This is the 1st article of our 12 part research:

Debunking the Fraudulent christian Apologist List of Extra-biblical but non-contemporary, claimed “sources” used as jesus “evidence.” (Jewish, “Pagan,” Non-christian, “Secular”)

http://tmblr.co/ZkpfQtmt2ygH

Josephus mentioned at least 17 different jesus characters in his works, but none of them turned out to be the New Testament jesus of Nazareth

http://tmblr.co/ZkpfQt1MVYm1f

Josephus Flavius (37-100 CE)

Born 4 years after jesus supposedly died.

His writing in question, is from 95 CE or 62 years after jesus supposedly died.

AKA Titus Flavius Josephus, or Joseph ben Matityahu (Biblical Hebrew: יוסף בן מתתיהו, Yosef ben Matityahu)

What are the oldest manuscripts we have of Josephus’ works?

The oldest manuscripts of the works of Josephus in their original language of Greek date to the tenth and eleventh centuries. Portions of the works are also quoted in earlier manuscripts by other authors, particularly Eusebius (fourth century). There are also versions in other languages, notably a Latin translation made about the fifth century. These are all codexes, bound books, not scrolls.

As with all ancient texts, variations appear among the manuscripts due to inaccuracies in copying. The two manuscripts considered to have the best texts for the Jewish War are the Codex Parisinus Graecus and the Codex Ambrosianus, both dating from circa 900-1000 CE. The Jewish Antiquities, because of its length, was transmitted in two parts; the best texts for the first half (Antiquities Books 1 to 10) are Codex Regius Parisinus (fourteenth century) and Codex Oxoniensis (fifteenth century); the best texts for the second half (Antiquities Books 11 to 20) are Codex Palatinus (ninth or tenth century) and Codex Ambrosianus; the latter are also the preferred authorities for the Life . The only manuscript for Against Apion is Codex Laurentius, from the eleventh century, which has a large gap in Book II that must be filled by the old Latin version.

Numerous translations of these manuscripts have appeared over the years, and exploded in number after the invention of the printing press; the first printed edition dates from 1470. An important printed Greek edition, now called the Editio Princeps, was published by Johannes Froben in Basel in 1544, which seems to use a manuscript different from those known. Using the oldest manuscripts to try to determine the original text, Benedict Niese from 1887 to 1889 published a six volume Greek edition with full notes as to the variant readings; this is the text used for the English translations of both the Loeb Library edition and the new Brill Josephus Project, although the translators at times prefer alternate readings as the best ones against Niese’s choices. The very popular Whiston translation, first published in 1737, is unfortunately not based on as fine a text, and so careful readers will find differences between the Whiston version and more modern translations.

References:

The Jewish War, Books I-II, Introduction to the Loeb Edition by H. St. J. Thackeray (Cambridge, MA, 1927)
Jewish Antiquities, Books I-IV, Introduction to the Loeb Edition by H. St. J. Thackeray (Cambridge, MA, 1930)
Jewish Antiquities, Books IX-XI, Prefatory Note to the Loeb Edition by Ralph Marcus (Cambridge, MA, 1937)
The Brill Josephus Project, Series Preface by Steve Mason (appearing in each volume) (Leiden, Brill, 1999)
Rezeptionsgeschichtliche und textkritishe Untersuchungen zu Flavius Josephus, Heinz Schreckenberg (Leiden, Brill, 1977)

The oldest manuscripts of all of Josephus' writings are Greek minuscules, copied by christian monks. Jews did not preserve the writings of Josephus either because they considered him to be a traitor or because his works circulated in Greek; the usage of which declined among Jews shortly after Josephus’ era. An adapted Hebrew version was made in the Middle Ages and continues to be used to this day.

Reference:

Feldman, Louis H.; Hata, Gōhei (1989). Josephus, the Bible, and history,. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-08931-0. Page 431.

In other words: The manuscripts that we have today that christians claim to be 1st century evidence for jesus, are actually 10-11th century claimed copies of Josephus' work that was actually written by anonymous christian monks in a monastery.

~Articles dedicated to Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities, Testimonium Flavianum

The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled. By bible scholar: Acharya S/D.M. Murdock

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

Josephus: A Reliable Source? By Bob Seidensticker

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/11/josephus-a-reliable-source/

JOSEPHUS DISPROVES GOSPELS RELIABILITY - ACCOUNT OF THE BAPTIST PROVES THERE WAS NO JESUS

http://www.christisnotrisen.com/josephusdeniesgospelreliability.html

Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum 2013 - by Ken Olson

Trustees for Harvard UniversityWashington, D.C.Distributed by Harvard University PressCambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England

https://www.academia.edu/4062154/Olson_A_Eusebian_Reading_of_the_Testimonium_Flavianum_2013

For Amazing and in depth research: THE JESUS PUZZLE - Was There No Historical Jesus? By Earl Doherty - JOSEPHUS ON THE ROCKS

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp16.htm

VIDEO: Jesus Has Left the Building, Part 2 (Josephus and the Talmud)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLz89TIegy8

~Additional Articles:

Problem 1 The Antiquities of the Jews is not based on historical events. Right in the preface Josephus specifically tells us that the history he is writing about is based on Hebrew scriptures and religious books. 

“Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures.” “I shall now betake myself to the history before me, after I have first mentioned what Moses says of the creation of the world, which I find described in the sacred books after the manner following.” - Antiquities of the Jews – Preface

Problem 2 Josephus also describes God’s creation of the earth, Adam & Eve, Noah & the flood, the Tower of Babel, the 10 Plagues, the parting of the sea, and other Jewish folklore in his Antiquities of the Jews. Again, Josephus cites the religious books as his only sources.

http://truth-saves.com/jesus-christ

Non-Christian Testimony for Jesus? By Kenneth Humphreys

– From the authentic pen of lying Christian scribes !

Josephus (c37-100 AD)

Flavius Josephus is a highly respected and much-quoted Romano-Jewish historian. The early Christians were zealous readers of his work.

A native of Judea, living in the 1st century AD, Josephus was actually governor of Galilee for a time (prior to the war of 70 AD) – the very province in which Jesus allegedly did his wonders. Though not born until 37 AD and therefore not a contemporary witness to any Jesus-character, Josephus at one point even lived in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle.

Josephus’s two major tomes are History of The Jewish War and The Antiquities of the Jews. In these complementary works, the former written in the 70s, the latter in the 90s AD, Josephus mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era.

At face value, Josephus appears to be the answer to the Christian apologist’s dreams.

In a single paragraph (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum) Josephus confirms every salient aspect of the Christ-myth:

1. Jesus’s existence 2. his ‘more than human’ status 3. his miracle working 4. his teaching 5. his ministry among the Jews and the Gentiles 6. his Messiahship 7. his condemnation by the Jewish priests 8. his sentence by Pilate 9. his death on the cross 10. the devotion of his followers 11. his resurrection on the 3rd day 12. his post-death appearance 13. his fulfillment of divine prophecy 14. the successful continuance of the Christians.

In just 127 words Josephus confirms everything – now that is a miracle!

BUT WAIT A MINUTE …

Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.

The third century Church 'Father’ Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph’ from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ.“

Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet been written.

It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen’s third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.

Consider, also, the anomalies:

1. How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?
The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian!

2. If Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ’ surely he would have added more about him than one paragraph, a casual aside in someone else’s (Pilate’s) story?

In fact, Josephus relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed 'Egyptian Jew’ messiah.

It is striking that though Josephus confirms everything the Christians could wish for, he adds nothing that is not in the gospel narratives, nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already.

3. The question of context.

Antiquities 18 is primarily concerned with ”all sorts of misfortunes“ which befell the Jews during a period of thirty-two years (4-36 AD).

Josephus begins with the unpopular taxation introduced by the Roman Governor Cyrenius in 6 AD. He presents a synopsis of the three established Jewish parties (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes), but his real quarry is the ”fourth sect of philosophy … which laid the foundation of our future miseries.“ That was the sect of Judas the Galilean, ”which before we were unacquainted withal.“

At the very point we might expect a mention of "Christians” (if any such sect existed) we have instead castigation of tax rebels!

“It was in Gessius Florus’s time [64-66] that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and made them revolt from the Romans; and these are the sects of Jewish philosophy.”

“Nor can fear of death make them call any man Lord.” Sound a tad familiar?

Chapter 2 notes the cities built to honour the Romans; the frequent changes in high priest (up to Caiaphas) and Roman procurators (up to Pontius Pilate); and also the turmoil in Parthia. 

Chapter 3, containing the Testimonium as paragraph three, is essentially about Pilate’s attempts to bring Jerusalem into the Roman system. With his first policy – placing Caesar’s ensigns in Jerusalem – Pilate was forced to back down by unexpected Jewish protests in Caesarea. With his second policy – providing Jerusalem with a new aqueduct built with funds sequestered from the Temple, Pilate made ready for Jewish protests. Concealed weapons on his soldiers caused much bloodshed.

At this point the paragraph about Jesus is introduced!

Immediately after, Josephus continues:

“And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews …”

There is no way that Josephus, who remained an orthodox Jew all his life and defended Judaism vociferously against Greek critics, would have thought that the execution of a messianic claimant was “another terrible misfortune” for the Jews. This is the hand of a Christian writer who himself considered the death of Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy (fitting in with his own notions of a stiff-necked race, rejected by God because they themselves had rejected the Son of God).

With paragraph 3 removed from the text the chapter, in fact, reads better. The “aqueduct massacre” now justifies “another terrible misfortune.”

4. The final assertion, that the Christians were “not extinct at this day,” confirms that the so-called Testimonium is a later interpolation. How much later we cannot say but there was no “tribe of Christians” during Josephus’ lifetime. Christianity under that moniker did not establish itself until the 2nd century. Outside of this single bogus paragraph, in all the extensive histories of Josephus there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere.

