The Testimonium Flavianum: Historical Fact or Religious Forgery?

This text is from Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence by scholar Robert E. Van Voorst, where he critically analyzes Josephus's writings on Jesus, including the Testimonium Flavianum, and explores debates about its authenticity and possible Christian alterations.

Josephus: Jesus, a Wise Man Called the Christ

The Jewish historian Josephus (37-ca. 100 C.E.) was born Joseph ben Mattathias into a noble and priestly family. In 64 C.E., at the young age of 27, Joseph led a special diplomatic delegation to Nero. Two years later, when the Jewish revolt against Rome had broken out, he became a commander of the Jewish forces in Galilee. He surrendered to the Romans during the war and then embraced their cause. After the war, he became a Roman citizen and a writer in the employ of the Flavian emperors Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian, living in an apartment in their palaces. He took a Roman name honoring his patrons, by which he is known to subsequent history, Flavius Josephus.

Josephus wrote several works designed to explain and justify Rome and the Jews to each other. However, his two main books are mostly a defense of the Romans and an admonition to the Jewish people to live peaceably under them. This intent is important for our topic, for it will affect how Josephus writes about Jewish movements, including one founded by a Jewish religious leader who was executed by Rome. His Jewish War tells the story of the Jewish revolt of 66-70 C.E. He wrote it between 75-80 C.E. and draws on his own experience.

His second major work, Jewish Antiquities, written in the early 90s, recounts in twenty books the history of the Jewish people from the creation until the Jewish revolt. These two works are important sources for our knowledge of biblical history, and especially of politics and war in Palestine in the first century C.E. Although Josephus saw himself as a lifelong loyal Jew, other Jews viewed him as a self-serving traitor. Flavian patronage would guarantee that his books would be copied in the public scriptoria, but after the fall of Rome his books were preserved only by Christians. To judge from the evidence that remains, his works were not read or copied by Jews or cited by other ancient Jewish writers. For example, the massive rabbinic literature never refers to him or uses his writings, despite their obvious usefulness. This intentional neglect persisted in medieval and modern times, and until recently most Jewish scholars have marginalized Josephus's works.

One of the reasons Christians copied Josephus’s works was that they provided rich information on a few figures in the New Testament, especially John the Baptizer, James the leader of the early Jerusalem church, and Jesus. John is given some extensive treatment, but Josephus does not mention Jesus here. He relates James's death and briefly mentions Jesus. Because this mention of Jesus is short and remarkably uncomplicated, we will deal with it now.

Ananus the high priest, "rash in temper and unusually daring," acted during a gap in Roman gubernatorial authority. He assembled the sanhédrin of the judges and brought before it the brother of Jesus called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. When he had accused them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.

The overwhelming majority of scholars holds that the words "the brother of Jesus called Christ" are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found. The passage fits its context well. As for its content, the medieval Jewish book Josippon is a Hebrew digest of Josephus, widely quoted and used, but ascribed to "Joseph ben Gorion." Its earlier versions have no mention of Jesus; later, expanded versions have brief, negative mentions of Jesus with material seemingly drawn from the Talmud and Toledot Yeshu.

A good example of modern marginalizing is Joseph Klausner's Jesus of Nazareth. Josephus is in a chapter with Suetonius and Tacitus, not in the chapter on "Jewish tradition." For about the last two generations, however, Jewish scholars have been at the forefront of research into Josephus. Josephus's main statement about Jesus, traditionally known as the Testimonium Flavianum, the "Witness of Flavius (Josephus)" to Jesus, is found in Jewish Antiquities.

Around this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is right to call him a man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who accept the truth with pleasure. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Messiah. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, but those who had first loved him did not cease doing so. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, because the divine prophets had prophesied these and myriad other things about him. To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared.

Before we examine this passage, we must consider a much longer form of it in an Old Russian translation of Josephus's Jewish War, which goes by the name "Slavonic Josephus" or sometimes, cleverly, the Testimonium Slavianum. It did not surface until the beginning of the twentieth century.

