Downloaded from https://academic.oup.

com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

 Advanced Praise for
Josephus and Jesus

‘An extraordinary scholarly achievement, this book has the potential of redefining the dis-
cussion of the Testimonium Flavianum and its value as a source of historical information.
With impressive philological acumen, Schmidt suggests a compelling reading of the text
that confirms its authenticity. His argument for the existence of a surprisingly close connec-
tion between Josephus and those involved in Jesus’ execution should be taken seriously by
all historical Jesus scholars.’

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Tobias Hägerland, Reader in New Testament Studies, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

‘Schmidt’s book makes an astonishingly new intervention into what had seemed to be a
settled consensus on Josephus and Jesus. On the one hand, his erudite study models what it
means to take reception seriously. On the other hand, he powerfully demonstrates the value
of bringing such perspectives back to bear on our reconstruction of original meanings and
settings. Scholars and students of the Jesus movement and early Jewish/​Christian relations
will need to grapple with his compelling argument and its ramifications.’
Annette Yoshiko Reed, Krister Stendahl Professor of Divinity and Professor of New
Testament and Early Christianity, Harvard Divinity School

‘Prof. Schmidt offers a thorough and sophisticated analysis of the Testimonium Flavianum,
a first-​century report about Jesus whose authenticity has often been doubted. Schmidt con-
vincingly shows that for students of the early reaction to Jesus, Josephus can no longer be
ignored.’
Harold Attridge, Sterling Professor of Divinity at Yale Divinity School, Dean of Yale
Divinity School (2002–​12), President of the Society of Biblical Literature (2001).

‘In this fascinating and subtly provocative work, Schmidt patiently deploys enormous eru-
dition to make a compelling case for the authenticity of the famous Testimonium Flavianum.
The result is a gripping read and triumph of careful philology that will change views of the
importance and reliability of this long-​debated passage. It certainly changed mine.’
Jack Tannous, Associate Professor of History and Hellenic Studies at
Princeton University; Chair, Center for the Study of Late Antiquity

‘The argument of this book is potentially of greater significance for the study of the historical
Jesus than the announcement of any of the apocryphal gospels that have made headlines.
Here we have a bold new argument undergirded by meticulous research on a well-​known
text. How could Josephus in his Antiquities sound so Christian when describing the life of
Jesus Christ? Schmidt not only makes a strong case for the authenticity of Josephus’ tes-
timony to Jesus, but also shows that we have been misreading it. Earlier interpreters were
less inclined to view Josephus’ words as entirely positive. To cap it all, Schmidt argues that
Josephus probably received information about Jesus from those who were at his trial. This
book should be widely read and discussed.’
Peter Williams, Principal of Tyndale House, Cambridge, UK
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025
 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025
Josephus and Jesus
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025
 Josephus and Jesus
New Evidence for the One Called Christ

T. C . S C H M I DT

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries.
© T. C. Schmidt 2025

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

The moral rights of the author have been asserted
This is an open access publication, available online and distributed under the
terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-​Non Commercial-​No Derivatives 4.0
International licence (CC BY-​NC-​ND 4.0), a copy of which is available at
https://​crea​tive​comm​ons.org/​licen​ses/​by-​nc-​nd/​4.0/​.
Subject to this licence, all rights are reserved.

Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of this licence should be sent
to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number is on file at the Library of Congress
ISBN 9780192866783
DOI: 10.1093/​9780191957697.001.0001
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd., Croydon, CR0 4YY
 Acknowledgments

The fruit of much labor invites me to thank those who helped in tending to this
book. The first seeds were planted in 2013 through a paper I wrote for a Yale PhD
seminar, led by Gregory Sterling and Harold Attridge. They both have encouraged
me in this project for more than a decade. Other friends and scholars assisted in

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

various ways over the years such as Flynn Cratty, Djair Dias, Charles Hill, Johan
Lundberg, Annette Yoshiko Reed, Charles Augustine Rivera, Andrea Schmidt,
John Slotemaker, Matt Smith, John Thiel, James Voelz, and the anonymous re-
viewers at Oxford University Press. Sometimes a simple question posed to me
proved very generative, especially those from David Levenson and Chris Seeman.
Others spent hours reading my manuscript, namely Tobias Hägerland, Jack
Tannous, and Peter Williams, all of whom were particularly industrious in offering
many corrections and recommendations. My longtime friends Paul Allen and Arlo
G. Storey edited the whole rough draft with care, improving it immensely. Paul was
especially helpful with the Bibliography, while Arlo assembled the indices and took
my calculations in Chapter 4 and placed them in handy tables, among many, many
other things. Without their assistance this volume would not be what it is today.
I likewise offer my gratitude to the monasteries and churches which per-
mitted me to use their manuscripts, with the Archdiocese of Aleppo and the
Mechitaristenkongregation of Vienna being foremost. Many libraries were of
enormous assistance as well, in particular the Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana,
the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the
British Library, the Hill Museum & Manuscript Library, and the Rossiyskaya
natsional’naya Biblioteka.
I would like to further express my appreciation to the College of Arts & Sciences
Publication Fund at Fairfield University for its aid in publication. Several others at
Fairfield assisted financially too such as Glenn Dynner with the Bennett Center,
Paul Lakeland and Nancy Dallavalle with the Center for Catholic Studies, and
Fairfield’s Faculty Research Committee.
It goes without saying that I am extremely grateful to an anonymous donor who
gave a generous and unexpected gift in order to make this book freely available on-
line at Josep​husa​ndJe​sus.com.
I also cannot forget to mention the great encouragement I received from my
parents, my brothers, and my children, each of whom always had open ears, kind
words, and a hand ready to help in various matters. To them I give my heartfelt
thanks.
viii Acknowledgments