5. The hyperbolic language is uncharacteristic of the historian:

“… as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.”

This is the stuff of Christian propaganda.

6. The Testimonium is a rather short for a genuine digression in the narrative of Josephus (the material surely was deserving of more attention than it gets). But a copyist, working with scrolls of a fixed length, would have had little space to play with.

REALITY CHECK

In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine.

Bishop Eusebius, that great Church propagandist and self-confessed liar-for-god, was the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus, about the year 340 AD. This was after the Christians had become the custodians of religious correctness.

Whole libraries of antiquity were torched by the Christians. Yet unlike the works of his Jewish contemporaries, the histories of Josephus survived. They survived because the Christian censors had a use for them. They planted evidence on Josephus, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ ! Finding no references to Jesus anywhere in Josephus’s genuine work, they interpolated a brief but all-embracing reference based purely on Christian belief.

Do we need to look any further to identify Eusebius himself as the forger?

Sanctioned by the imperial propagandist every Christian commentator for the next thirteen centuries accepted unquestioningly the entire Testimonium Flavianum, along with its declaration that Jesus “was the Messiah.”

And even in the twenty first century scholars who should know better trot out a truncated version of the 'golden paragraph’ in a scurrilous attempt to keep Josephus 'on message.’

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

“Josephus says that he himself witnessed a certain Eleazar casting out demons by a method of exorcism that had been given to Solomon by God himself– while Vespasian watched! In the same work, Josephus tells the story of a rainmaker, Onias (14.2.1).” -Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 43)

The following clip is from research called Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ By Robert Price.

The original and full length article, can be found here:

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

All of the non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or were originally based on Christian claims

Though Meier does acknowledge that the passages from Tacitus and Pliny the Younger don’t attest to the existence of Jesus, he does maintain that the writings of Josephus provide some authentic independent verification of the existence of Jesus Christ. There are two references to “Jesus Christ” in the copies that we have of Josephus' Antiquity of the Jews. The oldest copies of Antiquity of the Jews that we have come from the 9th or 10th century. All existing copies of Antiquity of the Jews that we have come down to us from Christian sources.

All of this is very important because the authenticity of the references to “Jesus Christ” are very controversial and very much in question.

First let’s address the most controversial and important reference to “Jesus” in Antiquity of the Jews, known as Testimonium Flavianum. As J.P. Meier indicates, the Testimonium is today considered to be the only potential statement that independently bears witness to the existence of Jesus Christ outside of Christian writings.

In modern times a brief passage about Jesus Christ known as the Testimonium Flavianum found in Book 18 of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities has been considered to be the only extra-biblical witness to his historicity. In ancient and medieval times it was the most frequently quoted passage from Josephus’ works, and it played no small role in making Josephus the most widely read Greek-language historian of the pre-modern Western world.
- THE TESTIMONIUM FLAVIANUM CONTROVERSY FROM ANTIQUITY TO THE PRESENT; Alice Whealey

The Testimonium Flavianum is presented below from the 1737 translation by William Whiston:

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, are not extinct at this day.
- Antiquity of the Jews, Book XVIII; Flavius Josephus, translation by William Whiston

A more recent translation of the Testimonium, from the Loeb Classical Library, is as follows:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats 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 Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not cease. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life. For the prophets of God had prophesied these and myriads of other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still up to now, not disappeared.
- Loeb Classical Library, vol. 9, pp. 49ff, translation by I. H. Feldman

There are three basic positions taken on this passage:

• The passage is completely authentic and was written by Josephus. (This is a very small minority position.)
• The passage is partly authentic. Josephus wrote something about Jesus, but later Christians altered it. (This is the favored position by Christian apologists. This position may be the majority view at this time.)
• The passage is completely inauthentic and the entire thing was added later by Christians (or someone else). (This is a widely held position. It has been the majority view at times, but may not be the majority view at present. This is my position.)

In order for the Testimonium to have value as a verification for the existence of Jesus two things need to be true:

1. The Testimonium, or at least a meaningful portion of it, needs to have been written by Josephus himself.
2. Josephus needs to have been an independent witness to the information contained in the Testimonum or to have used a source which was an independent witness to this information, i.e. if Josephus did write it, but he based his information on a Gospel or another Christian source, then it is of no value in supporting the existence of “Jesus.”

What I argue, based on the evidence, is that it’s most likely that this entire passage is a later addition by someone else, and that if it wasn’t added later in full and Josephus did write something about Jesus here then his source was the Christian story and therefore it doesn’t provide any corroborating evidence for the existence of Jesus anyway.

First let’s look at the Christian defense of the Testimonium.

Almost no scholars maintain that the entire Testimonium is authentic. The primary reason that the Testimonium is viewed as problematic and likely to be wholly or partly inauthentic is the fact that so much of what is said in the Testimonium is clearly very Christian in nature and really couldn’t have been said by a conservative Jew like Josephus. Primarily, calling Jesus “the Messiah” is something that only a Christian would do. The passage is so favorable to Jesus that one can hardly imagine anyone but a Christian writing it, for if one believed these things they would surely be a Christian themselves. Jewish scholars have doubted the authenticity of the passage since the Middle Ages, and by the 16th century Christian scholars also began to doubt the authenticity of the text. The passage has been a source of controversy ever since.

Because of the nature of the passage it is almost universally rejected as authentic, even by Christians. If the passage is wholly authentic, in fact, then it is certainly based on Christian sources and is therefore definitely not an independent witness to the existence of Jesus, and thus it does nothing to establish his existence.

The recognition of this fact by some of the more sophisticated Christian apologists is why some of them argue against its total authenticity. Some Christian apologists argue against the authenticity of the Testimonium for reasons of intellectual honesty, and others because they are attempting to position the Testimonium as a potentially authentic corroboration of the existence of Jesus, which requires that parts of it be inauthentic.

Taking the overwhelming majority position that the passage is at least partially inauthentic, let us now consider the defense of the passage as partly authentic.

Of those people who argue that the Testimonium is partly authentic, there are two basic arguments:

• Later Christians added to what Josephus had written.
• Later Christians deleted portions of what Josephus had written, and perhaps also made some additional changes as well.

First we will deal with the argument for deletions. The argument that later Christians deleted portions of what Josephus had written is less common than that later Christians simply added to what he had written, but this argument has significant implications. If one takes the Testimonium in its current form as something that was only added to by Christians, then any original passage would have at least been neutral to Jesus, if not still positive towards him. Many Christian apologists and scholars recognize that it’s very unlikely that this would be the case, and that if it were the case then it almost certainly would mean that Josephus got his information from Christian sources and therefore this wouldn’t be an independent attestation to Jesus even if a portion of it were authentic.

Because of this, some people have attempted to rescue the passage by proposing that what Josephus had originally written was negative towards Jesus and Christianity, and that this is why later Christians altered the text. A hostile reference towards Jesus is seen as the most likely type of reference that would be both authentic and independent, so this proposal has appeal to scholars who seek to maintain that this passage offers evidence for the existence of a real historical Jesus.

Frederick F. Bruce, a leading modern evangelical scholar during the later portion of the 20th century, is one of the primary advocates of the claim that the Testimonium was originally hostile and later Christians deleted portions of it. His theoretical reconstruction of the passage is as follows:

Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him is not extinct even today.
- Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament; F.F Bruce, 1974

Of this reconstruction F.F. Bruce had this to say:

The flavor of this rendering probably expresses Josephus’ intention more closely. It includes four emendations, which [appear in bold] above. The first one, suggested by Robert Eisler, is the addition of the phrase 'a source of further trouble’ in the first sentence. This links the paragraph more naturally to what has gone before, for Josephus has been narrating various troubles which arose during Pilate’s Governorship. The second one, suggested by H.ST.J.Thackeray, is the reading 'strange things’ (gk. aethe) instead of 'true things’ (gk. alethe). To Josephus, Christianity was certainly more strange than true. The third one, suggested by G.C.Richards and R.J.H.Shutt, is the insertion of 'so-called’ before 'Christ’… Some reference to our Lord’s designation as 'Christ’ is required at this point; otherwise Josephus’ readers might not understand how in fact the 'tribe of Christians’ got its name from Jesus. The fourth, is not an emendation in the same sense as the others. Josephus says that Jesus disciples 'did not cease’, and we have to ask, 'Did not cease to do what?’ the answer will be in accordance with the context, and in the kind of context we envisage, 'did not cease to cause trouble’ makes good sense.
- Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament; F.F Bruce, 1974

The problem is, however, that this is all complete speculation and there isn’t any evidence to support it. Yes, if we suppose that Josephus were to write about Jesus, this proposal by F.F. Bruce does perhaps sound plausible, but writing things that we think Josephus could have said had he chosen to write about this topic, assuming that he even knew who Jesus was, isn’t the point. We can all sit around proposing what hundreds of people “might” have written about Jesus, but that isn’t evidence, that’s just us making things up, and that’s all that F.F. Bruce is doing here, engaging in a bit of fancy.

His argument is also full of circular reasoning. He assumes from the start that Josephus knows something about Jesus and Christianity, but if this passage isn’t authentic then Josephus likely knows nothing about him or the religion. As we will see when looking at the other supposed reference to Jesus Christ in the writings of Josephus, this passage is the only potential writing of Josephus that can establish his knowledge of Jesus and Christianity. You can’t use the passage in question to establish his knowledge of Jesus, when in fact he may well have known nothing at all about him, and thus none of the opinions that Bruce attributes to Josephus can be presumed.

It’s quite clear that this is an attempt to salvage the passage based on speculation, wishful thinking, and a presumption that Josephus knows about Jesus and Christianity, the only evidence for which is this very passage.

The other defense of the Testimonium states that what Josephus originally wrote was not hostile towards Jesus or Christianity and that the current version of the passage is basically what Josephus wrote, but that later Christians added to it or slightly altered it. This has been proposed by several people, and is at least based on more than just speculation, as in the case of F.F. Bruce’s proposal.

