Josephus on Jesus: What Did Josephus Say About Jesus?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

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.

And yet, when it comes to the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth really existed, 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.

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.

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?

In what follows, I’ll explore these questions in depth. First, I’ll briefly introduce who Josephus was and why he matters. Then I’ll turn to the central focus of this article: the two brief, but historically significant, references to Jesus found in his writings.

Before we dive in, take a moment to check out Bart Ehrman’s outstanding course, “The Genius of Mark: Revealing the Mysteries of the Gospel of Mark.” In this eight-part series, Dr. Ehrman explores the earliest surviving account of Jesus’ life, uncovering surprising insights and overlooked features in the Gospel of Mark. This is a must-watch for anyone interested in the historical Jesus.

Josephus Flavius: Short Biography

Despite his importance for understanding 1st-century Judaism and early Christianity, there are surprisingly few external sources about Josephus’ life. In other words, nearly everything we know about him comes from his writings (more on those later).

According to his autobiographical account, Josephus was born in 36 or 37 C.E., just a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem and around the same time that Paul experienced his conversion to Christianity.

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.

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.

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?

Per Bilde explains in his Biography of Josephus:

(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!)

That controversial decision (choosing survival over martyrdom) defined the rest of Josephus’ life. Well, who can blame him?! Anyway, while still in Roman custody, he predicted that his captor, General Vespasian, would become emperor.

Remarkably, the prophecy proved accurate: After Nero’s suicide 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.

From that point on, Josephus became a Roman insider. 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.

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. 

Of course, there’s much more to the story, including a few colorful details that we didn’t have space for here. For those interested in the full picture of Josephus’ life, we have a whole article dedicated just to him.

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?

Writings of Josephus: A Brief Glimpse

However, before we move into the Josephus on Jesus issue, let’s 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.

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.

His first major work, The Jewish War, 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.

Josephus writes as both a participant and a historian, blending his eyewitness testimony with rhetorical flourishes intended to appeal to his Roman patrons. (Here you can read this work in a scholarly English translation.)

Simone Claude Mimouni, in his book Le judaïsme ancien du VIe siècle avant notre ère au IIIe siècle de notre ère (Ancient Judaism from the 6th Century B.C.E. to the 3rd Century C.E.) highlights Josephus’ multifaceted approach:

Josephus’ later and even more ambitious project was Antiquities of the Jews, 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’ own time. Think of it as a kind of Jewish version of Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita, aimed at explaining Jewish tradition and scripture to a Roman readership.

It’s in this work, not The Jewish War, that Josephus famously refers to Jesus, and that’s what we’ll explore in the next section. (Here you can read Antiquities in a scholarly English translation.)

What Did Josephus Say About Jesus?

If I had a penny for every time someone asked me whether any non-biblical sources confirm Jesus’ existence, I’d 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?

This is where the Josephus on Jesus issue comes into the picture. In what follows, we’ll take a closer look at the two passages in his writings that mention Jesus.

Josephus on Jesus: The Death of Jesus’ Brother James

The shorter reference to Jesus in Josephus’ 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 put to death.

To identify James more clearly, Josephus adds a phrase that has sparked centuries of scholarly interest:

Most critical scholars regard this passage as authentic, unlike the more complicated reference we’ll examine next.

As John P. Meier argues in his seminal work A Marginal Jew, there are compelling reasons to see this as a genuine statement from Josephus:

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 at the beginning of the 4th century, providing important external attestation.

While brief, this reference to “Jesus who was called Christ” 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.

Josephus on Jesus: Testimonium Flavianum

It’s 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.

The paragraph is found in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3. It appears in the context of Josephus’ description of unrest under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate. Seemingly out of nowhere, he inserts a report about a man named Jesus:

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.

Today, scholars are, as Robert Louis Wilken explains, divided into three general camps.

#1 – Interpolation All the Way

At one end of the spectrum are those who argue that the entire passage is a later Christian interpolation, 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.

In one of his posts, Carrier reiterates what he elaborated in the book On the Historicity of Jesus:

#2 – Authentic All the Way

On the opposite end are those who maintain that the entire paragraph comes from Josephus himself, unaltered. This is also a minority view, but some scholars, as Wolfgang A. Bienert noted, still argue for full authenticity.

#3 – Partial Interpolation Theory

The mainstream scholarly position is a middle ground, sometimes called the “partial interpolation theory.” 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.

When one strips away the later interpolation, this is what we get:

Why do most critical scholars accept this middle position? John P. Meier offers several compelling arguments:

#1 – The literary and stylistic flow of the paragraph is disrupted by three phrases that stand out as patently Christian: (1) “if indeed one should call him a man,” (2) “he was the Messiah,” and (3) “he appeared to them on the third day, living again.” 

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.

#2 – The language and vocabulary of the “neutral core” differ markedly from the Greek of the New Testament but fit well with Josephus’ own style. By contrast, the three interpolated phrases contain terms closely aligned with early Christian creedal language.

#3 – The “low Christology” 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’t satisfy any early Christian interpolator. 

In other words, the result is too neutral, too minimalist, even too dismissive to be a Christian invention.

#4 – Testimonium Flavianum is found in all Greek manuscripts of Antiquities 18, as well as in all Latin translations made by Cassiodorus’ school in the 6th century. That suggests there was some reference to Jesus in Josephus’ original text, even if not all of it is authentic.

Additionally, Robert Louis Wilken, in his book Jesus Outside of the New Testament, provides another important insight:

Finally, it’s worth considering the existence of an alternative version of the Testimonium Flavianum, preserved in Agapius’ Universal History (a 10th-century Christian chronicle written in Arabic). 

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.

Taken together, these considerations make the middle-ground theory 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. 

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.

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 concluded that a full Christian fabrication is exceedingly unlikely. As he puts it, one would have to suppose “a talent for imitation that would scarcely have any equivalent in antiquity.” (my translation)

Conclusion

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.

For historians, Josephus’ references provide important non-Christian evidence. Even though all of us would like more information! Wouldn’t it be great if the Jewish historian wrote more about the nascent Christian movement?! But we have what we have.

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’s, quite simply, invaluable.