Lastly, I owe the greatest debt to my wife, Wendy. You have spent much time in
this field with me, tilling rows and mending fences. The rains did not always come
in due season, and I was late home many nights, but you were always my beloved,
at my side, faithful and steadfast—​and look what flowers have bloomed, see what
crops have grown. The harvest is yours as much as mine and it is a good vintage. To
you, Wendy, I dedicate this book.
Tom Schmidt
New Haven, CT
September 2024

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

‫ܟܠ ܣܦܪܐ ܕܡܬܬܠܡܕ ܠܡܠܟܘܬ ܫܡܝܐ ܕܡܐ ܠܓܒܪܐ‬
‫ܡܪܐ ܒܝܬܐ ܕܡܦܩ ܡܢ ܣܝܡܬܗ ܚܕܬܬܐ ܘܥܬܝܩܬܐ‬
‫ܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ ܠܡܪܝܐ‬
 Contents

List of Figures xi
List of Tables xiii
List of Abbreviations xv

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Introduction 1

PA RT 1 . T H E AU T H EN T I C I T Y O F T H E
T E ST I M O N IU M F L AV I A N U M

1. The Greek Reception 13

2. The Western and Eastern Reception 35
3. An Authorial Commentary on the Testimonium Flavianum 64
4. Authenticity and Possible Translations of the
Testimonium Flavianum 108

PA RT 2 . T H E S O U R C E S O F J O SEP H US A N D T H E
M E A N I N G O F T H E T E ST I M O N IU M F L AV I A N U M

5. Josephus’ Sources: Clues in His Background 141

6. Identifying the ‘First Men among Us’: Possible Candidates 159
7. Summary and Conclusion: The Jesus of History 198

Appendix 1: Eusebius, His Citational Practices, and the

Testimonium Flavianum 215
Appendix 2: James the Brother of Jesus: Antiquities 20.200 231
Appendix 3: The Trial of Jesus and Passover 249
Appendix 4: Ananus II and the Trial of Jesus 255
Appendix 5: The Great Sanhedrin and Its Records of the Trial of Jesus 257
Appendix 6: Josephus’ Silence Regarding Jesus in the War 265
Bibliography 267
Introduction to the Manuscript Images 281
x Contents

Ancient Sources Index 297

Biblical Sources Index 301
Josephan Sources Index 307
Subject Index 315

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

 Figures

Map. Ancient Israel in the Time of Jesus and Josephus 147

Chart 1. The Family of Herod the Great 160
Chart 2. The Family of Hillel 176
Chart 3. The High Priestly Families of the First Century bce/​ce 176

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Image 1. B
 iblioteca Ambrosiana F 128, f. 274r line 27–​274v line 8 containing the 282
Testimonium Flavianum at Antiquities 18.63–​4 (eleventh century).
Public domain. First published in Eisler, Robert. Iesous basileus
ou basileusas. Heidelberg, 1929.
Image 2. V
 at.gr.984, f. 152v lines 27–​31 containing the Testimonium Flavianum at 283
Antiquities 18.63–​4 (1354 ce). Reproduced by permission of Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana, with all rights reserved.
Image 3. B
 ML.Plut 69.10, f. 360v left column lines 9–​24 containing the Testimonium 284
Flavianum at Antiquities 18.63–​4 (fourteenth/​fifteenth century). MS BML.
Plut 69.10 f. 360v lines 9–​24 reproduced by permission of the Biblioteca
Medicea Laurenziana, Florence and courtesy of the Italian Ministry of
Culture.
Image 4. V
 at.gr.148, f. 214v lines 3–​13 containing an excerpt of the 285
Testimonium Flavianum (tenth–​eleventh century). Reproduced by
permission of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, with all rights reserved.
Image 5. V
 at.gr.342, f. 282v lines 11–​24, containing an excerpt of the 286
Testimonium Flavianum (1087–​8 ce). Reproduced by permission
of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, with all rights reserved.
Image 6. B
 nF Grec 1430, f. 26v lines 2–​15, containing a quotation of the Testimonium 287
Flavianum in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7–​8 (tenth century).
Image published with permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Image 7. V
 at.Reg.lat.2077, f. 15r left column line 7–​right column line 11, 288
containing a Latin translation of the Testimonium Flavianum in Jerome,
Illustrious Men 13.5–​6 (sixth–​seventh century). Reproduced by
permission of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, with all rights reserved.
Image 8. B
 L.Add.12150, f. 232v column 2 lines 1–​29, containing a quotation the 289
Testimonium Flavianum from the Syriac translation of Eusebius,
Theophany 5.44 (411 ce). Reproduced by permission of the British
Library Board 25/​11/​2021.
Image 9. N
 LR Siriyskaya novaya seria 1, f. 16r column 1 line 25–​column 2 line 20, 290
containing a quotation of the Testimonium Flavianum in the Syriac
translation of Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7–​8 (462 ce).
Reproduced by permission of the National Library of Russia.
xii Figures