In J.W. 2.9.2 §169, this version states:

At that time there appeared a certain man — if it is proper to call him a man, for his nature and form were human, but his appearance was superhuman and his works were divine. It is therefore impossible for me to call him a mere man; but on the other hand, if I consider that his nature was shared by others, I will not call him an angel. Everything that he performed through an invisible power he worked by word and command. Some said: "Our first lawgiver is risen from the dead, and he has displayed signs and wonders." But others thought that he was sent from God. In many respects, however, he opposed the Law and he did not keep the Sabbath according to the custom of our forefathers. Yet he did nothing shameful. He did nothing with his hands, but with his word alone. Many of the common people followed him and paid heed to his teaching. Many men's minds were stirred, for they thought that through him the Jewish tribes could free themselves from the power of Rome. It was his custom to stay outside the city on the Mount of Olives. There he wrought cures for the people. A hundred and fifty assistants joined him, and a multitude of the populace. When they saw his power, and his ability to accomplish by a word whatever he desired, they communicated to him their will that he should enter the city, cut down the Roman troops and Pilate, and reign over them; but he would not listen to them. When news of this was brought to the Jewish leaders, they assembled along with the high priest and said: "We are too powerless and weak to resist the Romans. But since the bow is bent, we will go and tell Pilate what we have heard, and then we shall avoid trouble; for if he hears of it from others we shall be robbed of our goods and we shall be slaughtered and our children dispersed." So they went and told Pilate. Pilate sent soldiers who killed many of the multitude. The miracle-worker was brought before him, and after he held an inquiry concerning him, he pronounced judgment as follows: "He is a benefactor, he is no criminal, no rebel, no seeker after kingship." So he released him, for he had healed his wife when she was dying. He went back to his usual place and did his customary works. Even more people gathered round him, and he gained even more glory by his acts. The scribes were stung with envy, and they gave Pilate thirty talents to kill him. He took it and gave them liberty to carry out their will. So they seized him and crucified him, contrary to the law of their fathers.

The next passage in the Slavonic Josephus, inserted after J.W. 5.5.4 §214, reads as follows:

[The temple curtain] had, you should know, been suddenly rent from the top to the ground, when they delivered to death through bribery the doer of good, the man who through his acts was no man. Many other signs they tell which came to pass then. It was said that after he was put to death, even after burial in the grave, he was not found. Some then assert that he is risen, but others that he has been stolen by friends. I, however, do not know which speak more correctly. But others said that it was not possible to steal him, because they had put guards all around his grave — thirty Romans but a thousand Jews.

The third passage in the Slavonic Josephus, inserted into J.W. 5.5.2 §195, reads:

Above these inscriptions [at one of the gates leading into the inner part of the temple] a fourth one was hung in the same letters. It said, "Jesus, a king who did not reign, was crucified by the Jews because he foretold the destruction of the city and the desolation of the temple."

Finally, a sentence speaking of a messianic prophecy from the Bible is inserted at J.W. 6.5.4, replacing §313:

Some understood Herod by this, but others the crucified wonder-worker Jesus; others again say Vespasian.

In 1929, at the beginning of research into these Slavonic passages, Robert Eisler wrote a controversial book entirely devoted to defending their authenticity, and in more recent times George Williamson has followed him. Aside from these two efforts, no strong defenses of authenticity have been made. The contents of these passages show that they are Christian compositions and that they do not provide an authentic textual alternative to the main Testimonium Flavianum in the Jewish Antiquities.

The beginning of the first passage reflects christological controversies which ensued long after Josephus, but its language is hardly orthodox. The Slavonic Josephus reflects the growing Christian tendency to excuse Pontius Pilate for Jesus' death and to blame the Jews, even to the point of saying that the Jews themselves crucified Jesus. To make this point, the Slavonic version has to ignore Josephus's original statement that Pilate crucified him. This is repeated in the third interpolation above. The Slavonic Testimonium uses the New Testament extensively at several points to develop its story. At times this use misrepresents the New Testament, as for example when the passage states that Jesus was so powerful a healer that he never even used his hands, or that at the tomb of Jesus a guard of thirty Romans and one thousand Jews was posted. It also develops the brief mention of Pilate's wife in Matt 27:19. The third part of the Slavonic Testimonium, which has Jesus' name and punishment by "the Jews" written at one of the temple gates, is so improbable as to be ridiculous.

The four parts of the Slavonic Testimonium have no literary connection to ancient Jewish traditions about Jesus to support their ancient origin, much less their authenticity. Finally, we must not overlook the strongest argument against their authenticity, the text-critical one. That these passages are not found in the Antiquities, but against all other textual evidence in the Jewish War, is a strong indication that they are not genuine.

Scholars have almost unanimously rejected the authenticity of the Slavonic Testimonium, and most believe with Paul Winter that it is even later than the present form of the main Testimonium.