J.P. Meier, among others, has proposed a potential reconstruction of the Testimonium. Meier’s proposal, in A Marginal Jew, is as follows:

About this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.

The portions in bold are those that Meier suggests were added by later Christians and should be excluded from the passage in order to see its original content.

There have been a variety of proposed reconstructions of the passage, all of which vary slightly, but follow these same general lines. The reason for removing these sections can easily be seen, they are the parts that seem impossible for a non-Christian to have written. What is the basis for excluding these passages however? Just the very fact that they seem impossible for a non-Christian to have written them, and the fact that they would obviously come from Christian sources if they were originally written by Josephus.

Again, this is a case of simply sanitizing the passage to make its writing by Josephus plausible, but once again we have no evidence to support most of these speculations, we have only that - speculations.

The passage as we have it in all of our copies of Antiquity of the Jews comes down to us from a manuscript that was quoted by the 4th century Christian historian Eusebius, however there are other references to this same passage from other writers shortly after the time of Eusebius’ first use of the passage which quote the passage differently. We have three other primary references to the passage that differ from what we have today and what Eusebius quoted. Some apologists for the passage propose that these quotes are “closer to the original” than the source that Eusebius quoted from, and the source that spawned the copies that have come down to us. There are two Roman references, one by Ambrose and one by Jerome, and also an Arabic reference by Agapios.

The two Roman references also come from the 4th century, after Eusebius, and the Arabic reference comes from a 9th or 10th century work.

The quotation of the Testimonium by Jerome is as follows:

Josephus in the 18th book of Antiquities, most expressly acknowledges that Christ was slain by the pharisees, on account of the greatness of his miracles…. Now he wrote concerning our Lord after this manner: “At the same time there was Jesus, a wise man, if yet it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of those who willingly receive the truth. He had many followers both of the Jews and of the Gentiles – he was believed to be the Christ. And when by the envy of our principal men, Pilate had condemned him to the cross, yet notwithstanding those who had loved him at first persevered, for he appeared to them alive on the third day, as the oracles of the prophets had foretold many of these and other wonderful things concerning him: and the sect of Christians so named from him are not extinct to this day.”

Some people claim that this quotation by Jerome is basically an exact copy what Josephus originally wrote, but most scholars also conclude that even this is not accurate, and even this would have been unlikely to have been written by Josephus. This would indicate at least two potential variants of interpolations to the text, the one quoted by Eusebius and the one by Jerome, but Ambrose also references the Testimonium in the 4th century, and his quotation of it is different still, leaving out the reference to Christ altogether, providing us now with three variants.

In addition to these, we have an Arabic paraphrase of the passage in the 9th or 10th century work of Agapios, in which Agapios is discussing Jesus. Agapios’ version of the passage is as follows:

Similarly Josephus the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance of the Jews:
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 after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

There is even more speculation and debate about this reference. Many Christian scholars, such as J.P. Meier, believe that this recounting of the passage by Agapios is ultimately sourced from a version of the Testimonium that is the same as our current version of it, but that here Agapios says that he was “perhaps the Messiah” because of the Islamic culture in which Agapios was writing, and that this does not reflect the sourcing of this passage from a version of the Testimonium that complies with Jerome’s quotation. Thus this passage from Agapios doesn’t really add much to theTestimonium discussion.

The biggest problem with all of these other references to the Testimonium is not only that they all also come after the 3rd century, but they are all also almost exactly like what we currently have today, with the only real variation being the passage about “Christ”. Ambrose’s reference leaves the passage about Christ out completely, Jerome says that he was “believed to be” the Christ, and Agapios says “perhaps” he was the Messiah.

Everything else, however, all of the other pieces of the passage which scholars have long agreed upon as incompatible with having been written by Josephus, are all there, so even with these passages we still have not arrived at a “sanitized” version of the Testimonium that would likely have been written by Josephus.

There isn’t any existing reference to the Testimonium that complies with the proposals like those made by J.P. Meier, of a Testimonium that lacks claims what could really only have come from a Christian source.

This leaves us with two real possibilities for which there is evidence, either the entire Testimonium was inserted into the text some time in the 3rd or 4th century by someone else, or the versions by Ambrose or Jerome do essentially represent what Josephus really wrote.

If Josephus really did write something like what Jerome states that he wrote, then his source for the information was certainly Christian, and thus the reference is not an independent account of the existence of Jesus, it’s merely Josephus passing on the Christian story. This would still be somewhat significant, it would at least show that Jews were aware of the story of Jesus at this time outside of the Christian community and that the story was believed and viewed as worth a minor mention, but that’s about all that this would show. Based on Josephus’ other writings his attestation to miracles is hardly reliable, for Josephus recounts the occurrence of dozens of miracles in his works, from armies in the clouds to prophecies and signs of doom. Obviously Josephus believed that these types of things could happen and believed many common myths of his time, though his belief in the resurrection of the dead is not supported by his other writings.

The question here is not whether Josephus would record miracles as facts, we know he did that, but that he would record these specific miracles in the way that this passage states them, because this would indicate that “Jesus really was the Messiah”, something which we know Josephus didn’t believe.

Now that we have seen the defense of the Testimonium Flavianum as fully or partly authentic, let’s look at the arguments for why the Testimonium should be considered a complete insertion into the text by a different author. Points against authenticity are as follow:

• The passage contains overtly Christian content
• The overall passage is positive towards Jesus, even if the overtly Christian parts are removed
• The passage interrupts the continuity of the writing
• Jesus is not mentioned in the Table of Contents
• There are stylistic variations from Josephus’ style
• The passage is not referenced by anyone prior to Eusebius in the 4th century
• The section on Pilate is similar to another section on Pilate in Josephus’ earlier writing The Jewish War, which does not contain the Jesus reference
• Josephus never wrote anything else about Jesus
• The reference is quite small considering the subject matter, and the fact that Josephus wrote more about John the Baptist and other “false prophets”
• Full insertion of the paragraph is more likely than multiple different alterations

These arguments are quite significant, and you will notice that the arguments against authenticity typically deal with the works of Josephus in a more holistic manner than the arguments for authenticity, which tend to focus on just the passage itself.

To evaluate the passage we must first consider the Testimonium in context. The Testimonium appears in Book 18 of Antiquity of the Jews. It is presented in context below, with the Testimoniumitself highlighted in bold.

1. But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar’s effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea.

2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

3. 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, are not extinct at this day.

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina; one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation: she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great modesty.
- Antiquity of the Jews, Book XVIII; Flavius Josephus, 94-100 CE

The first thing that you should notice is that the passage about Jesus interrupts the flow of the writing. Paragraph 2 leads into paragraph 4, while paragraph 3 is an interruption that goes off on a tangent that is not related to the subject at hand. This alone is a pretty significant piece of evidence, however it has been countered with the statement that Josephus did sometimes interrupt his train of thought with digressions. Nevertheless, this is a significant point against authenticity. The paragraph about Jesus could be removed from the text and no loss would be apparent, indeed the text would appear to be more consistent. The paragraph on Jesus adds noting to the rest of the work.

In addition to this, each book in Antiquity of the Jews has a detailed Tables of Contents, that mentions the details of the subjects contained in each chapter. The passage on Jesus, despite being quite important in it’s content, is not listed in the book summary. Given the content of the Testimonium, it is quite peculiar that there is no mention of Jesus in the Table of Contents. A mention of someone who is the Messiah, or who is believed to have been the Messiah, and who is claimed to have risen from the dead and been a worker of wonder works, etc., would surely warrant a mention one would think, even for a non-Christian audience, however this is not the case. The Table of Contents for book 18 is as follows:

These are the things contained in the eighteenth [volume] of the histories of the Jewish antiquities by Josephus:

How Quirinius was sent by Caesar as an assessor of Syria and Judea and custodian of the estate of Archelaus.
How Coponius, from the order of the knights, was sent as prefect of Judea.
How Judas the Galilean persuaded the multitude not to register their estates, until Joazar the high priest persuaded them rather to submit to the Romans.
Certain sects, even as many of the philosophers among the Jews, and certain laws.
How Herod and Philip the tetrarchs created cities for the honor of Caesar.
How Samaritans threw the bones of dead men into the temple and defiled the people for seven days.
How Salome the sister of Herod died and left her possessions to Julia the wife of Caesar.
How Pontius Pilate wished to bear busts of Caesar secretly into Jerusalem, and the people did not accept this, and rebelled.
What happened to the Jews in Rome at this time under the Samaritans.
An accusation of Pilate by Samaritans in the time of Vitellius, and how Vitellius compelled him to go up to Rome to give account for what he had done.
The war and defeat of Herod the tetrarch against Aretas the king of the Arabs.
How Tiberius Caesar wrote to Vitellius to persuade Artabanus the Parthian to send him hostages, and to make war against Aretas.
The death of Philip, and how his tetrarchy became a prefecture.
The sailing away of Agrippa to Rome, and how he was bound after having been accused by his own freedman; in what manner he was set free by Gaius upon the death of Tiberius and became king of the tetrarchy of Philip.
How Herod went up to Rome and was banished, and how Gaius gifted his tetrarchy to Agrippa.
The strife of the Jews and Greeks in Alexandria and the embassy from each to Gaius.
Accusation of the Jews by Apion and of the fellow ambassadors for not having a statue of Caesar.
How Gaius became irritated and sends Petronius the leader of Syria to make war against the Jews, unless they wish to receive his statue.
The destruction that happened to the Jews in Babylon on account of the brothers Asineus and Anileus.

The book encompasses a time span of 32 years.