Image 10. BL.Add.14639, f. 14v column 2 line 28–​15r column 1 line 26, containing a 291
quotation of the Testimonium Flavianum from the Syriac translation of
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7–​8 (sixth century). Reproduced by
permission of the British Library Board 25/​11/​2021.
Image 11. BL.Add.12154, f.151r line 18–​151v line 6, a florilegium containing a
quotation of the Testimonium Flavianum excerpted from the Syriac 292
translation of Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7–​8 (eighth/​ninth
century). Reproduced by permission of the British Library Board
25/​11/​2021.
Image 12. Archdiocese of Aleppo MS 250 S, f. 50r left column lines 15–​27 (f. 47r in 293
print edition), containing a Syriac quotation of the Testimonium

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Flavianum from Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 5.10 (1598 ce).
Reproduced by permission of the Archdiocese of Aleppo and the
Hill Museum & Manuscript Library (HMML), Collegeville, MN.
Image 13. Mechitaristarum Vindobonensis 49 (70 C), f. 15r line 21–​15v line 4, 294
containing a quotation of the Testimonium Flavianum from the Armenian
translation of Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7–​8 (1695 ce).
Reproduced by permission of the Mechitaristenkongregation,
Vienna, Austria and the Hill Museum & Manuscript Library (HMML),
Collegeville, MN.
Image 14. BML.Or. 323, f. 6v line 11–​7r line 2, containing an Arabic quotation of 295
the Testimonium Flavianum from Agapius, Book of History (1288 ce).
MS BML.Or. 323 f. 6v reproduced by permission of the Biblioteca Medicea
Laurenziana, Florence and courtesy of the Italian Ministry of Culture.
 Tables

Table 1 TF Lexemes 112

Table 2 Word and lexeme count in Josephus’ Corpus 116
Table 3 Rare Lexemes in Josephus’ Corpus 116
Table 4 Expected Frequency Rate for Rare Lexemes in Josephus’ Corpus  118

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Table 5 Most Common Lexemes in Josephus’ Corpus 120
Table 6 Expected Frequency Rate for Most Common Lexemes in
Josephus’ Corpus 121
Table 7 Phrases in the TF 124
Table 8 Unique Phrases in the TF 126
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025
newgenprepdf

Abbreviations

BDAG Bauer, A Greek-​English Lexicon (see Bibliography for full details)

BNJ Brill’s New Jacoby (https://​schola​rlye​diti​ons.brill.com/​bnjo/​)
CSEL Cor​pus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte
GCS NF ​Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte: Neue Folge

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

LSJ Liddell-​Scott-​Jones Greek-​English Lexicon (see Bibliography for full details)
NPNCF2 Nicene Post-​Nicene Church Fathers: Second Series
PG Patrologia Graeca
PL Patrologia Latina
RPC Roman Provincial Coins (https://​rpc.ash​mus.ox.ac.uk/​)
TLG Thesau​rus Linguae Graecae
TU Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur

A Note on Citations of Rabbinic Literature

The Mishnah, the Babylonian Talmud, and the Jerusalem Talmud are cited ac-
cording to the sectional numberings of Sefaria. Citations of the Jerusalem Talmud
also include brackets giving the sectional numberings of Neusner. The Tosefta is
cited according to the sectional numberings of Neusner.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025
 Introduction

Sometime in 93 or 94 ce the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus was finishing up his

history of the Jewish people entitled the Antiquities. He had already covered the
distant past and so he found himself discussing the more recent events of 30 ce.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

There he decided to write about Jesus of Nazareth.1 His words are of enormous
consequence because they happen to be the earliest description of Jesus given by
a non-Christian. So famous is what Josephus said that scholars have given his ac-
count of Jesus its own name: the Testimonium Flavianum.
But there is a problem. Though the Testimonium Flavianum is found in all
manuscript witnesses of Josephus’ Antiquities, scholars have long been suspi-
cious of its authenticity due to the supposed pro-Christian claims it contains.
I give below the extant Greek version of the Testimonium Flavianum along with
a translation according to how it has most often been interpreted by modern
scholars.2

Josephus, Antiquities 18.63–43 c.93/​4 ce

Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον And in this time there lived Jesus, a wise
Ἰησοῦς σοϕὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν man, if indeed one ought to call him a
λέγειν χρή· ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων man, for he was a doer of miraculous
ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων deeds, a teacher of men who receive truth
τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ with pleasure. And he led many from
πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς among the Jews and many from among
δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο· ὁ the Greeks. He was the Christ. And, when
χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει Pilate had condemned him to the cross at
τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν the accusation of the first men among us,
σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου οὐκ those who at first loved him did not cease
ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες· to do so, for he appeared to

1 Josephus, Antiquities 18.63–4. Aside from this passage, Josephus briefly refers to Jesus one other
time in Antiquities 20.200; see Appendix 2 for discussion.
2 In this book, quotations of Josephus’ works are from Accordance’s digital version of the Greek text
derived from Niese, Flavii Iosephi Opera.
3 Citations of Josephus are given according to the sectional numberings in the Loeb Classical Library
and not the broader chapter and paragraph numberings in other editions. All translations are my own
unless otherwise noted.

Josephus and Jesus. T. C. Schmidt, Oxford University Press. © T. C. Schmidt 2025.