Returning to the form of the Testimonium in the Antiquities, we have a firmer but still highly controverted passage about Jesus. Since Oslander and Scaliger in the sixteenth century, scholars have debated the authenticity of this passage. Louis Feldman, the dean of Josephan scholars, counts more than eighty studies of this problem from 1937-1980, and it continues to draw attention in current scholarship. It poses one of the oldest, most difficult problems in historical scholarship into Christian origins. Because the few manuscripts of Josephus come from the eleventh century, long after Christian interpolations would have been made, textual criticism cannot help to solve this issue.

Neither does the Testimonium's absence in the parallel section in the second book of Josephus's Jewish War offer any evidence on its authenticity, because the Antiquities goes beyond the Jewish War at many points. We are left to examine the context, style, and content of this passage to judge its authenticity.

We will discuss first the view that the Testimonium is completely authentic, then the view that it is completely unauthentic, and finally the view that a reconstructed Testimonium behind the present one is likely original.

Until the rise of historical criticism in early modern times, most believed this passage to be authentic. This precritical view continues to be influential in some circles outside mainstream scholarship and is nicely summarized in what is still the best-selling English translation of Josephus, by William Whiston. With the rise of historical criticism, some continued to accept it, most notably the great church historian Adolf von Harnack. As Wolfgang Bienert remarks, today only a small minority of scholars deems it basically authentic. They reason that most of the passage does not seem to be a Christian interpolation, so it is therefore authentic as a whole.

We can list their arguments in turn.

The passage calls Jesus "a wise man," which, while complimentary, is not what one would expect a Christian interpolation to say, because the label was not at all a common Christian one. Josephus says the same about Solomon (Ant. 8.2.7 §53) and Daniel (Ant. 10.11.2 §237), and something similar about John the Baptizer, whom he calls "a good man" (Ant. 18.5.2 §116-9).

That Jesus is said to have been "a worker of amazing deeds" (παραδόξων έργων ποιητής) may be a positive statement, but the wording is not likely to come from a Christian. The phrase "amazing deeds" itself is ambiguous; it can also be translated "startling/controversial deeds," and the whole sentence can be read to mean simply that Jesus had a reputation as a wonder-worker.

According to the passage, Jesus was also "a teacher of people who accept the truth with pleasure." Christian writers generally avoid a positive use of the word "pleasure" (ηδονή), with its connotation of "hedonism," and it is difficult to imagine a Christian scribe using it here about Jesus' followers.

The statement that Jesus won over "both Jews and Greeks" represents a misunderstanding perhaps found among non-Christians like Lucian. However, anyone remotely familiar with the Gospel tradition knows that Jesus himself did not win over "many Greeks" to his movement, even though "Greeks" here means Gentiles. While Jesus had a certain appeal to Gentiles, he certainly did not win them over in the same proportion as Jews, as the "both...and" (καί μέν...καί δέ) construction and the repeated "many" (πολλούς) suggest. This statement naively reads back the situation of Christianity at the end of the first century when Christianity had many adherents from both Jewish and Gentile backgrounds. Once again, a Christian copyist probably would not make such a mistake.

The sentence "Those who had first loved him did not cease [doing so]" is characteristically Josephan in style and points to the continuance of Christianity after the death of its founder. It implies that the love of Jesus' followers for him, not Jesus' resurrection appearances to them, was the basis of Christianity's continuance. This statement does not explicitly endorse the love of Christians for their Christ, as a Christian interpolator might be prone to do.

Finally, calling Christians a "tribe" (φύλον) would also be unusual for a Christian scribe; a follower of a missionizing faith would be uncomfortable with the more narrow, particularistic implications of this word. However, Josephus can use it this way for other groups, both Jewish and Gentile. As Claudia Setzer remarks, "While 'tribe' is an odd way to describe Christians, it does not necessarily carry negative connotations."

The foregoing arguments pointing away from Christian interpolation at several key points in the Testimonium have led a few interpreters to hold that it is completely authentic.

What are the main arguments for denying the authenticity of the entire passage?

First, as presently worded, it does not fit well into the context of Book 18 of the Antiquities. Situated in a series of episodes that explicitly criticizes Pilate and/or the Jewish leaders, this one seems only implicitly critical of them and makes at least a neutral assessment of Jesus as a leader.

