was called Christ\u201d is taken seriously by historians because it offers a non-Christian confirmation (however passing) that Jesus of Nazareth was known to have had a brother named James, who was publicly executed in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n It\u2019s one of the most read (and most debated) paragraphs from all of ancient literature. Hundreds of studies and posts have been written about it. Countless scholarly debates and polemical battles have been waged across centuries. When it comes to Josephus on Jesus, no passage has drawn more scrutiny, suspicion, and scholarly attention than the famous Testimonium Flavianum<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The paragraph is found in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3. It appears in the context of Josephus\u2019 description of unrest under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate. Seemingly out of nowhere, he inserts a report about a man named Jesus:<\/p>\n Around this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is right to call him a man<\/strong> [\u03b5\u1f34 \u03b3\u03b5 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74]. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who accept the truth with pleasure. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Messiah<\/strong> [\u1f41 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd]. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, [but] those who had first loved him did not cease [doing so] [\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2]. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, because the divine prophets had prophesied these and myriad other things about him<\/strong> [\u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f70\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd]. To this day, the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared.<\/p>\n Before the rise of historical criticism in the 19th century, this passage was largely accepted at face value. Early Christian authors, such as Eusebius, quoted it approvingly, and few questioned its authenticity.<\/p>\n Today, scholars are, as Robert Louis Wilken<\/a> explains, divided into three general camps.<\/p>\n At one end of the spectrum are those who argue that the entire passage is a later Christian interpolation<\/strong>, inserted wholesale by scribes who wanted to bolster the historical claims about Jesus. This view has been advocated by a minority of scholars, such as Richard Carrier.<\/p>\n In one of his posts<\/a>, Carrier reiterates what he elaborated in the book On the Historicity of Jesus<\/a>: <\/p>\n Especially with all the other evidence stacked on: its uncharacteristic narrative style (including its bizarre brevity and naive simplicity); the narrative illogic of its position in the text; its not being known to Origen or anyone else before Eusebius a century later; its containing patently ridiculous and fawning remarks only a Christian would make. So just get over it already. It’s fake.<\/p>\n On the opposite end are those who maintain that the entire paragraph comes from Josephus<\/strong> himself, unaltered. This is also a minority view, but some scholars, as Wolfgang A. Bienert<\/a> noted, still argue for full authenticity.<\/p>\n The mainstream scholarly position is a middle ground<\/strong>, sometimes called the \u201cpartial interpolation theory.\u201d According to this view, Josephus did originally mention Jesus in Antiquities 18, but later Christian copyists (perhaps as early as the 3rd century) modified the text to make it more theologically affirming.<\/p>\n When one strips away the later interpolation, this is what we get:<\/p>\n \u201cAround this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, [but] those who had first loved him did not cease [doing so]. To this day, the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared.\u201d (version taken from Meier\u2019s A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1)<\/p>\n Why do most critical scholars accept this middle position? John P. Meier offers several compelling arguments:<\/p>\n #1 \u2013 The literary and stylistic flow<\/strong> of the paragraph is disrupted by three phrases that stand out as patently Christian: (1) \u201cif indeed one should call him a man,\u201d (2) \u201che was the Messiah,\u201d and (3) \u201che appeared to them on the third day, living again.\u201d <\/p>\n Meier notes that the paragraph reads smoothly and coherently if these clauses are removed, leaving a neutral, concise report that sounds like something Josephus could have written.<\/p>\n #2 \u2013 The language and vocabulary<\/strong> of the \u201cneutral core\u201d differ markedly from the Greek of the New Testament but fit well with Josephus\u2019 own style. By contrast, the three interpolated phrases contain terms closely aligned with early Christian creedal language.<\/p>\n #3 \u2013 The \u201clow Christology\u201d<\/strong> of the stripped-down text is entirely incompatible with what we know of early Christian theology. A crucified man remembered as a wise teacher and miracle worker (without resurrection or divine status) wouldn\u2019t satisfy any early Christian interpolator. <\/p>\n In other words, the result is too neutral, too minimalist, even too dismissive to be a Christian invention.