- Translation from the Greek by Ben C. Smith

The fact that the Testimonium is highly favorable to Jesus as we have it, and at least neutral, if not still positive, towards Jesus in any reconstructed form that does not intentionally insert speculative hostile comments, is also a significant mark against the authenticity of the passage. This is made clear when one considers that every other reference that Josephus made to people who were executed by Romans was quite negative. Josephus was a Jew who was opposed to the apocalyptic and Messianic movements of his day, and in addition to this he was writing Antiquity of the Jewsfor the Romans. Josephus had every reason to portray people who were condemned under the Romans as bad people who were justly executed. In the Testimonium, however, Josephus would not only be implicating Jews, but the Romans as well, in the wrongful execution of a good person. This is inconsistent with everything else Josephus has written.

Several linguistic variations are also reported by scholars, but these are countered by scholars who favor authenticity by claiming that there are significant stylistic consistencies with Josephus as well.

Until the reference to the Testimonium passage by Eusebius in 324 we have no other references to the passage, even by Christian apologists who had otherwise referenced works of Josephus, some of whom had referenced Antiquity of the Jews specifically, and even book 18.

Michael Hardwick reports in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, that Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, and Lactantius all fail to make any reference to the Testimonium despite their demonstrated familiarity with the works of Josephus and their defense of Christianity and Jesus.

This means that if the Testimonium were original in any form resembling what we have today, that it existed in a widely read work for over 200 years without ever being mentioned. In addition to this, it would have been, as far as we know, the only positive or neutral attestation to Jesus outside of Christian writings during this time.

Most significant, perhaps, is the fact that Origen did reference passages from Antiquity of the Jews some time between 230 and 250, in his work Against Celsus, yet he never mentioned theTestimonium. Here are Origen’s references to Antiquity of the Jews:

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, 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 James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),-the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine
- Against Celsus; Origen

This short passage raises many issues. The first issue is Origen’s apparent reference to “the 18th book of his Antiquities”, which is the book that both the Testimonium is currently in and Josephus’ discussion of John the Baptist is in. Scholar Louis Feldman states that “the 18th book of his Antiquities” is not in the original texts of Origen, and claims that this is a later interpolation. This would not be surprising, but it is an important issue because this would confirm absolutely that Origen had read the 18th book, which would make his complete avoidance of the Testimonium unexplainable by anything other than the fact that it was not there at all when he read it.

Even though the phrase “the 18th book of his Antiquities” may be an interpolation, his discussion of John the Baptist still indicates that he probably did read the 18th book, which still brings us to the question of how Origen could have read the 18th book and never made any comment about the Testimonium passage, either right here or in any of his other works. It seems highly unlikely to say the least.

There are other things to consider here as well however. Origen states that Josephus didn’t believe that Jesus was the Christ, which contradicts the current version of the Testimonium, and neither the versions of the Testimonium cited by Jerome or Ambrose lend support the Origen’s statement. Origen also states that Josephus attributed the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE to the execution of James, who Origen believes is “James the Just”, and he ponders why this would be the case instead of attributing the destruction of Jerusalem to the execution of Jesus himself. This is quite a confusing issue, because Origen is getting confused here and talking about things that don’t appear in any works of Josephus that we have. (This will be discussed in a moment)

Origen then goes on to attribute a reference to “Jesus (called Christ)” to Josephus, which now appears in book 20 of Antiquity of the Jews. He adds, however, that James was considered the “brother of the Lord” by Paul (and presumably other Christians) due to his virtue, not blood relationship. What Origen wrote about James does not correspond to what is written in book 20 however, thus it is very uncertain that Origen had actually read this book, and perhaps he was working from secondary sources, or he got his sources confused.

We have to understand Origen’s perspective here, and know that he is attributing his views to Josephus, even though Josephus likely would have had no idea what Origen was talking about. We will address the passage in book 20 that refers to Jesus, the brother of James, soon, but for now it must be said that this passage does not say anything about “James the Just” and is probably not even talking about anything related to Christianity, this is just a mistake made by Origen. The passage by Josephus is talking about something completely different, but it is significant here that Origen clarifies the point that Paul considered James the figurative brother of the Lord, not the literal brother of the Lord.

At any rate, what we get from this passage by Origen is an example of someone who was using the works of Josephus to make a defense of the reputation and legacy of Jesus Christ, and who makes no mention of the Testimonium, despite appearing to be familiar with information in book 18. This is indeed very difficult to explain if the Testimonium existed at that time in either a positive or neutral tone. Even if it were negative it would probably have warranted some discussion by Origen, if not here then at least in some other work. If there were a “negative Testimonium” it’s highly likely that Origen or someone else would have addressed it, exactly because of the fact that Antiquity of the Jews was such a highly regarded and widely read work. The apologetic argument that early apologists would have ignored a negative or neutral Testimonium simply doesn’t hold weight, and that they would have passed over the only positive or neutral reference to Jesus outside of their own works is also unbelievable, especially since Origen is here going to pains to make something out what he believes is a much more benign reference to Jesus by Josephus.

Another issue with the Testimonium is the fact that much of what is in Antiquity of the Jews is very similar to what Josephus had written in his earlier work, The Jewish War, which was about the war of 66-70 CE during which Judea was destroyed, and the events leading up to it. Below is the section of The Jewish War that discusses the reign of Pilate.

2. Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius, sent by night those images of Caesar that are called ensigns into Jerusalem. This excited a very among great tumult among the Jews when it was day; for those that were near them were astonished at the sight of them, as indications that their laws were trodden under foot; for those laws do not permit any sort of image to be brought into the city. Nay, besides the indignation which the citizens had themselves at this procedure, a vast number of people came running out of the country. These came zealously to Pilate to Cesarea, and besought him to carry those ensigns out of Jerusalem, and to reserve them their ancient laws inviolable; but upon Pilate’s denial of their request, they fell down prostrate upon the ground, and continued immovable in that posture for five days and as many nights.

3. On the next day Pilate sat upon his tribunal, in the open market-place, and called to him the multitude, as desirous to give them an answer; and then gave a signal to the soldiers, that they should all by agreement at once encompass the Jews with their weapons; so the band of soldiers stood round about the Jews in three ranks. The Jews were under the utmost consternation at that unexpected sight. Pilate also said to them that they should be cut in pieces, unless they would admit of Caesar’s images, and gave intimation to the soldiers to draw their naked swords. Hereupon the Jews, as it were at one signal, fell down in vast numbers together, and exposed their necks bare, and cried out that they were sooner ready to be slain, than that their law should be transgressed. Hereupon Pilate was greatly surprised at their prodigious superstition, and gave order that the ensigns should be presently carried out of Jerusalem.

4. After this he raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called Corban upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had indignation; and when Pilate was come to Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and made a clamor at it. Now when he was apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he mixed his own soldiers in their armor with the multitude, and ordered them to conceal themselves under the habits of private men, and not indeed to use their swords, but with their staves to beat those that made the clamor. He then gave the signal from his tribunal [to do as he had bidden them]. Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, and held their peace.
- The Jewish War, Book II; Josephus

In this work, written around 75 CE, there is no mention of Jesus Christ. This lends support to both the view that the Testimonium was a later insertion by someone else, or that if Josephus did write it then his source was Christian and developed after the dissemination of the Gospels. It is also significant here that Josephus is talking about disturbances in Judea, and interactions between the Romans and Jews in relation to disturbances, but makes no mention of the Roman execution of a Jewish rebel, blasphemer, prophet, or self-proclaimed “King of the Jews”. If the Gospel account of the death of Jesus were true, then surely the event would have merited some mention here would it not?

Indeed there are several places in Josephus’ other works that one would expect Josephus to mention Jesus if he had indeed been aware of him and written the Testimonium. For example, in his autobiography Josephus wrote about the religious quests of his youth in which he named all of the religious sects in Judea and his investigations into them, yet he made no mention of Jesus or Christianity. This part of his life took place between 53 and 56 CE.

And when I was about sixteen years old, I had a mind to make trim of the several sects that were among us. These sects are three: - The first is that of the Pharisees, the second that Sadducees, and the third that of the Essens, as we have frequently told you; for I thought that by this means I might choose the best, if I were once acquainted with them all; so I contented myself with hard fare, and underwent great difficulties, and went through them all. Nor did I content myself with these trials only; but when I was informed that one, whose name was Banus, lived in the desert, and used no other clothing than grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity, I imitated him in those things, and continued with him three years. So when I had accomplished my desires, I returned back to the city, being now nineteen years old, and began to conduct myself according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees, which is of kin to the sect of the Stoics, as the Greeks call them.
- The Life of Flavius Josephus, Josephus, 94-99 CE

It has to be recognized that the Testimonium is quite short, and given the nature of what it says, it would be astonishing that Josephus would make such a short commentary. We are, after all, talking about a miracle working wise man, who had many followers, was executed and came back to life, and was at least considered to be “the Messiah”. Why would Josephus relegate all of this to a few sentences and then never say anything else about it, either in Antiquity of the Jews itself or in his other works?

The answer to all this makes much more sense if we consider that Josephus never heard of Jesus Christ at all.

With all of this we then have to ask how it is that the Testimonium came into existence? The proposals by those who claim that Josephus wrote some part of the Testimonium, but that later Christians altered it, all require multiple changes to the text (aside from the proposal of just changing the statement on Christ from “he was proclaimed to be” to “he was”). If the text is different today from what Josephus wrote, then I would argue that the simplest and most likely alteration is the full insertion of the entire Testimonium itself by someone else at a later date.

For a long time this was believed to be the case, indeed it was Protestant reformers in the late Renaissance and Enlightenment who proposed this and proscribed to it, but they proposed that the Catholic Church historian Eusebius intentionally inserted the passage in an effort of deception. This is important to note, because it is important to recognize that the belief that Eusebius inserted this passage was intentionally a claim that was made by anti-Catholic Protestants, it is not a recent claim of religious skeptics. Nevertheless, because of the fact that this claim had been well established in the literature for centuries, it is still the most widely discussed possibility for a fully insertion.