DOI: 10.1093/​9780191957697.003.0001
2 Josephus and Jesus

ἐϕάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν them alive again on the third day given
πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προϕητῶν that the divine prophets had spoken such
ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ things and thousands of other wonderful
θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων. εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν things about him. And up till now the
Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον tribe of the Christians, who were named
οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ ϕῦλον. from him, has not disappeared.

If authentic, this paragraph would not only be the earliest witness to Jesus out-
side of Christian tradition,4 but also a remarkable affirmation of Christian beliefs
about him, especially regarding his resurrection, messianic status, and fulfillment

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

of prophecy—at least as the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) is usually understood.
For this very reason scholars have typically interpreted the TF as containing sev-
eral assertions that are unlikely for a first-century Jew to have made:5 Jesus is im-
plied as being something more than human, he is said to have worked miracles, he
is called ‘the Christ’, his death is blamed on the Jews, he is credited with fulfilling
Hebrew prophecy, and it is even claimed that he was resurrected from the dead.6
The TF’s description of Jesus’ followers has also been grounds for suspicion since,
apparently, the TF uses the quite Christian sounding words ‘truth’7 and ‘love’ to
characterize the disciples of Jesus.8
Adding to the improbability that a non-Christian writer like Josephus would
record such things, the early Christian theologian, Origen of Alexandria,

4 The testimonies of Thallus and Mara bar Serapion are sometimes said to predate Josephus, but nei-
ther mentions Jesus specifically by name. For Thallus, see BNJ 256 F1, which is extracted from George
Syncellus’ quotation of Julius Africanus found in George Syncellus, Chronography §610 and which can
in turn be found in Mosshammer, Georgius Syncelli Ecloga Chronographica, 391. For text and discus-
sion of Mara bar Serapion, see Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum, 73–4 (English) 46 lines 14–20 (Syriac);
Merz and Tieleman, The Letter of Mara Bar Sarapion in Context. Seneca also makes a possible mention
of Jesus, though this is far from clear, and if true, Seneca would also not mention Jesus by name. For text
and discussion, see Seneca, de Ira 1.2.2 and Herrmann, Chrestos, 41–3. Some also argue that Seneca’s
correspondence with the apostle Paul is authentic; see Ramelli, ‘Pseudepigraphical Correspondence
between Seneca and Paul’. I believe however that the most likely place where Seneca might have men-
tioned Jesus is in his lost work de Superstitione, though this depends on how one interprets Seneca’s
remarks as reported by Augustine in City of God 6.11.
5 For a survey of pre-nineteenth-century scholarship on the TF, see Bardet, Le Testimonium
Flavianum, 30–6; Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 73–201. For catalogs and discussions of more recent
scholarship regarding the authenticity of the TF, see Bardet, Le Testimonium Flavianum, 57–9, 233–
53; Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 169–95; Whealey, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum’, 350–4; Paget, ‘Some
Observations’, 583–99; Winter, ‘Josephus on Jesus’, 428–41 at 428–30; Meier, ‘Jesus in Josephus’, 81–4;
Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–1980), 684–91. For the best and most extensive bibli-
ographies of Josephan scholarship in general, see Schreckenberg, Bibiliographie zu Flavius Josephus;
Schreckenberg, Bibiliographie zu Flavius Josephus: Supplementband mit Gesamtregister; Feldman,
Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–1980); Feldman, Josephus: A Supplementary Bibliography. For a
critical, though now dated, overview of Josephan scholarship, see Feldman, ‘Flavius Josephus Revisited’.
6 For example, Pines and Mason find all of these points worthy of at least suspicion; see Pines, An
Arabic Version, 19–20; Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 234. Meier thinks similarly, though he
mentions neither the miraculous deeds nor Jewish culpability; see Meier, A Marginal Jew, 60–1.
7 Thackeray, Josephus, 145.
8 Bammel, ‘Zum Testimonium Flavianum’, 11.
 INTRODUCTION  3

specifically states that Josephus ‘himself did not believe in Jesus as the Christ’, saying
so in his apologetic work Against Celsus (248 ce) and again in his Commentary on
Matthew (248 ce).9 And in one instance Origen asserts Josephus’ unbelief in Jesus
while quoting a passage from Josephus’ Antiquities that is in the vicinity of where
the TF should have (allegedly) declared that Jesus was in fact the Christ.10 Because
Origen wrote some eight hundred years before the earliest extant manuscripts of
the Antiquities were transcribed,11 there was clearly ample time, the thinking goes,
for a Christian scribe to interpolate the TF and for this interpolation to spread
throughout the remaining manuscripts that are preserved today. On account of
these reasons, many, though not all, scholars have considered the extant version

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

of the TF to be a later pro-Christian interpolation either in whole or in part.12 And
this has in turn led to many attempts at positing conjectural emendations (i.e.
hypothetical revisions) to the TF in the hopes of re-creating or re-imagining what
Josephus might have originally said.13