Second, the wording of some sentences suggests that the whole passage may be a Christian forgery. The clause "if indeed it is right to call him a man" suggests that Jesus was more than human. This looks like a Christian scribe's correction of the christological implications of calling Jesus only "a wise man." The crux of this problem is the curt sentence "He was the Christ" (ό Χριστός ούτος ήν). Leaving aside the issue of how intelligible this statement would have been to Josephus's Gentile audience, this sentence looks like a confession of Jesus as Messiah. The order of the Greek words even emphasizes "the Christ." Note that it does not say something like "he was called Christ," as in Josephus's other mention of Jesus. The Josephus who wrote "called Christ" there would be unlikely to say "he was the Christ" here. Since Josephus elsewhere says little about messiahs and messianic movements, downplaying them in order to focus (and put the blame for the military debacle) on the extremists who incited the revolt of 66-70 C.E., we should not expect a positive mention of a messiah here.

Moreover, scholarship on the Testimonium sometimes loses sight of how Josephus himself applied traditional messianic ideas. As he intimates in Jewish War 3.8.9 §392-408 and says explicitly in 6.6.4 §310-13, he believes that the biblical prophecies point not to a Jewish messiah, but to the Roman general Vespasian, who became emperor while leading the Roman forces in Judea. Josephus was not about to insult his Flavian patrons by calling Jesus the anointed world ruler!

The entire sentence, "For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, because the divine prophets had prophesied these and myriad other things about him," is filled with Christian content. The phrase "on the third day" is found widely in the synoptic Gospels, Acts, and in Paul. Sometimes it takes on the character of a confessional statement (e.g., 1 Cor 15:4). The bald statement "he appeared to them alive again" looks like a confession of faith in the resurrection and post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. The clause "because the divine prophets had prophesied these... things about him" affirms the fulfillment of biblical prophecy in the resurrection of Jesus, a particularly Christian notion. If that were not enough, the passage adds that "myriad other" things in the prophets were fulfilled in Jesus.

These doubts about wording, though they have to do with less than half of this passage, have led some interpreters to reject the entire Testimonium as an interpolation. The third main argument for totally rejecting the passage's authenticity centers on external evidence indicating that it was not in Josephus's original work. Although several Christian apologists of the second and third centuries knew Josephus's works, most notably Irenaeus and Tertullian, they did not cite this passage despite its obvious usefulness. Less of an argument from silence is the evidence from Origen. Origen twice wrote that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ (Against Celsus 1.45; Commentary on Matthew 10.17). At the very least, this means that he did not have a text of Josephus which contained the phrase "he was the Christ," and at the most that his text did not contain this passage at all. The first witness to this passage as it stands now is from Eusebius in about 323 (Ecclesiastical History 1.11). The earliest apologists did not cite it, so the argument for rejecting authenticity states, because it was not there.

These three arguments, then, are the basis for the complete rejection of this passage by some.

The debate over authenticity has continued for hundreds of years, partly because the evidence can be argued both ways. For example, the pivotal statement "He was the Messiah" can be argued to support both Christian interpolation, because it agrees with Christians on the Messianic status of Jesus, and Josephan authenticity, because the word "was" could imply that Jesus is no longer the Messiah. To take another example, the clause "if one ought to call him a man" looks Christian to most interpreters. However, an expert Josephan scholar like H. St. J. Thackeray could argue that it is authentic because it has a "ring of insincerity." This ambiguity extends from key phrases and sentences to the whole passage; as we have seen above, it too has been argued both ways. While a few scholars still reject it fully and even fewer accept it fully, most now prefer one of two middle positions. The first middle position reconstructs an authentic Josephan passage neutral toward Jesus, and the second reconstructs an authentic passage negative toward Jesus. We will now consider these two reconstructions.

The neutral reconstruction argues that an authentic passage has been supplemented by Christian scribes to make it complimentary to Jesus and his followers. When these interpolated supplements are identified and removed, an authentic passage neutral toward Jesus results:

Around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, [but] those who had first loved him did not cease [doing so]. To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared.

Some readers may wonder how this reconstruction, with its several positive statements about Jesus, can be regarded as neutral. Yet it should be remembered that at the end of the first century Christians were using highly positive language about Jesus ("Son of God," "Lord," "Savior," etc.); at least some Jews were using strongly negative language about him ("deceiver," "magician," etc.); and Romans too were using negative epithets like "instigator." Seen against this spectrum, the reconstructed Testimonium appears noncommittal toward Jesus. It could have been written by a Jew neutral to Jesus, but not by a Christian or pagan Roman. We will consider the main arguments for this neutral reconstruction after we consider the negative reconstruction.