<\/p>\n #4 \u2013 Testimonium Flavianum is found in all Greek manuscripts<\/strong> of Antiquities 18, as well as in all Latin translations made by Cassiodorus\u2019 school in the 6th century. That suggests there was some reference to Jesus in Josephus\u2019 original text, even if not all of it is authentic.<\/p>\n Additionally, Robert Louis Wilken, in his book Jesus Outside of the New Testament<\/a>, provides another important insight:<\/p>\n The neutral presentation of Jesus is supported by a roughly parallel presentation<\/strong>, held to be undoubtedly genuine by most interpreters, of John the Baptist<\/strong>. Josephus\u2019s report on John is also a descriptive treatment of a popular religious movement with political implications. Josephus depicts John as a good man who attracted large crowds by his teaching, as Jesus did. John, like Jesus, leads a reform movement within Judaism. Also, both leaders are killed unjustly, John on the suspicion that he might lead a popular revolt against Herod. Differences also exist, of course. John does not work miracles, the Romans are not involved, and Josephus does not indicate that his movement continues. Nevertheless, that Josephus can write sympathetically about a controversial figure like John the Baptist indicates that he could write a neutral description about Jesus as well.<\/p>\n Finally, it\u2019s worth considering the existence of an alternative version<\/strong> of the Testimonium Flavianum, preserved in Agapius\u2019 Universal History (a 10th-century Christian chronicle written in Arabic). <\/p>\n This version closely resembles the neutral reconstruction favored by the majority of contemporary scholars, lacking the overtly Christian affirmations found in the standard Greek text.<\/p>\n Taken together, these considerations make the middle-ground theory<\/strong> not only the most academically defensible but also the most historically satisfying. It recognizes the real presence of Josephus on Jesus in this famous passage, while also acknowledging the hands of later Christian scribes who, with a few strokes of their pens, sought to make a neutral report sound like a confession of faith. <\/p>\n Strip away the confessional layers, and what remains is a rare and valuable glimpse of Jesus from the pen of a Roman-era Jewish historian.<\/p>\n It doesn’t come as a surprise that at the end of a meticulous study over the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum, French classicist Serge Bardet<\/a> concluded that a full Christian fabrication is exceedingly unlikely. As he puts it, one would have to suppose \u201ca talent for imitation that would scarcely have any equivalent in antiquity.\u201d (my translation)<\/p>\n When all is said and done, the Josephus on Jesus debate invites both caution and appreciation. The writings of Josephus (especially the Antiquities of the Jews) offer a non-Christian witness that, while brief and contested, remains historically significant.<\/p>\n For historians, Josephus\u2019 references provide important non-Christian evidence. Even though all of us would like more information! Wouldn\u2019t it be great if the Jewish historian wrote more about the nascent Christian movement?! But we have what we have.<\/p>\n Beneath the layers of scribal enthusiasm lies a voice that neither followed Jesus nor denied his historical presence. In a field often clouded by ideological fog, such a voice is more than welcome. It\u2019s, quite simply, invaluable.<\/p>\n TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE of the Historical Jesus!<\/p>\n Think you know the Jesus of the Bible? Uncover the historical figure behind the texts!<\/p>\n __CONFIG_colors_palette__{“active_palette”:0,”config”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“name”:”Main Accent”,”parent”:-1}},”gradients”:[]},”palettes”:[{“name”:”Default”,”value”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“val”:”rgb(255, 133, 34)”}},”gradients”:[]},”original”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“val”:”rgb(19, 114, 211)”,”hsl”:{“h”:210,”s”:0.83,”l”:0.45,”a”:1}}},”gradients”:[]}}]}__CONFIG_colors_palette__ <\/span> sTART QUIZ<\/strong><\/span><\/span> <\/a> <\/p>\n It’s free!<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Josephus on Jesus: What Did Josephus Say About Jesus? Written by Marko Marina, Ph.D. Author | Historian Author | Historian | BE Contributor Verified! See our guidelines Verified! See our editorial guidelines Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. – Dr. Bart […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":20469,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","tve_updated_post":" Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman<\/p><\/div> I bet Josephus never imagined he would be this important in the history of Western civilization. A 1st-century Jewish historian writing under Roman patronage, Josephus had no intention of founding a religion or shaping the theological imagination of billions.<\/p> And yet, when it comes to the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth really existed<\/a>, few ancient voices are invoked as often (or as passionately debated) as his. The topic of Josephus on Jesus has become a cornerstone in discussions of the historical reliability of non-Christian sources, and the conversation shows no signs of fading.