9 Origen, Against Celsus 1.47; Commentary on Matthew 10.17. For further discussion, see Chapter 1
pp. 13–6.
10 For further discussion, see Chapter 1 pp. 13–4.
11 The earliest Greek manuscript of Antiquities 18 comes from the eleventh century. For discus-
sion, see Leoni, ‘The Text of the Josephan Corpus’; Schreckenberg, Rezeptionsgeschichtliche, 114–56;
Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition, 13–51. There are Greek authors who quote the TF as
early as 313 ce, and manuscripts of such quotations exist in Latin and Syriac as early as 411/​12 ce; see
Chapters 1 and 2 pp. 16–7, 46. Additionally, there also exist witnesses to the Greek TF in many manu� -
scripts, late though they may be. For these, see Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition, 13–51.
For images of the earliest Greek manuscripts, see Images 1–6.
12 A minority of scholars consider the TF to be entirely interpolated; see Zeitlin, ‘The Christ Passage
in Josephus’, 231–55 at 236; Olson, ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’; Olson, ‘A Eusebian
Reading’; Norden, ‘Josephus und Tacitus’, 637–66 at 640–50. Norden even says ‘I do not think it neces-
sary to subject to examination of its content the individual sentences of a section whose interpolation
as a whole is proven’ (Die einzelnen Sätze eines Abschnitts, dessen Interpolation als Ganzes erwiesen
ist, einer Prüfung auf ihren Inhalt zu unterziehen, halte ich nicht für nötig). Norden, ‘Josephus und
Tacitus’, 647.
Other scholars reason that the TF, while not wholly spurious, has been interpolated, perhaps
heavily, with some thinking it to be more interpolated than others, or giving no indication on the
severity of interpolations; see Eisler, The Messiah Jesus, 61–2; Winter, ‘Josephus on Jesus’, 437–8;
Baras, ‘Testimonium Flavianum: The State of Recent Scholarship’, 303–13, 378–85; Feldman,
‘Flavius Josephus revisited’, 822; Feldman, ‘On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum’, 28.
For the best arguments, see Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 225–36; Schwartz, Judaean
Antiquities, Books 18–20, 75–6 n. 310.
Yet still others consider that the TF has been only slightly interpolated, as with Meier, ‘Jesus
in Josephus’; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 67; Thackeray, Josephus, 137; Bammel, ‘Zum Testimonium
Flavianum’, 9–22; Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 354 n. 44. Some scholars hold
this view quite tentatively and, what is more, small changes can indeed have great effects; Paget, for ex-
ample, says that his solutions are so tentative that he is ‘inclined . . . to a type of postmodern agnosticism’.
Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 545; see also 603–6. Bermejo-Rubio believes only that ‘small changes’ have
occurred, but that they were such as to recast the entire TF in a more positive light; see Bermejo-Rubio,
‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 353; see also 327–8.
In recent times, scholars have begun acknowledging that much if not all of the TF is likely authentic;
for discussion see n. 14.
13 For example, Eisler was extravagant in his emendations; see Eisler, The Messiah Jesus, 61–2. For
other examples of emendations, see Winter, ‘Josephus on Jesus’, 436; Bammel, ‘Zum Testimonium
Flavianum’, 11–21; Dubarle, ‘Le témoignage de Josèphe’, 50; Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 603–6;
Feldman, Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, Volume VIII, Books 18–19, 48–51.
4 Josephus and Jesus

But this doubt over the authenticity of the TF runs into several issues, some-
thing that scholars have been increasingly acknowledging.14 The least of these is
that there are many discussions of the TF by early and medieval Christians that
predate our Greek manuscripts of the Antiquities, and though these Christians
cite the same form of the TF as found in our present manuscripts, most do not
seem to have interpreted the TF as a pro-Christian statement at all. Instead, they
appear to have viewed it as a neutral, ambiguous, or even slightly negative ac-
count of Jesus.15
Then there is the fact that the TF is colored throughout with Josephan paral-
lels, turns of phrase, and stylizations, many of which contain content quite similar

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

to other skeptical non-Christian reports about Jesus—so much so that it seems
improbable that the TF could have been interpolated in any major way. Some
scholars have even remarked on their surprise when finding so many parallels
within Josephus’ work.16 Beyond these points, a contextualized reading reveals
several statements within the TF which can even be understood as critical of Jesus
and which would be highly unlikely for a later Christian interpolator to leave be-
hind, and which, again, scholars are recognizing more and more.17 All this suggests
the idea that perhaps the TF has been misinterpreted by modern scholars: perhaps
it is not a pro-Christian statement of any kind; perhaps in fact it is a generally neu-
tral account of Jesus or even a slightly skeptical one.