This claim really has very little merit however, and is unlikely. The much more likely scenario, and I argue the most likely scenario for how this passage came to be, is that the Testimonium is a marginal or interlinear note that was accidentally incorporated into the text. This is actually the most common way that ancient texts got corrupted, and the passage has all the hallmarks of a note.

To understand how this type of thing happens, you need to understand ancient manuscripts. This work would have been written on unbound media, such as scrolls, but the process was essentially the same as the later usage of bound books. The texts were written on pages with wide margins on the sides, and the margins were used to make notes and corrections. When owners of the texts studied them they would make notes in the margins, but when scribes of the texts copied them, they would also make corrections in the margins. Many times the margins got quite messy and mistakes were made when later scribes went to copy the texts. Later scribes were supposed to read the margins and then make any corrections that were indicated there in the copies that they made. Thus, if an earlier scribe accidentally left out a passage and instead appended it in the margins, the later scribe was supposed to incorporate that passage in the body of the copy that he was making.

To get an idea of this we can look at some examples of manuscripts. The examples below are of later copies of ancient works, but they demonstrate how manuscripts were used and copied.

We see above different examples of marginal and interlinear notes. The issue is that sometimes people made commentaries or personal notes in the margins and sometimes they made corrections, but later scribes often couldn’t distinguish between the two, so sometimes notes got incorporated as corrections.

In this way later notes got written into the text as if they were a part of the original.

I contend that this is the most likely explanation for the Testimonium passage.

At this point we can only speculate, but I propose this scenario:

Someone, either a Christian of Jewish heritage or a non-Christian, in the 2nd or 3rd century was reading the section on Pilate and added a marginal note about Jesus at the location where he thought Jesus would have fit into the timeline of history. The person may have read the passage and thought, “oh this is where Jesus came along”, and added a note accordingly. The Testimonium passage appropriately starts out,  “About this time there lived Jesus…”. This is exactly what one would expect to find in a note. Some later scribe then thought that this note was supposed to be part of the text and incorporated it into the work. Later variations on the “Christ” sentence could have occurred from that point on, but the rest of the Testimonium was simply inserted in full.

From that point on the copies of Antiquity of the Jews that contained this passage were the ones most likely to have been used and copied by Christians, thus a form of “natural selection” took place, selecting for the preservation of copies that contained this passage over ones that didn’t.

This is what the evidence suggests. We don’t have any evidence of a small neutral passage that could have reasonably been written by Josephus, and we have no evidence for a hostile passage. The only evidence that we have is evidence from absence of for the first 200+ years of the existence of Antiquity of the Jews, and then evidence for the existence of the full fledged passage. That theTestimonium was a marginal note which got integrated into the text explains why the Testimonium is short, dense, interrupts the flow of the text, is not in the Table of Contents, is not mentioned inThe Jewish War, and why Josephus never wrote anything else about Jesus Christ, and it is the only explanation that does explain all of these things.

Almost all of the apologetic attempts to rescue the passage rely on the existence of some intermediate passage that could have been written by Josephus, but there is no evidence that any such passage ever existed. We only have reasonable evidence to suggest that the passage was not there and evidence of the passage basically as we see it today, we have no evidence for anything in between.

That doesn’t mean that it’s impossible that Josephus wrote something small and neutral originally, but based on the evidence we have, full insertion by the innocent incorporation of a note seems the most likely origin of the Testimonium Flavianum. The (distant) second most likely scenario based on the evidence, I contend, is that Josephus wrote the entire passage himself basically as we see it today, in which case his source was certainly the Christian story itself, and thus even if Josephus did write it, he certainly isn’t a witness to anything other than the story of Jesus, not Jesus himself.

Both of these most likely scenarios preclude the Testimonium Flavianum from being evidence for the existence of Jesus. We know that Josephus couldn’t have been a personal witness anyway, he was born in 37 CE.

Within the past 50 years, and especially the past 20 years, there has been a growing defense of the Testimonium Flavianum and growing attempts to salvage at least some part of it as “original”. Today the majority opinion in scholarship is that some part of the Testimonium Flavianum is original, but the growing defense of the Testimonium is a product of the growing challenge to the historical existence of Jesus. Originally almost all Protestants regarded the Testimonium has a complete fraud, but this was before the idea that Jesus was a complete myth existed. As the challenge to the existence of Jesus has grown defenders of Jesus have had to look around for supporting evidence, and now the Testimonium Flavianum is really the one and only potential corroborating statement for the existence of Jesus Christ, so there have been renewed efforts to defend it, hence all of the proposals, based purely on speculation, about possible “acceptable” versions of it that could have been written by Josephus, but there is no evidence for any such versions, just wishful thinking.

The only remaining possible non-Christian attestation to the existence of Jesus Christ, then, is the passing mention of “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” inAntiquity of the Jews, so let us now take a look at that.

First let’s take a look at the passage in question:

1. 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 [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, 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: 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 [Agrippa], 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 sanhedrim 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.
- Antiquity of the Jews, Book XX; Flavius Josephus, 94-100 CE

What is important to note here is that this is a passage that is definitely talking about at least one Jesus, the son of Damneus. Indeed, the name “Jesus” was quite common at the time. In fact the whole issue of the name of Jesus is quite confusing, because Jesus and Joshua are really two different interpretations of the exact same Hebrew name. “Jesus” is the English form of the Latin form of the Greek translation of Yeshu'a, while Joshua is the direct English translation of Yeshu'a, without going through the Greek variant. So, in reality Jesus and Joshua are the exact same name, or would have been the exact same name as far as Jews were concerned, because to them both of these names would have been Yeshu'a.

That’s not critically important here, but what is important is the fact that both “Jesus” and “James” (in their Greek and Hebrew forms) were extremely common names at the time. Indeed there are at least 19 or so “Jesuses” listed between the Bible and the works of Josephus. Josephus himself lists about 14.

1. Jesus son of Naue (Joshua of Nun)
2. Jesus son of Saul
3. Jesus, high priest, son of Phineas
4. Jesus son of the high priest Jozadak
5. Jesus son of Joiada
6. Jesus, high priest, son of Simon
7. Jesus, high priest, son of Phabes
8. Jesus, high priest, son of See
9. Jesus, high priest, son of Sirach (writer of Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach)
10. Jesus Christ
11. Jesus son of Damnaeus, became high priest
12. Jesus son of Gamaliel, became high priest
13. Jesus son of high priest Sapphas and military general
14. Jesus, chief priest, probably to be identified with 10 or 11
15. Jesus son of Gamalas, high priest
16. Jesus, brigand chief on borderland of Ptolemais
17. Jesus son of Sapphias
18. Jesus brother of Chares
19. Jesus a Galilean, perhaps to be identified with 15
20. Jesus in ambuscade, perhaps to be identified with 16
21. Jesus, priest, son of Thebuthi
22. Jesus, son of Ananias, rude peasant, prophesies the fall of Jerusalem.

Of the 28 high priests between the reign of King Herod the Great and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, four of them were named Jesus.

So, it’s important here to understand that both Jesus and James were very popular names, and that the mere coupling of these names by themselves would not in any way identify a Jesus as the same Jesus who is the subject of the Gospels; one has to consider the passage and the subject of the writing.

This chapter is discussing events that were taking place around 60 CE, some time between about 60 and 66 CE. Nothing in this chapter or the passage has any relationship to “Jesus Christ”, and the use of “Christ” as an identifier is quite odd, for Josephus never explains what this term means. One could argue that if the Testimonium Flavianum is authentic, then the Testimonium Flavianumis what provides the explanation for who this Jesus is, but if the Testimonium Flavianum as we have it is not authentic, at least including the reference to “Christ”, then this would be a completely oddball and unsupported reference. Josephus also never uses the term “Christ” in any of this other works.

There is nothing else in Antiquity of the Jews that would indicate that this James has any relationship to Jesus Christ, or that anything in this discussion has any relationship to him. In addition, since this is something that is occurring around 60 CE, it would seem quite odd to identify James by his association to a person whom the Jews had supposedly killed as a common criminal some 30 years prior to the event, and 60 years prior to this writing.

Christians argue that this was done because “Jesus Christ” was so well known that it makes the passage make sense, but as we have seen, no one prior to Josephus had even written about Jesus Christ aside from some Christians, so it certainly does not seem that he was well known.

A much more likely case here is that the Jesus mentioned as the brother of James is the same Jesus who is  the son of Damneus.

There are two possible explanations, then, for the inclusion of the phrase “who is called Christ”.

• The passage is authentic, but Jesus son of Damneus was also called “Christ”, which simply means anointed
• The phrase “who is called Christ” is a later insertion into the text

The first thing to consider is that Jesus the son of Damneus was called “Christ”, which is actually quite possible. “Christ” is just a transliteration of the Greek word Christos (Χριστου), which is a translation of the Hebrew Mashiah, which simply means anointed, or one who is anointed.

Jewish kings and high priests were called anointed ones, and this is used many times in the Hebrew scriptures. It is only Christians who assume that the term means “the one and only anointed one”, but this passage could also be translated:

…and brought before them the brother of Jesus, called The Anointed, whose name was James, and some others…

Indeed, the Jewish Encyclopedia discusses the issues surrounding Christ, Messiah, and anointing and states:

Septuagint translation of Hebrew “Mashiah” (“Messiah”=The Anointed), applied by Christians exclusively to Jesus as the Messiah.
- Christ - Jewish Encyclopedia

In post-exilic times, the high priest, filling the place formerly occupied by the king, is spoken of as “ha-Kohen ha-Mashiah” (the anointed priest; Lev. iv. 3, 5, 16; vi. 5), also (Dan. ix. 25, 26) as “Mashiah Nagid” (an anointed one, a ruler) and simply “Mashiah” (an anointed one), referring to Onias III.
- Messiah - Jewish Encyclopedia

The most important use of mashah is in connection with certain sacred persons. The principal and oldest of these is the king, who was anointed from the earliest times (Judges, ix. 8, 15; I Sam. ix. 16, x. 1; II Sam. xix. 10; I Kings, i. 39, 45; II Kings, ix. 3, 6, xi. 12). So exclusively was Anointing reserved for the king in this period that “the Lord’s anointed” became a synonym for king (I Sam. xii. 3, 5, xxvi. 11; II Sam. i. 14; Ps. xx. 7). This custom was older than the Hebrews. El-Amarna Tablet No. 37 tells of the anointing of a king.