<\/p> For many readers today, the New Testament provides all they need to know about Jesus. But historians are naturally more cautious. They want evidence that goes beyond the confessional. Sources that are external, independent, and, ideally, uninterested in promoting Christian faith.<\/p> Josephus is often celebrated for providing just that. The mere fact that a Jewish historian writing near the end of the 1st century mentions Jesus at all has generated both curiosity and intense scrutiny. Is the text authentic? Did later Christians alter it? What did Josephus actually say?<\/p> In what follows, I\u2019ll explore these questions in depth. First, I\u2019ll briefly introduce who Josephus was and why he matters. Then I\u2019ll turn to the central focus of this article: the two brief, but historically significant, references to Jesus found in his writings.<\/p> Before we dive in, take a moment to check out Bart Ehrman\u2019s outstanding course<\/strong>, \u201cThe Genius of Mark: Revealing the Mysteries of the Gospel of Mark<\/a>.\u201d In this eight-part series, Dr. Ehrman explores the earliest surviving account of Jesus\u2019 life, uncovering surprising insights and overlooked features in the Gospel of Mark. This is a must-watch for anyone interested in the historical Jesus.<\/p><\/div> Despite his importance for understanding 1st-century Judaism and early Christianity, there are surprisingly few external sources about Josephus\u2019 life. In other words, nearly everything we know about him comes from his writings (more on those later).<\/p> According to his autobiographical account, Josephus was born in 36 or 37 C.E.<\/strong>, just a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus<\/a> in Jerusalem and around the same time that Paul experienced his conversion to Christianity.<\/p> Josephus claimed descent from an ancient and prestigious priestly lineage. He belonged to the first of the 24 priestly courses established in Jerusalem and, within that elite class, to one of its most distinguished families.<\/p> His upbringing and education were steeped in Jewish tradition, and he quickly rose through the ranks of Jewish society. During the Jewish revolt against Rome that erupted in 66 C.E., Josephus was appointed commander of Jewish forces in Galilee.<\/p> At first glance, it might seem that such a man (aristocratic, learned, and a military leader against the Roman occupation) would be celebrated within the Jewish tradition. Well, not so much. Why?<\/p> Per Bilde explains in his Biography of Josephus<\/a>:<\/p> (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!<\/em>)<\/p><\/div> The reason is that the Jews, or the majority of them, have always regarded Josephus as a traitor to the nation<\/strong>. Many consider him a renegade from Judaism, an apostate. The reason for this evaluation is that, at one point during the Jewish rebellion, Josephus failed to take his own life and instead contrived to save it, thereafter surrendering to the Romans. After two years as a prisoner of war, he was set free, but he then preferred to remain in the Roman camp, from where he was in a position to follow the events of the War and collect material for his later writings.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div> That controversial decision (choosing survival over martyrdom) defined the rest of Josephus\u2019 life. Well, who can blame him?! Anyway, while still in Roman custody, he predicted that his captor, General Vespasian, would become emperor.<\/p> Remarkably, the prophecy proved accurate: After Nero\u2019s suicide<\/a> in 68 C.E. and a year of civil war that saw three emperors rise and fall, Vespasian was declared emperor by his troops. Grateful for the prediction, the new ruler rewarded Josephus handsomely: He received Roman citizenship, a pension, and an apartment in Rome, where he would live out the rest of his life under Flavian patronage.<\/p> From that point on, Josephus became a Roman insider<\/strong>. He lived in the imperial capital, enjoying the protection and support of the very regime he had once opposed on the battlefield. While this arrangement secured his safety and enabled his writing career, it also ensured that Jewish tradition would remember him with suspicion, if not outright contempt.<\/p> He died sometime around the year 100 C.E., having spent nearly half his life chronicling the events that had shaped his world and his place within the Jewish tradition. <\/p> Of course, there\u2019s much more to the story, including a few colorful details that we didn\u2019t have space for here. For those interested in the full picture of Josephus\u2019 life, we have<\/strong>\na whole article<\/a>\ndedicated just to him<\/strong>.<\/p> For us, though, the more pressing question is this: when it comes to Josephus on Jesus, what did he actually say, and can we trust it?<\/p><\/div> However, before we move into the Josephus on Jesus issue, let\u2019s take a brief look at his literary legacy. After settling in Rome under imperial patronage, Josephus devoted the rest of his life to writing historical works that sought to explain Jewish history and culture to a Greco-Roman audience.<\/p> His two most significant contributions (The Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews) are indispensable sources for anyone interested in the world of first-century Judaism and the historical backdrop of early Christianity.