14 Whealey describes the change in scholarly position well; see Whealey, ‘The Testimonium
Flavianum’, 350–4. Those who believe that the TF is wholly authentic or that it has only one signifi-
cant interpolation include Nodet, ‘Jésus et Jean-Baptiste selon Josèphe [pt. 1]’, 321–48; Nodet, ‘Jésus
et Jean-Baptiste selon Josèphe [pt. 2]’, 497–524; Nodet, Baptême et résurrrection, 66–72; Victor, ‘Das
Testimonium Flavianum’, 72–82; Cernuda, ‘El testimonio flaviano’, 355–85, 479–508; Curran, ‘To
Be or to Be Thought to Be’; Goldberg, ‘Josephus’s Paraphrase Style’. Bardet believes the TF may well
be authentic, asserting that ‘there is nothing improbable about it’ (celle-ci n’a rien d’invraisemblable)
and that it is ‘completely plausible and completely justifiable in the context of Judaism during this
timeframe’ (tout est plausible, tout est justifiable dans le contexte du judaïsme de l’époque); Bardet,
Le Testimonium Flavianum, 163, 231. Bardet finds the passage to be plausibly authentic in part be-
cause he believes that Jews in the time of Josephus may have been far more willing to embrace messi-
anic claimants like Jesus, while still calling themselves ‘Jews’, see Bardet, Le Testimonium Flavianum,
227–32. However, Bardet does think that it is still possible that some changes were made to the
TF; see Bardet, Le Testimonium Flavianum, 231. Whealey also believes that the TF is largely au-
thentic with the only substantive change being that ‘was thought to be the Christ’ (or an equivalent
phrase) has been changed to ‘was the Christ’, as I myself similarly argue in this book; see Whealey,
‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 115; Whealey, ‘The Testimonium
Flavianum’, 354.
15 This phenomenon has been observed to a lesser extent by Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 563–5;
Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 18–43; Whealey, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum’, 345–7. Such observations
disprove Feldman’s theory that Christians would have mentioned the TF more often if it was authentic,
for in fact they usually seem to have found little remarkable about it; see Feldman, Josephus and Modern
Scholarship (1937–1980), 690.
16 See Chapter 4 pp. 108–9.
17 Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 353–8; Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 601.
 INTRODUCTION  5

And this is what I argue in the present book. I maintain that the TF found in ex-
tant manuscripts of the Antiquities is essentially authentic, and that it has merely lost
two or three words that can still be found preserved in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic,
and Armenian textual witnesses. These include the Greek word ‘certain’ (τις) and the
Syriac phrase mestabrā itaw which in the TF can be translated as ‘thought to be’. The
Syriac hence means that the original TF did not say that Jesus ‘was the Christ’ but only
that he was ‘thought to be’ the Christ. The Latin version of the TF similarly says that
Jesus was ‘believed to be’ (credebatur esse) the Christ.
It is remarkable, however, that even without these missing words the general
sense of the TF has been preserved in extant Greek manuscripts, at least from the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

point of view of many ancient readers. These readers seem to have understood the
extant TF not as affirming that Jesus ‘was the Christ’, but rather that Jesus ‘was
Christ’, interpreting the word ‘Christ’ as an alternative name for Jesus, not a reli-
gious title.
A major advantage of my position is that it does not rely on speculative textual
emendations designed to recraft what Josephus might have written. Neither does
it ignore the strikingly Josephan character of the TF; nor why so many ancient
Christians did not view the TF as a positive valuation of Jesus; nor why there are
statements in the TF that can even be understood as critical of Jesus. Instead, the
theory takes the best textual evidence and interprets the TF in accordance with
Josephus’ style, the predilections of other early non-Christian writers, and the TF’s
own reception history. The result is a relatively ambiguous TF that can be plausibly
interpreted negatively or neutrally,18 and which reads something like this (differ-
ences from the above text and translation are placed in bold):

18 The interpretation of the TF as basically ambiguous or neutral has been suggested before;
see Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 559, 603–6; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 76 n. 19, 84 n. 43; Meier,
‘Jesus in Josephus’, 84 n. 19, 87, 88 n. 33, 99; Feldman, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum: The State
of the Question’, 199; Thackeray, Josephus, 137–38; Dubarle, ‘Le témoignage de Josèphe sur Jésus
d’après la tradition indirecte’, 507–8; Dubarle, ‘Le témoignage de Josèphe d’après des publications
récentes’, 55; Baras, ‘Testimonium Flavianum: The State of Recent Scholarship’, 308. Paget and
others believe, however, that the TF must be emended to achieve this neutrality or ambiguity
(though Paget holds this position quite tentatively). Paget also affirms that it is modern scholars
who have ‘attributed so much importance to [the TF]’, not ancient or medieval writers; see Paget,
‘Some Observations’, 565; see also 560–1. Vincent comes closest to my position in that he believes
that the whole TF is ironic, and therefore authentic, though I instead take the passage as some-
what ambiguous; see Cernuda, ‘El testimonio flaviano’. Feldman sometimes suggests a neutral TF,
but more often he creates a false binary between a positive or negative version of the TF, and
concludes that the TF must therefore be spurious because otherwise more writers would have
mentioned it; see Chapter 1 n. 1. Feldman also claims that non-Christians in the ancient world
were wondering if Jesus ever in fact existed and therefore would have been highly interested in
the TF. But he bases this assertion on a misreading of a single passage in Justin, Dialogue 8; see
Feldman, ‘On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum’, 14; Feldman, ‘The Testimonium
Flavianum: The State of the Question’, 182–3. For a similar critique of Feldman’s claim, see Paget,
‘Some Observations’, 602 n. 269.
6 Josephus and Jesus

Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν And in this time there was a certain Jesus,
χρόνον Ἰησοῦς τις σοϕὸς ἀνήρ, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call
εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή· ἦν him a man, for he was a doer of incred-
γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, ible deeds, a teacher of men who receive
διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ truisms with pleasure. And he brought
τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς over many from among the Jews and
μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ many from among the Greeks. He was
Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο· ὁ χριστὸς [thought to be] the Christ. And, when
οὗτος [mestabrā itaw] ἦν. καὶ Pilate had condemned him to the cross
αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν at the accusation of the first men among

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος us, those who at first were devoted to him
Πιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ did not cease to be so, for on the third
πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες· ἐϕάνη γὰρ day it seemed to them that he was alive
αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν again given that the divine prophets had
ζῶν τῶν θείων προϕητῶν ταῦτά τε spoken such things and thousands of
καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια other wonderful things about him. And
εἰρηκότων. εἰς τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν up till now the tribe of the Christians,
ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε who were named from him, has not
τὸ ϕῦλον. disappeared.