In that section of the Pentateuch known as the Priestly Code the high priest is anointed (Ex. xxix. 7; Lev. vi. 13, viii. 12), and, in passages which critics regard as additions to the Priestly Code, other priests as well (Ex. xxx. 30, xl. 13-15). It appears from the use of “anointed priest,” in the sense of high priest (Lev. iv. 5-7, 16; Num. xxxv. 25, etc.), that the high priest was at first the only one anointed, and that the practice of anointing all the priests was a later development (compare Num. iii. 3; Dillman on Lev. viii. 12-14; Nowack, “Lehrbuch der Hebräischen Archäologie,” ii.
…
Rabbinical tradition distinguishes also between the regular high priest and the priest anointed for the special purpose of leading in war—mashuah milhamah (Sotah, viii. 1; Yoma, 72b, 73a). According to tradition (see Josippon, xx.; Chronicle of Jerahmeel, xci. 3; compare I Macc. iii. 55), Judas Maccabeus was anointed as priest for the war before he proclaimed the words prescribed in Deut. xx. 1-9.

Anointing stands for greatness (Sifre, Num. 117; Yer. Bik. ii. 64d): consequently, “Touch not mine anointed” signifies “my great ones.”
- Anointing - Jewish Encyclopedia

Other issues that are related to this are the fact that Josephus is writing around 95 CE, so is he saying explicitly that this Jesus was called Mashiah before this event took place, or is he using a term that this Jesus came to be known by, even though he may not have been known by that name at this point in history? This is similar to a situation where someone writes a passage about someone like Ronald Reagan today, and writes, “Ronald, who was called the Gipper,” even though they may be talking about a point in his life prior to him having acquired that nickname.

This passage could simply be saying that Jesus son of Damneus was considered a great person, or an already holy person, hence the reason that he, the brother of James who was put to death, is being given the high priesthood. This could also simply be using a description of Jesus son of Damneus that he was later called. This event supposedly happened around 62 CE, which is getting very close to the Jewish War with Rome, and this is a term that was even more heavily used in relation to “war priests”, or high priests during a time of war, or priests who, in the Jewish tradition, actually acted as generals. Jesus son of Damneus was not a high priest during the war, but Jesus son of Sapphas was the son of a high priest and a general in the war, it could be talking about him.

All in all, however, this is probably not the case. The phrase, ’“who was called Christ,” was probably inserted into the text later.

One argument against this being authentic is that Josephus doesn’t use the term Christos anywhere else, so it does not appear likely that this is original. If it were original, however, then there are certainly many possibilities for reading the text, and it can’t simply be presumed that this is talking about the Jesus Christ of the Gospels, but more than likely it isn’t original in the first place.

The other arguments against this being original deal with the structure of the sentence, the subject matter of the passage, the fact that even if Jesus Christ existed he would be an odd person for Josephus to use as an identifier for someone else, especially by brotherhood, and the fact that if this were talking about “James the Just” (which it almost certainly isn’t for reasons we shall see) then this James himself would have been more famous than Jesus at this point in time and this association would have made no sense, as James himself, according to Christian legend, was a community leader and well known person, though there is no reference to him in the non-Christian literature (unless this is a reference to him).

Let’s read the passage again, without “who was called Christ” in the passage:

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 [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, whose name was James, 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: 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 [Agrippa], 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 sanhedrim 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.

What this passage would be saying is that Ananus was a priest who abused his power. Ananus wrongly condemned James and some others to death, but the equitable citizens wrote to Herod to complain about this, so Herod punished Ananus by taking the high priesthood from him and giving it to James’ brother, Jesus (son of Damneus).

This story makes perfect sense, follows the typical writing style of Josephus, and now the mention of Jesus as the brother of James has context and relevancy. The story here is about Ananus, and how Jesus son of Damneus obtained the high priesthood. The whole point of the sentence that mentions James is to explain issues relevant to Jesus son of Damneus. If this sentence were talking about Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ would be the one who has no relation to the story, and thus we would expect James to come first in the sentence, because James would be who was being talked about, but in this case Jesus is mentioned first because Jesus is who is being talked about, at it only makes sense that Jesus is the one being talked about if this is Jesus son of Damneus, whom the narrative is about.

We can also break the text down as follows:

[Ananus unlawfully] assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus 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; … 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 and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

“Jesus Christ”, some guy that was presumably killed for being a false prophet 30 years prior, is an obscure reference out of the blue that has no relation to the narrative.

The story here makes sense if the James is the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, because giving the high priesthood to Jesus would then be seen as a form of reparation to the family for the wrongful death of James, and as a further punishment to Ananus.

Why wouldn’t Josephus put the “son of” identifier in the first reference instead of after the fact? Well, for the very reason that “brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” seems odd, because it’s a double qualifier and a cumbersome sentence. In addition, the strong point of the passage is the naming of Jesus as the high priest, thus Josephus uses the formality of identifying Jesus by his father when he states that he was named the high priest.

Why didn’t he identify James by his father instead? Because if James is related to Jesus son of Damneus then this is implied, and Jesus is the more important figure, he is the one who becomes high priest. It is also possible, by the way, that “whose name was James” is a part of the inserted text as well, and what was really added was “who was called Christ, whose name was James”.

The real question, however, is if this is James “the brother of Jesus Christ” of the Gospels, and Christians claim that the Gospels are true, then that would mean that this James would have to be in the line of David as well, and thus if anything it would have made more sense to qualify James by his father Joseph, who would had to have been in the line of David, and thus would have been seen as prestigious name worth mentioning. Likewise, if this was “James the Just”, then why not identify him by his supposed prestigious position in society, instead of a link to being the bother of Jesus? Josephus does this when he mentions John the Baptist, whom he calls “John the Baptist”, identifying him not by his father, but by a title or by his deeds. This passage really opens up a whole can of worms for Christians, because it simply doesn’t make sense if read with “who was called Christ” in it, and it draws many other aspects of Christian lore into question.

There are also no other examples in the works of Josephus of identifying someone in the manner that is used here if “who was called Christ” were talking about a different person from Jesus son of Damneus, i.e. mentioning the person being related first, and then the subject after, with an explanation of who the person being related is in between.

So, if “who was called Christ” is not authentic, then how did it get there? There are two likely possibilities, either it came from the insertion of a note, or it was later inserted into the text as a correction based on references made by Origen, which appear to cite Josephus a source for a link between Jesus and James. Origen’s citations, however, are highly problematic and almost certainly spurious.

As with the Testimonium Flavianum, if this was inserted based on a marginal or interlinear note then it was probably a completely innocent mistake. These types of things happened. A Christian reading the work may have seen the names Jesus and James together and jumped to the conclusion that this was “Jesus Christ”, and then made a note saying so. A later scribe would have then just incorporated it, assuming it to be true, in order to clarify the passage.

The other, and I believe more likely, possibility is that Origen’s passage that attributed to Josephus a claim that Jesus was called Christ is actually a mistake on Origen’s part, but this set a precedent leading others believe that Josephus had actually said this.

Let’s look again at Origen’s citation of this passage from Against Celsus:

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, 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 James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),-the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine
- Against Celsus; Origen

Origen actually cites Josephus as a source for “brother of Jesus” three times, and in every case, as in this one, he paraphrases and mentions things that no one has ever been able to find in any works of Josephus. In fact in The Jewish War, written about two decades before Antiquity, Josephus attributed the destruction that befell the Jews to the deaths of both Ananus the elder (the father of the corrupt Ananus) and either Jesus son of Damneus or Jesus son of Gamaliel (he does not specify), whom he said were shrewd negotiators and level-headed decision makers who opposed the war against the Romans.

What appears to be the case is that Origen has somehow confused the works of Josephus with the works of the early Christian chronicler Hegesippus. Hegesippus is known as the earliest chronicler of Christian history, and he was also an apologist. His works are universally acknowledged as highly flawed and imaginative, basically inventing “history”, but he did also use historical sources. Origen’s paraphrase above does correspond to passages in the works of Hegesippus, and thus his citations of “Josephus” were probably really citations of Hegesippus, or citations of commentaries that themselves mixed the sources of Josephus and Hegesippus, or perhaps Hegesippus himself is the source of the error; perhaps he claimed that Josephus made this correlation.

Here is a passage from Hegesippus, which corresponds to Origen’s passage in Against Celsus:

James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woolen garment, but fine linen only. … Therefore, in consequence of his pre-eminent justice, he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek Defense of the People, and Justice, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.

…

The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees accordingly set James on the summit of the temple, and cried aloud to him, and said: “O just one, whom we are all bound to obey, forasmuch as the people is in error, and follows Jesus the crucified, do thou tell us what is the door of Jesus, the crucified.” And he answered with a loud voice: “Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven.”