Those who reconstruct a negative passage argue that Josephus was reporting on a challenge to Jewish religion that Jewish authorities rightly tried to quash by handing Jesus over to the Romans. Scholars of such variety as Robert Eisler, S. G. F. Brandon, Ernst Bammel, F. F. Bruce, Graham Stanton, and Graham Twelftree share this basic position, with some variation in method and result. Here is Bruce’s reconstruction, indicative of the basic lines of the other negative reconstructions, with the conjectural wording italicized:

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 many 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. The tribe of Christians, which has taken its name from him, is not extinct even today.

A main argument for this negative construction of the Testimonium is based on the context of the passage, which does seem to portray a series of foiled rebellions during Pilate's tenure led by people Josephus views negatively. In this context, Josephus means to say that Jesus led a movement of revolt against Rome. Certain wording in the passage can also be construed in a way uncomplimentary to Christ and Christianity. "Wise" could mean "clever, manipulative." "Amazing deeds" could just as well be translated "perplexing/controversial deeds." "With pleasure" could rather easily be understood to mean "with foolish pleasure." The last statement, "To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared," may be construed as a regret that Christianity has not gone away.

However, even after removing interpolations and then reading the passage in a negative way, most who advocate a negative reconstruction have proposed adding other wording supposedly present in Josephus but deleted by the interpolator. For example, Eisler proposed that the sentence "Around this time a certain Jesus appeared" was originally supplemented by the adverbial phrase "as a leader of a new revolt." Bruce also suggests that the claim "He was the Christ" may have been originally "He was the so-called Christ." Some proponents of this hypothesis also argue that the reviser replaced negative words with positive expressions. For example, σόφος άνήρ, "a wise man," may originally have been σοφιστής καί γόης άνήρ, "a sophist and a deceptive man." Thackeray and a few others have conjectured that the text's τάληθή, "true (things)," was originally τάήθη, "unusual, strange (things)." Bruce’s reconstruction follows this lead. Similarly, "he gained the following of many" is said to be originally "he led many astray," wordings that also differ in only one Greek letter. Those who reconstruct a negative Testimonium argue that Josephus meant to discredit Christ and Christianity in the eyes of his readers.

How are we to decide between the negative and neutral reconstruction? Although certainty is not possible, not least because both reconstructions remain hypothetical, seven main reasons can be adduced to argue that the neutral reconstruction is the better explanation of this difficult passage. None of these have conclusive value on their own, but their cumulative effect makes a convincing case, and shows why recent scholarship tends to favor it.

First, the neutral reconstruction explains why we have any mention of Jesus in Josephus at all. As mentioned above, at the end of antiquity only Christians copied Josephus's books, to a significant degree because of their value to Christianity. The references to Jesus in Josephus, we can reasonably suppose, were among the most valuable items of all. If Christian copyists had found in Josephus's writings a negative passage about Jesus such as has been proposed by modern scholars, it would have been much more likely—and typical of the religious proclivities of Christian scribes—for the copyists to have deleted it as an embarrassment rather than rewrite it. As Geza Vermes pointedly asks, "Would these writers have salvaged the work of a Jew who was the author of a wicked slander concerning Christ, who for these apologists was a divine being?" Scribes would have been much more disposed to touch up a neutral passage, or even add a positive passage where there had been nothing before, than to rewrite something offensive about Jesus. Therefore, the neutral-reconstruction hypothesis is more likely here than the negative reconstruction.

Second is an argument from style. The neutral reconstruction reads just as smoothly as the negative reconstruction after the proposed interpolations have been removed. For example, when the sentence "For on the third day... him" is removed, the narrative is more consecutive. The removal of "He was the Christ" is more problematic. Some who advocate the negative reconstruction suggest that the statement in the last sentence of the Testimonium about "the tribe of Christians named after him" requires an earlier statement that Jesus was confessed as Messiah. Yet this sentence is still intelligible if an earlier statement about Jesus as (supposed) Messiah is omitted, because that Jesus is named Christ can be inferred from "the tribe of Christians named after him." This economic style of expression, which we saw above in Tacitus, is perfectly intelligible as it stands. In this stylish and astute way, Josephus can tell his readers that Jesus' followers are called Christians, and he can identify Jesus as the Christ without explicitly calling him this. That an internally coherent passage, which still fits its context, results when these statements are removed is an indication that these may indeed be interpolations.