Interpreted in this way, it is clear that the TF has nothing suspicious about it.
But this is far from where the present book ends, since here important questions
arise: if the TF is genuine, if it really was written by Josephus, then from where did
Josephus obtain his information about Jesus? And how much did these sources
know about Jesus? In answering these questions, some intriguing evidence within
the TF points to sources very near to Jesus himself. For Josephus does not simply
say in the TF that it was the ‘first men’ (πρώτων ἀνδρῶν) who accused Jesus, but
that it was the ‘first men among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν). This is an important clue, since, as
it turns out, the phrase ‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν) is common in Josephus’ writings,
where it is used fifty-one other times. And combing through every one of these
fifty-one instances makes it plain that the phrase marks a subject with which the
speaker was directly familiar. In other words, Josephus appears to be claiming in
the TF that he actually knew some of those who accused Jesus.
One would be hard-pressed to believe such a thing based on a single point of lin-
guistic data, but compelling support for this conclusion exists in several other state-
ments where Josephus confirms that he did in fact know the ‘first’ men (πρῶτοι) of
Jerusalem beginning in 51/​2 ce. And it is only likely that some of those ‘first’ men
of Jerusalem would have also been numbered with ‘the first men among us’ whom
Josephus says accused Jesus twenty or so years before.
 INTRODUCTION  7

All this occasions some further, significant discoveries. After analyzing

Josephus’ social network, it becomes possible to actually identify the names of cer-
tain of Josephus’ acquaintances who were likely partisans in the trial of Jesus. The
most probable candidate is the High Priest Ananus II. He was the brother-in-law
of the High Priest Caiaphas and the son of the High Priest Ananus I (Annas in
the Gospels), both of whom put Jesus to death. As the reader will see, Ananus II
had good reason to be in attendance at Jesus’ trial and Josephus did know Ananus
II directly. And there are several other candidates too, whom Josephus also knew
and who were in all probability also at the trial of Jesus. And not only this, but
it is evident that Josephus knew still others within his large social network who

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

had facilitated judicial proceedings against Jesus’ apostles. The most prominent of
these are undoubtedly King Herod Agrippa II, who attended the trial of the apostle
Paul, and once again the High Priest Ananus II, who executed James, the brother
of Jesus.
Taken as a whole then, the evidence indicates that the Testimonium Flavianum
was indeed composed by Josephus, a man who actually knew those who put Jesus
and the apostles on trial. It hence offers remarkable insight into both the Jesus of
history and the early Christian movement. We would do well to consider carefully
what it says.

Book Outline

I argue for the above points via the following contributions.

Part 1: The Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum

First, Chapter 1, shows that Greek-speaking Christians in the ancient and medieval
worlds tended to interpret the TF not as a pro-Christian confession, but rather as a
neutral, ambiguous, or even slightly negative account of Jesus, one that did not af-
ford easy apologetic gain. Such observations suggest that if any Christian interpol-
ations occurred, they were likely quite minimal given that the majority of readers
viewed the TF as not all that favorable to Jesus. This explains why certain writers
like Origen chose not to mention the TF—for he, as with many others, likely found
it to be unremarkable or even risky to use. These observations also clarify why so
many of those Christians who did take notice of the TF emphasized its more mun-
dane details rather than its alleged spectacular content, since for them it had few if
any sensational claims. Yet the very ambiguity which I argue is present within the
TF also allowed a minority of writers to interpret (or misinterpret) it almost as a
8 Josephus and Jesus

confession of faith. In this chapter the manuscripts of important authors are con-
sulted directly.
Chapter 2 canvasses various western and eastern versions of the TF—in Latin,
Syriac, Arabic, and Armenian—while consulting several manuscripts and cor-
recting past transcriptions. Most significantly, a certain Syriac text shows that
the most suspicious statement in the extant version of the TF, ‘he was the Christ’,
instead likely read ‘he was thought to be the Christ’. This reading is found in an
important Syriac translation of the TF which new evidence suggests should be
traced back to Jacob of Edessa (c.708 ce), a noted translator of Greek works and
one of the most educated men of his day. Jacob’s translation is crucially matched