<\/p> His first major work, The Jewish War<\/strong>, was completed around 75-79 C.E. It offers a dramatic and detailed account of the Jewish revolt against Rome, beginning with the roots of the rebellion and culminating in the catastrophic destruction of Jerusalem and its temple.<\/p> Josephus writes as both a participant and a historian, blending his eyewitness testimony with rhetorical flourishes intended to appeal to his Roman patrons. (Here<\/a> you can read this work in a scholarly English translation.)<\/p> Simone Claude Mimouni, in his book Le juda\u00efsme ancien du VIe si\u00e8cle avant notre \u00e8re au IIIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re<\/a> (Ancient Judaism from the 6th Century B.C.E. to the 3rd Century C.E.) highlights Josephus\u2019 multifaceted approach:<\/p><\/div> In The Jewish War, Josephus presents himself as a historiographer closely aligned with his patrons<\/strong>, the Flavian emperors, not only in the perspectives he adopts but even in the sources he employs, which may have included, as some have suggested, war notes from Vespasian and Titus. In this work, Josephus conforms to the historiographical principles of contemporary Hellenistic schools<\/strong>. Yet despite his extensive concessions to Hellenism (both politically and culturally), he remains a Jewish historiographer, faithful to the traditional conception of salvation history. Thus, one detects in his writing a view of history that is in perfect harmony with the long-standing teachings of the Jewish tradition. For example, he explains the catastrophe of 70 C.E. (the destruction of the Temple) in the manner of the ancient prophets, who harshly denounce the people's breach of the Mosaic covenant (my translation).<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div> Josephus\u2019 later and even more ambitious project was Antiquities of the Jews<\/strong>, written around 93 C.E. Spanning 20 volumes, this massive history attempts to recount the story of the Jewish people from the creation of the world down to Josephus\u2019 own time. Think of it as a kind of Jewish version of Livy\u2019s Ab Urbe Condita, aimed at explaining Jewish tradition and scripture to a Roman readership.<\/p> It\u2019s in this work, not The Jewish War, that Josephus famously refers to Jesus<\/strong>, and that\u2019s what we\u2019ll explore in the next section. (Here you can read Antiquities<\/a> in a scholarly English translation.)<\/p><\/div> If I had a penny for every time someone asked me whether any non-biblical sources confirm Jesus\u2019 existence, I\u2019d be writing this from my private island. The question is a common (and perfectly reasonable) one. After all, outside the New Testament, what ancient evidence do we actually have?<\/p> This is where the Josephus on Jesus issue comes into the picture. In what follows, we\u2019ll take a closer look at the two passages in his writings that mention Jesus.<\/p><\/div> The shorter reference to Jesus in Josephus\u2019 writings appears almost incidentally. While discussing events that took place in Jerusalem just before the outbreak of the Jewish War (in particular, the political maneuvering around the high priesthood), Josephus briefly notes that the high priest Ananus took advantage of a leadership vacuum to convene the Sanhedrin and have a man named James<\/a> put to death.<\/p> To identify James more clearly, Josephus adds a phrase that has sparked centuries of scholarly interest:<\/p><\/div> Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road. So he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus <\/strong>who was called Christ, whose name was James<\/strong>, and some others; [or, some of his companions.] And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>![\"Josephus](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Josephus-on-Jesus.png\" "\\"Josephus")
<\/span><\/p>\nJosephus Flavius: Short Biography<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/quote-down.png\" "\\"quote")
<\/span>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/quote-up.png\" "\\"quote")
<\/span><\/p>\nWritings of Josephus: A Brief Glimpse<\/h2>\n
<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nWhat Did Josephus Say About Jesus?<\/h2>\n
Josephus on Jesus: The Death of Jesus\u2019 Brother James<\/h3>\n
<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n![\"Josephus](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Josephus-Flavius.png\" "\\"Josephus")
<\/span><\/p>\nJosephus on Jesus: Testimonium Flavianum<\/h3>\n
<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n#1 \u2013 Interpolation All the Way<\/h4>\n
<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n#2 \u2013 Authentic All the Way<\/h4>\n
#3 \u2013 Partial Interpolation Theory<\/h4>\n
<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nConclusion<\/h2>\n
Josephus on Jesus: What Did Josephus Say About Jesus?<\/h2><\/div>
<\/span><\/div>Josephus Flavius: Short Biography<\/h2><\/div>
<\/span><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/span><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>Writings of Josephus: A Brief Glimpse<\/h2><\/div>
<\/span><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/span><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>What Did Josephus Say About Jesus?<\/h2><\/div>
Josephus on Jesus: The Death of Jesus\u2019 Brother James<\/h3><\/div>