Third, the neutral reconstruction accords better than the negative reconstruction with the later, more certain reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, "Jesus who is called the Christ." The second passage, which we have argued is better interpreted as descriptive and neutral to Jesus, fits the neutral reconstruction of the first, main passage. To make it fit the negative reconstruction, "called" must be understood negatively against Josephus's consistently descriptive usage.

Fourth, the neutral reconstruction, which isolates and removes later pro-Christian interpolations, makes good sense of the pattern of ancient Christian witnesses to Josephus mentioned above. That Origen in ca. 250 does not know these interpolations while Eusebius several decades later does know them (Ecclesiastical History 1.1.7-8; Demonstration of the Gospel 3.5.105-6; Theophilus 5.44) fits the hypothesis that interpolation occurred, perhaps sometime between Origen and Eusebius. If this neutral passage were known to them, they would not have been inclined to cite it, as it provided no testimonium.

The fifth reason for favoring the neutral over the negative reconstruction is based on a recent "discovery." In 1971, the Israeli historian Schlomo Pines published a previously little-noticed version of the Testimonium from Agapius's Universal History, a tenth-century Christian work in Arabic:

Similarly [writes] Josephus the Hebrew. For he says that 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 three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

Evidently, Agapius knows a version of Josephus that contains the Testimonium in a form that tends to resemble the neutral, not the negative, reconstruction. Gone are the most positive statements about Jesus: "if it is right to call him a man," "he was the Messiah," "the divine prophets had prophesied these and myriad other things about him." Equally significant, none of the conjectural emendations in the negative reconstruction are present: "a source of further trouble," his miracles as "strange things," that Jesus "led away/astray" the Jews. This version leaves the question of Jesus' messianic status neutral: "He was perhaps the Messiah." Although its tenth-century witness is late, and some of its features may be influenced by Christian-Muslim debates over Jesus, this is another piece of evidence corroborating the neutral reconstruction of the Testimonium.

Sixth, the neutral presentation of Jesus is supported by a roughly parallel presentation, held to be undoubtedly genuine by most interpreters, of John the Baptizer (Ant. 18.5.2 §116-9). Josephus's report on John is also a descriptive treatment of a popular religious movement with political implications. Josephus depicts John as a good man who attracted large crowds by his teaching, as Jesus did. John, like Jesus, leads a reform movement within Judaism. Also, both leaders are killed unjustly, John on the suspicion that he might lead a popular revolt against Herod. Differences also exist, of course. John does not work miracles, the Romans are not involved, and Josephus does not indicate that his movement continues. Nevertheless, that Josephus can write sympathetically about a controversial figure like John the Baptizer indicates that he could write a neutral description about Jesus as well.

Finally, the neutral reconstruction has much to commend it by two important scholarly conventions of reasoning from evidence, on explanation and simplicity. It meets the test of explanation because it makes good sense of the passage as we have it now, with its mixture of authentic and interpolated content. Debate has been frustrating, and consensus difficult to reach, because some parts are so arguably Christian and other parts so arguably Josephan. The neutral reconstruction recognizes the likelihood of both and builds them into a coherent explanatory hypothesis. The neutral reconstruction also fits the more prevalent way to change the reading of a manuscript, by addition and/or subtraction. As Rev 22:18-19 implies, change usually came by adding words or removing them. Wholesale rewriting of a text, which most negative reconstructions envision, is not impossible or unheard of, but it is more difficult to do successfully. The more literate an author's style—and certainly Josephus commands a very literary style—the more difficulty scribes have in imitating it successfully. The neutral reconstruction explains these factors well.

The neutral reconstruction also meets the test of simplicity. It is the simplest theory to account for all, or at least most of, the facts, internal and external, in the interpretation of the Testimonium. It involves significantly less conjecture than most forms of the negative reconstruction (with the possible exception of Bammel's, notable for its simplicity and restraint), while proposing a solution that is as fully explanatory. The negative reconstruction also results in a coherent passage, and one that fits its context just as well (or better, some argue) as the neutral reconstruction. However, it builds hypothesis upon hypothesis when it adds several conjectural emendations that have no manuscript support, no support elsewhere in Josephus, and no support from later Christian authors referring to Josephus. Thus, while certainty is not possible, and the negative reconstruction has some strengths to commend it, we may conclude that the neutral reconstruction is more likely.