And, when many were fully convinced by these words, and offered praise for the testimony of James, and said, “Hosanna to the son of David,” then again the said Pharisees and scribes said to one another, “We have not done well in procuring this testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, that they may be afraid, and not believe him.” And they cried aloud, and said: “Oh! oh! the just man himself is in error.” Thus they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah: “Let us away with the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruit of their doings.” So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to one another: “Let us stone James the Just.” And they began to stone him: for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned, and kneeled down, and said: “I beseech Thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

And, while they were thus stoning him to death, one of the priests, the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, to whom testimony is borne by Jeremiah the prophet, began to cry aloud, saying: “Cease, what do ye? The just man is praying for us.” But one among them, one of the fullers, took the staff with which he was accustomed to wring out the garments he dyed, and hurled it at the head of the just man.

And so he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him on the spot, and the pillar erected to his memory still remains, close by the temple. This man was a true witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ.

And shortly after Vespasian besieged Judaea, taking them captive.
- Commentaries on the Acts of the Church; Hegesippus, 165-175

This is the only known account that precedes the writing of Origen which resembles what he cites in Against Celsus, and it resembles his account very well. The mixing up of authors was not uncommon, and these types of confusions are not otherwise unknown. This is especially likely in the case of Josephus and Hegesippus because we know that there was on-going confusion about these two names, and some scholars think that Hegesippus is actually a corruption of the name Josephus, meaning that these two different writers may both have had the same name. In Greek Josephus is written Iosippus, and some people have translated this as Hegesippus while others translated it is Josephus. It is considered proper to translate it as Josephus, but this was a common error that is more well known in relation to later 4th century works that are wrongly attributed to a Hegesippus based on the name Iosippus within the text.

How exactly Origen got confused we cannot know. Maybe he was confused by the names? Maybe he got a scroll of Hegesippus that was wrongly attributed to Josephus by someone else? We also know of another work was that wrongly attributed to Josephus, which was probably written by the 3rd century Christian writer Hippolytus, Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades. Indeed this work is still commonly attributed to Josephus, though scholars do not acknowledge it as such.

These types of mistakes happened, but that only explains Origen’s citation, what about the text from Josephus that we have today?

Well, either the phrase “who was called Christ” was an independent insertion into the text of a marginal or interlinear note, or Origen actually set the precedent and later scribes, when looking for clarity, knew of Origen’s work and inserted the phrase into Josephus thinking that it was supposed to go there.

This again is not uncommon. Firstly, many scribes were familiar with many works, and it would not be uncommon for later scribes who were copying Josephus to have also read or copied Origen. Secondly, scribes were supposed to make an effort to clarify ambiguous names, or to make corrections based on other references. If they read a work that didn’t have a passage that someone else had claimed that it did have, they were then supposed to try and figure out what was original and then make the correction, so if someone had read one of Origen’s three works where he claimed that Josephus said that James was the brother of Jesus Christ, then when making their copies of this passage in Josephus it would have looked to them like a mistake if the phrase about Christ was not there, thus they would have added it.

So, what we can say with confidence about the “brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” passage, is that the inclusion of “who was called Christ” seems very much out of place and the entire passage makes more sense when “who was called Christ” is removed. This phrase is in the middle of a passage that is discussing Jesus son of Damneus, and the passage is clear and meaningful without this phrase present. Indeed, introducing a separate Jesus that is unrelated to the story seems quite unlikely.

We also know that Origen is cited as the earliest confirmation of this passage, but Origen’s reference to Josephus is highly problematic and doesn’t comply with anything that we know of that has ever been written by Josephus, and it is pretty unbelievable that Josephus would have made any commentary on “James the Just”, since this is just a Christian title and we have no such existing commentary on “James the Just” from Josephus. It appears that Origen somehow got his sources confused and mixed up the works of Hegesippus with Josephus, leading him to falsely attribute to Josephus a phrase that he never wrote.

This mistaken attribution by Origen then led other scribes to insert the text into Josephus at the only place where a James was mentioned as the brother of a Jesus, in a passage that is really clearly talking about a different Jesus.

With all of this we can see that there are certainly no solid independent attestations to the existence of Jesus Christ in the non-Christian literature. Modern scholarship recognizes that theTestimonium Flavianum is the only reasonably possible independent witness to Jesus Christ in the non-Christian literature, and there is nothing else aside from that one passage that could even claim to confirm his existence.

The reality, however, is that even the Testimonium Flavianum cannot be maintained as an affirmation of the existence of Jesus Christ. The Testimonium Flavianum is by far best explained as the full insertion of a later note, and this was the dominant view among Protestant scholars before the rise of the challenge to the existence of Jesus. The Testimonium Flavianum has only been strongly defended as at least partly authentic within the past 100 years, which corresponds to when the challenge to the existence of Jesus emerged and became substantial. In short, the Testimonium Flavianum is strongly defended now because Christian scholars know that it is the last thread tying Jesus into history.

Additionally, the arguments related to the Testimonium Flavianum have evolved substantially since it was first challenged. The first challenge to the Testimonium Flavianum was presented by Protestant scholars who believed that it was intentionally inserted by the Catholic historian Eusebius in an attempt to misrepresent history, making the Testimonium Flavianum a product of some conspiracy. This is not likely, and not supported by the nature of the passage, but the innocent insertion of a note, believing that is was a part of the text, is both likely and fits the nature of the passage.

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

Josephus from “The Christ” by John E. Remsberg,

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/1stC_Hist.htm

Did Jesus Really Exist?  by Mark Thomas

The earliest extra-biblical supposed references to Jesus or Christ are in one paragraph and one sentence in the writings (about 93 CE) attributed to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (who also wrote about Hercules).  Here are the supposed references, in his Jewish Antiquities:

18.3.3 — “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 Messiah.  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.”

20.9.1 — “…brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James…”

The sentence is far too brief to mean much.  The phrase “who was called Christ” is awkward and was likely inserted by a transcriber.  Plus, a few lines later Josephus refers to Jesus, the son of Damneus.  This is likely the Jesus referred to in the sentence. The paragraph looks like just about everything a Christian could hope for, to prove that Jesus actually existed.  Unfortunately, it’s an obvious latter insertion — almost certainly created by “church historian” Eusebius, who first referred to it shortly before Emperor Constantine’s Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.  We know this for several reasons:

• Despite the fact that Josephus’ writings were widely read, no Christian or scholar before Eusebius refers to it, especially not the Christian scholar Origen, whose library Eusebius used. 
• Origen even wrote that Josephus did not believe in Jesus Christ. 
• If the pious Jew Josephus had truly thought that Jesus was the Messiah, he would have become a Christian.
• It’s unlikely that Josephus would have referred to the accusing Jews as “the principal men among us.”
• There never was a “tribe of Christians.”
• Copies of Josephus’ works existed, that lacked either reference to Jesus. 
• The style of the text is radically different from the rest of his writings.
• The text is completely out of context with the paragraphs around it, and interrupts their story line.  The next paragraph begins, “About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder…"  This refers to the previous paragraph, where Pilate had his soldiers massacre a large crowd of Jews in Jerusalem.
• Josephus wrote extensively about many minor people of the time.  A single paragraph and sentence for the Messiah is impossible.

With these two spurious references removed from Josephus’ writings, he becomes strong negative evidence for Jesus.  If Jesus had existed, Josephus would have written extensively about him.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/JesusExist.htm

Historicity Of Jesus FAQ (1994) By Scott Oser

Josephus and Jesus

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing during the second half of the first century CE, produced two major works: History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews. Two apparent references to Jesus occur in the second of these works. The longer, and more famous passage, occurs in Book 18 of Antiquities and reads as follows (taken from the standard accepted Greek text of Antiquities 18:63-64 by L. H. Feldman in the Loeb Classical Library):

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

This passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum, and is sometimes cited by propagandists as independent confirmation of Jesus’ existence and resurrection. However, there is excellent reason to suppose that this passage was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later Christians:

1. The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah.” Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome’s Latin version, however, renders “He was the Messiah” by “He was believed to be the Christ.”) Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus.
2. The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was certainly not the case.

Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a later Christian insertion. However, some maintain that Josephus’s work originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists later expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus. These scholars cite such phrases as “tribe of Christians” and “wise man” as being atypical Christian usages, but plausible if coming from a first century Palestinian Jew. Of course, a suitably clever Christian wishing to “dress up” Josephus would not have much trouble imitating his style.

Philip Burns (email removed) has provided some of the following material on the following alternate versions or reconstructions of the Testimonium Flavianum.

One possible reconstruction of the Testimonium Flavianum, suggested by James Charlesworth, goes like this, with probably Christian interpolations enclosed in brackets:

About this time there was Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed one ought to call him a man]. For he was one who performed surprising works, and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual. He stirred up both many Jews and also many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the first-rate men among us, those who had been loving (him from) the first did not cease (to cause trouble), [for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him]. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not (yet?) extinct.

In Charlesworth’s version, references to Jesus’ resurrection, Messiahship, and possible divinity (“if indeed one ought to call him a man”) are removed. These elements are clearly unacceptable coming from a non-Christian Jew such as Josephus. If in fact Josephus’s original text mentioned Jesus at all, it was certainly much closer to this version than to the highly pro-Christian one which has survived. One possible problem with Charlesworth’s reconstruction is the use of the term “Christians”–it is not clear from the reconstructed text why “Christians” would be named after Jesus, unless Josephus had previously referred to him as “Christ”. It seems inconsistent to delete the reference to Jesus being “Christ”, but to keep the suggestion that this is how Christians got their name.

A reconstruction by F.F. Bruce sidesteps this particular problem by having Josephus take a more hostile stance towards Jesus:

“Now there arose about this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him, is not extinct even today.

Bruce’s version also seems somewhat inconsistent, calling Jesus a "wise man” while also identifying him as a source of trouble and as someone who “led away many Jews”. A further problem concerns the reference to Jesus’s ministry among the Gentiles. In Jesus: A Historian’s Review of the Gospels, Michael Grant argues that Jesus in fact avoided ministering to Gentiles, and that a Christian Gentile ministry arose only after his death. If Grant is right, then Josephus is confusing the actions of Jesus with the actions of the early Christian church.