If the neutral reconstruction of the Testimonium is correct, what information does it give us about Jesus? Given the hypothetical nature of the reconstruction, we must be cautious about drawing conclusions. Nevertheless, significant information about the life of Jesus emerges.

First, and most apparently, it (along with the later mention of Jesus at Ant. 20.9.1 §200) affirms the existence of Jesus. If any Jewish writer were ever in a position to know about the non-existence of Jesus, it would have been Josephus. His implicit affirmation of the existence of Jesus has been, and still is, the most significant obstacle for those who argue that extra-biblical evidence is not probative on this point.

Second, Josephus calls Jesus by his correct, personal name. That he does not add "of Nazareth" may conform to the Roman readership of his book, for such a common New Testament and Jewish description would have little meaning for them. Moreover, he does not use "Christ" as a name, just as he avoids it as a personal name in Ant. 20.9.1 §200.

Third, Josephus's testimony loosely corroborates the New Testament's dating of Jesus, his death, and the first church. "About this time" places Jesus' ministry and death, and the continuation of his movement, in the governorship of Pilate. Further precision cannot be obtained from this general phrase, which Josephus seems to prefer (cf. the beginning of the next section, "About the same time..."). Given the confusion of some rabbinic writings about the century in which Jesus lived, Josephus's accuracy is significant.

The reconstructed neutral Testimonium also provides evidence about the ministry of Jesus. Josephus calls Jesus "a wise man." Note that this characterization is directly linked first to Jesus' miracles, then to his teachings. "He was a worker of amazing deeds" is an explicit characterization of Jesus' ministry as a miracle-worker, with stress on the effect those deeds had on others ("amazing"). Again, there is no detail; what kind of miracles Jesus worked, Josephus does not say. Next, to call Jesus a "teacher" is more intelligible to his audience than a traditional Jewish term like "prophet" or "rabbi." It directly implies that Jesus was a teacher whose message can be characterized as "wise," even though Josephus does not indicate anything about the content of his teaching. Jesus taught "people who gladly accept the truth." Here Josephus implies that Jesus' teaching is true, but in keeping with his careful neutrality, he does not explicitly say so. The main burden of this sentence, though, is to indicate that Jesus' disciples were strongly attached to his teaching. This provides a basis for his later statement that Jesus' followers continued to observe his teaching after his death.

We have already argued that the next sentence, "He won over both many Jews and many Greeks," is anachronistic. This seems to be one of only two misstatements (to judge from early Christian writings) that Josephus makes about Jesus. He reads back the situation at the end of the first century, probably in Rome, to the ministry of Jesus.

The neutral reconstruction also gives us significant information on Jesus' death. According to Josephus, it was "the leading men among us" who accused Jesus before Pilate. This may be an implied reference to the Jewish Sanhédrin, which Josephus mentions in the other Jesus passage. Their charge is not specified, but Josephus may well imply that it was the rapid growth of Jesus' movement, mentioned in the previous sentence, that posed a perceived threat which led to his condemnation by the Jewish leaders. Such a motive for Jesus' death has some parallel in the New Testament (cf. John 11:48). This implication would be intelligible to Josephus's Roman readers. As we saw in Chapter 1, Romans, no less than Jews, were also concerned about the rapid growth of Christianity in their time (Pliny, Letters 10.96; Tacitus, Annals 15:44; perhaps behind Suetonius, Claudius 25.4). The wide growth of Christianity beyond the bounds of Judaism ("and also many Greeks") would have aroused Roman suspicions about an underground movement among non-Jews in the city of Rome.

Josephus plainly implicates both the Jewish leaders and Pilate in the death of Jesus; they brought a charge to him, and he acted on it. This agrees generally with the New Testament record in the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel. When Jesus appeared before Pilate, some Jewish leaders accused him (Matt 27:11-14; Mark 15:1-5; Luke 23:1-5; John 18:28-30). However, Josephus does not speak of a trial of Jesus before "the leading men among us," as the New Testament does (Matt 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:54-71; John 18:13-24). Either he does not know of this (which I consider more plausible), or he omits it because his focus in the wider context of the Testimonium falls on Pilate. Josephus's testimony that both Jewish leaders and Pilate were involved in the death of Jesus is remarkable, even striking, in light of the tendency of near-contemporary Romans like Tacitus to say that Romans tried and executed him, and the uniform tendency of all other later Jewish sources to say that Jews tried and executed him. Josephus, moreover, uses language that suggests the shame of crucifixion in the ancient world: Pilate "condemned him to the cross."

Finally, Josephus relates Jesus to his continuing movement. Josephus bases its continuation not on the impact of the resurrection of Jesus, as the Christian interpolator did, but on the strong love of Jesus' followers for him. Jesus was crucified, but "those who had first loved him did not cease" in the face of this shameful death. Josephus, like Tacitus, must explain to his Roman audience that "Christianity" is eponymous; unlike Tacitus, he implies this. Jesus' followers now have his name for their own, "Christians," which Josephus of course spells correctly. In sum, his information aligns with the New Testament outline of the story of Jesus and his followers and may fairly be said to corroborate it.

What is the source of Josephus's information? The wording of almost every element of the reconstructed Testimonium indicates that Josephus did not draw it, directly or indirectly, from first-century Christian writings. (Of course, the interpolations do reflect some New Testament influence, as we would expect.) Josephus's careful, exclusive use of "Christ" as a title, not a personal name coupled with "Jesus," is also not likely to be drawn from the New Testament, which more often than not uses "Christ" as a personal name. For example, the first sentence of the first canonical Gospel to be written (perhaps in Rome just before Josephus arrived there) reads, "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1). Although Jesus teaches about wisdom, early Christian writings never explicitly call him a "wise man." The phrase "amazing deeds," παραδόξων έργων, could be suggested by Luke 5:26, "We have seen amazing things [παραδόξα] today" (cf. 1 Clement 25:1). This phrase is not attested elsewhere, and its careful neutrality certainly does not express the typical New Testament attitude to the miracles of Jesus. Although Jesus is called a "teacher" (διδάσκαλος) more than forty times in the canonical Gospels, that he was a teacher could be general knowledge among those who know of him. Several religious and philosophical movements of the contemporary Roman world were said to be started by a "teacher." The word "pleasure" as a description of the attitude of Jesus' followers is not used in a positive way by early Christians, as we have argued above. The statement "He won over... many Greeks" is also not drawn from Christian writings. "Leading men" could be deduced from the New Testament accounts of Jesus' appearance before the Sanhédrin, but this phrase is not in the New Testament. The continuation of Jesus' movement after his death on the basis of his followers' love for him cannot be drawn from Christian writings. They point instead to Jesus' initiative in regathering his dispirited followers after his resurrection, and his rekindling of their faith and devotion. Finally, that Christians are called a "tribe" is Josephan but not Christian.

These items rule out Josephus's obtaining this wording, and probably the information behind it, from the New Testament or other early Christian writings known to us. Unless we suppose that Josephus entirely reworked the vocabulary and style of Christian accounts, his account is independent of them. That Josephus could present an independent account of Jesus is corroborated in a way by Josephus's treatment of John the Baptizer, which scholars also hold to be independent of the New Testament.

Did this information come indirectly through Christians or others to Josephus? We can be less sure about this, although the totality of the evidence points away from it. The level of accuracy in Josephus's report does not usually derive from second-hand information from outsiders. Our treatment of classical sources in the previous chapter showed that a good deal of the information that circulated about Jesus among Romans was faulty. Nor does Josephus's material seem to have come through oral Christian witness. It has little trace of traditional Christian language for Jesus, and at several points has language and notions that Christians would avoid. Indeed, the very neutrality of his report indicates that it did not come from a Christian source.

If this passage is not drawn from oral or written Christian sources, neither does it seem to be drawn from official Roman documents or other Roman historians. For example, Josephus's use of "Jesus" as a personal name and use of "Christ" as a title runs directly counter to the Roman usage that has survived.

A more plausible hypothesis is that Josephus gained his knowledge of Christianity when he lived in Palestine. He supplemented it in Rome, as the words "to this day" may imply, where there was a significant Christian presence. Whether Josephus acquired his data by direct encounter with Christians, indirect information from others about their movement, or some combination of both, we cannot tell. John Meier is correct to conclude that none of these potential sources is verifiable, yet the evidence points to the last option as the more commendable. The same Josephus who followed Christianity in Rome, knowing that it persisted as a movement and merited some short treatment in his book, likely followed it earlier with some interest.

In sum, Josephus has given us in two passages something unique among all ancient non-Christian witnesses to Jesus: a carefully neutral, highly accurate, and perhaps independent witness to Jesus, a wise man whom his persistent followers called "the Christ."