A late Arabic recension of this passage in Josephus comes from Agapius's Book of the Title, a history of the world from its beginning to 941/942 C.E. Agapius was a tenth century Christian Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis. The following translation is by S. Pines:

“Similarly Josephus, the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance (?) of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. 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. But 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.”

While some have argued that this passage may be close to the original, one should note especially that this version is from a much later text, and that Josephus at least admits the possibility that Jesus was the Messiah, which seems unlikely. These two facts make this version suspect. In fact, E. Bammel argues that the passage reflects the conflicts between Christianity and Islam in Agapius’s time, rather than being a genuine reflection of the original text.

The consensus, if there is such a thing, would seem to be that:

1. The Testimonium Flavianium preserved in the extant Greek is not the original text. At best, certain phrases within it are later Christian insertions. At worst, the entire passage is a later insertion.
2. In particular, Josephus probably did not claim that Jesus was the Messiah, or that he rose from the dead. At best, he only confirms that Jesus existed and perhaps was killed by Pilate.

Josephus apparently refers to Jesus in passing later in the “Antiquities”, where we find this passage:

“so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and someothers (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned.” (Antiquities 20.9.1)

Opinion about this passage is mixed. Some scholars believe that it is a later Christian insertion, like the Testimonium Flavianium may be, but of course much less blatantly so. Others believe that the passage may in fact be genuine. No adequate means of deciding the issue exists at this time. However, those who argue for Jesus’s non-existence note that Josephus spends much more time discussing John the Baptist and various other supposed Messiahs than he does discussing Jesus. However, while there is some reason to believe that this second passage is a fabrication, there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude this.

On the whole, it seems at least plausible that Josephus made some references to Jesus in the original version of Antiquities of the Jews. However, the extent of these references is very uncertain, and clear evidence of textual corruption does exist. While Josephus may be the best non-Christian source on Jesus, that is not saying much.

More detailed information and references to other discussions on Josephus may be found in:

1. Bruce, F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Eerdmans, 1974.
2. Charlesworth, James H. Jesus Within Judaism. Doubleday (Anchor Books) 1988.
3. France, Richard T. The Evidence for Jesus. Intervarsity Press, 1986.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Josephus Flavius

The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius was the earliest non-Christian to mention Jesus. Josephus’ birth in 37 CE, well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, means he could not have been an eyewitness. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 CE, even later than the first gospels. Despite Josephus having long been a favourite of apologists, many scholars think that Josephus’ short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius of Caesarea).

Antiquities of the Jews begins “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” and arduously parallels the Old Testament up to the time when Josephus is able to add equally tedious historical recountings of Jewish life during the early Roman period. In Book 18, Chapter 3, this paragraph is encountered (Whiston’s translation):

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 him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal man 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, are not extinct to this day.

This truly appears to give historical confirmation for the existence of Jesus. But is it authentic? Most scholars admit that at least some parts, if not all, of this paragraph cannot be authentic,^[51] even the Catholic Encyclopedia concurring.^[52] Many are convinced that the entire paragraph is a forgery, an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time.^[53][54]. Even Christian scholars consider the paragraph to be an overenthusiastic forgery.^[55][56][57]

The paragraph is absent from early copies of the works of Josephus. For example, in Origen’s second century Origen Contra Celsum, wherein Origen fiercely defends Christianity against the heretical views of Celsus, he quotes freely from Josephus to prove his points, but never once uses this paragraph, which would have been the ultimate ace up his sleeve. The paragraph does not appear at all until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine, who was eager to demolish Gnostic Christianity and replace it with literalistic Christianity. Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of the emperor, was instrumental in crystallizing and defining the version of Christianity that was to become orthodox, and he is the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus. Eusebius once wrote that it was permissible “medicine” for historians to create fictions^[58] — prompting historian Jacob Burckhardt to call Eusebius “the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.” Many scholars believe Eusebius was the source of the paragraph on Jesus.

Josephus would not have called Jesus “the Christ” or “the truth.” Whoever wrote these phrases was a believing Christian. Josephus was a messianic Jew, and if he truly believed Jesus was the long-awaited messiah (Christ), he certainly would have given more than a passing reference to him. Josephus never converted to Christianity. Origen reported that Josephus was “not believing in Jesus as Christ.”

The passage is out of context. Book 18 (“Containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon”) starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and discusses various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, to which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus; Herod’s building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with sedition against Pilate, who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem. The Jews protested; Pilate sent spies into Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. Then in the middle of all these troubles comes the curiously quiet paragraph about Jesus, followed immediately by: “And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews …” Josephus would not have thought the Christian story to be “another terrible misfortune.” It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who might have considered Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph three can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter; in fact, it flows better without it.

There was no “tribe of Christians” during Josephus’ time; Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

Josephus appears not to know anything else about the Jesus outside of this tiny paragraph and an indirect reference concerning James, the “brother of Jesus” (see below). He does not refer to the gospels now known as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, or to the writing or activities of Paul, though if these stories were in circulation at that time he ought to have known about them and used them as sources. Like the writings of Paul, Josephus’ account is silent about the teachings or miracle of Jesus, although he reports the antics of other prophets in great detail. He relates much more about John the Baptist. He lists the activities of many other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the magician and the Egyptian Jew Messiah. He makes no mention of the earthquake or eclipse at the crucifixion, which would have been universally known in that area if they had truly happened. He adds nothing to the Gospel’s narratives and says nothing that would not have been believed by Christians already, whether in the first or fourth century.

The paragraph mentions that the “divine prophets” foretold the life of Jesus, but Josephus neglects to mention who these prophets were or what they said. In no other place does Josephus connect any Hebrew prediction with the life of Jesus.

The hyperbolic language of the paragraph is uncharacteristic of a careful historian: “… as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him …” This sounds more like sectarian propaganda — in other words, more like the New Testament — than objective reporting. It is very unlike Josephus.

There’s actually not one but two references in Josephus. The latter is lesser known and cites James the brother of Jesus:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was put upon the road; so he [Ananus, the Jewish high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, him 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.

Though there are good reasons to think this too is not Josephus’ original text:

Josephus was writing for a Roman audience. A Roman audience would not have been familiar with Jewish beliefs concerning the Messiah. Indeed, they probably wouldn’t even have known what the word “Christ” meant other then “the wetted” or perhaps “the greased”.^[59]

The original Greek wording of the passage itself is extremely similar to Matthew 1:16.

After reading the rest of the text of this passage we find that the Jews were so angry about the stoning of James that they they demanded that King Agrippa fire Ananus. Why would the Jews be angered over the killing of a Christian, since Christians were seen as heathens by the Jews?

The end of the paragraph seems to identify the Jesus described within as Jesus the son of Damneus, and clearly states that this Jesus was made high priest by Agrippa.

Finally, and most importantly the James of Josephus died c64 CE by just stoning while Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Early Christian tradition all had James the Just dying c70 CE by being thrown from a battlement, stoned, and finally clubbed to death by passing laundrymen.^[60]

The “him called Christ” makes most sense as a margin note by a later scribe copying the text, inserted by error in a paragraph about Jesus son of Damneus.^[61]

Drews in The Witness To The Historicity of Jesus stated that, even if the passage was entirely genuine, “brother” could have just meant the James being referred to belonged to a sect that venerated a Messiah called Jesus.^[62] It has also been pointed out that “(t)he Bible uses the term "christ” or “messiah” for a variety of figures, including all of the high priests and kings of ancient Israel"^[63] and “In a characteristic typological reading he asserts that Moses himself was the first to recognize the glory of the name of Christ because he applied this title (in Greek as in the Hebrew, mashiah means simply "the anointed one”) to the High Priest",^[64] meaning that the passage could be read “who was was called christ” (with a small 'c’) and be referencing the anointment of Jesus, son of Damneus.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ

Jesus in Josephus by Richard Carrier

Now that the world has ended, my peer reviewed article on Josephus just came out: “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200” in theJournal of Early Christian Studies 
(vol. 20, no. 4, Winter 2012), 
pp. 489-514.

The official description is:

Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.

My proof of that is pretty conclusive. But this article also summarizes a sufficient case to reject theTestimonium Flavianum as well (the other, longer reference to Jesus in Josephus), in that case as adeliberate fabrication (see note 1, pp. 489-90, and discussion of the Arabic quotation on pp. 493-94). And I cite the leading scholarship on both. So it’s really a complete article on both references to Jesus in Josephus.

Further evidence that the longer reference is a Christian fabrication lies in an article I didn’t cite, however, but that is nevertheless required reading on the matter: G.J. Goldberg, “The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke,” in the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha (vol. 13, 1995), pp. 59-77. Goldberg demonstrates nineteen unique correspondences between Luke’s Emmaus account and the Testimonium Flavianum, all nineteen in exactly the same order (with some order and word variations only within each item). There are some narrative differences (which are expected due to the contexts being different and as a result of common kinds of authorial embellishment), and there is a twentieth correspondence out of order (identifying Jesus as “the Christ”). But otherwise, the coincidences here are very improbable on any other hypothesis than dependence.

Goldberg also shows that the Testimonium contains vocabulary and phrasing that is particularly Christian (indeed, Lukan) and un-Josephan. He concludes that this means either a Christian wrote it or Josephus slavishly copied a Christian source, and contrary to what Goldberg concludes, the latter is wholly implausible (Josephus would treat such a source more critically, creatively, and informedly).

That, combined with the arguments I assemble in my article for JECS, spells the final death knell for any hope of restoring any part of the Testimonium Flavianum. It is 100% Christian fabrication.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2946

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/journal_of_early_christian_studies/v020/20.4.carrier.pdf

http://jsp.sagepub.com/content/7/13/59.full.pdf+html

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/12/25/richard-carrier-takes-the-christ-out-of-christmas/

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

1. jesusbirthermovement posted this