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

by another famous translator, St. Jerome (c.420 ce), who rendered the phrase
almost synonymously into Latin as ‘he was believed to be the Christ’. This cor-
respondence indicates that both translators had before themselves a much
more ancient Greek text, a text which I argue contained the original wording
of Josephus. Such a reading also explains, once again, why Origen and others
asserted that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ. And, further-
more, it agrees with Josephan style, thereby giving the reading a ring of verisim-
ilitude. Be that as it may, many Christian readers still do not seem to have read
the altered phrase ‘he was the Christ’ (ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν) as a confession of
faith. Instead, they simply assumed that Josephus was identifying Jesus with the
alternative name of ‘Christ’, much like how many ancient non-Christian writers
were quite willing to call Jesus the name of ‘Christ’, without thinking that such
signaled faith in him.
Chapter 3 provides a close analysis of the TF, demonstrating that many
non-Christian sources (both Jewish and pagan) frequently made comments
about Jesus that were strikingly similar to those found in the TF, as when they at-
tribute miracles to Jesus or when they claim that Jewish leaders were responsible
for his death. Hence, such content in the TF should not be viewed suspiciously
by scholars, nor even interpreted as positive valuations. The analysis also high-
lights numerous linguistic parallels shared between the TF and Josephus, some of
which are brought forth for the first time, and many of which cast the TF in quite
an ambiguous light—far different from the positive reading of the TF advanced by
many scholars.
Chapter 4 analyzes the TF’s various lexemes and phrases stylostatistically in
order to determine whether the TF’s frequency rate of common words and rare
words matches the frequency rate of comparable words elsewhere in Josephus’
corpus. The results plainly indicate that both common and rare words are present
in the TF at the same frequency one would expect if Josephus were the author. The
chapter further discusses the placement of the TF within the Antiquities, its textual
preservation, and possible ways to translate it.
 INTRODUCTION  9

Part 2: The Sources of Josephus and the Meaning of

the Testimonium Flavianum

Chapter 5 examines Josephus’ background with a view to discovering his potential

sources of information about Jesus. Josephus, as it happens, was born of an eminent
priestly family and circled among elite echelons of Jerusalem society during the
50s ce. In this time, he also became closely familiar with the Essenes, Sadducees,
and Pharisees. Later, in the 60s ce, Josephus was stationed in Galilee for several
years at which time he visited many places where Jesus once ministered, such as
Cana and Capernaum. All these locales—Jerusalem and towns in Galilee—would

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

have been peopled with those who remembered Jesus directly, and from them
Josephus could have become well apprised of the man from Nazareth. Josephus
further tells us how, beginning in 51/​2 ce, he had frequent interactions with the
‘first’ men (πρῶτοι) of Jerusalem. As mentioned above, this group matches the
‘first men among us’ (πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν) whom Josephus describes in the
TF as bringing judicial proceedings against Jesus. The evidence thus suggests that
Josephus would have known some of these ‘first men among us’ who accused Jesus.
Such is confirmed by examining the dozens of other times Josephus deploys the
phrase ‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν). These instances show that Josephus used the phrase
‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν) as a way of indicating direct knowledge of a subject. The
data therefore stipulates that by saying in the TF that it was ‘the first men among us’
who accused Jesus, Josephus is claiming to have himself known some of those who
accused Jesus.
Chapter 6 investigates Josephus’ social network and identifies individuals
through whom Josephus may have learned first-hand details of Jesus. These in-
clude members of six leading Jewish families: The royal family of the Herodians,
the rabbinic family of Hillel, and the high priestly families of Ananus I, Boethus,
Camith, and Phiabi. Josephus was directly familiar with all six families and all six
had members well placed to have encountered Jesus face to face. Some of these
families even aided in bringing accusations against him. What is more, Josephus’
contacts can be traced out so completely that it is even possible to identify the
names of several who would have likely attended the trial of Jesus and others who
attended trials of Jesus’ followers. I show that of no candidate is this so probable as
with the High Priest Ananus II, a sometime ally and then later enemy of Josephus.
In the Conclusion, I summarize my findings, and argue that a neutral or am-
biguous account of Jesus is precisely what one would expect from Josephus given
his social network and given the similar ways he treated known associates of Jesus
in John the Baptist and James, the brother of Jesus. To illustrate the basic ambi-
guity of the TF, I include an English translation highlighting such aspects of the
TF. I also discuss what the TF can tell us about the Jesus of history and the early
10 Josephus and Jesus

Christian movement, particularly regarding how the claims of Jesus’ miracles and
his resurrection developed.
Lastly, I also provide several Appendices which include the following:

• A response to accusations that Eusebius of Caesarea forged the TF.

• A discussion on Origen of Alexandria and his knowledge of Josephus’ passage
on James, the brother of Jesus, in Antiquities 20.200.
• An essay regarding whether, according to the Gospels, Jesus was arrested on
Passover.
• An investigation on whether the Jewish Toledot Yeshu can provide inde-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

pendent evidence that Ananus II participated in the trial of Jesus.
• A discussion of the Great Sanhedrin and its records of the trial of Jesus.
• An excursus on Josephus’ silence regarding Jesus in the War.
• Select photographs of important manuscripts.
 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025
TH E AU TH EN TICIT Y OF TH E
T E ST IMON IUM F L AV I A N UM
PART 1
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025
 1
The Greek Reception

The Puzzling Early Reception

This chapter surveys the reception of the Testimonium Flavianum in the hands
of Greek Christian authors beginning with Origen in the third century and con-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

tinuing up to the late Byzantine period.1 I show that the vast majority do not seem
to have considered the TF to be a pro-Christian statement at all. Instead, most
treated it as a neutral, ambiguous, or even slightly negative account of Jesus, a very
puzzling phenomenon indeed if one considers the TF to be a later Christian inter-
polation, but quite sensible if the TF should instead be interpreted as a somewhat
detached report—the very kind of thing that might have been written by Josephus
himself.

Origen

The reception of the TF commences early on with Origen of Alexandria

(c.185–255 ce). As mentioned in the Introduction, Origen clearly stated, on two
different occasions, that Josephus ‘himself did not believe in Jesus as the Christ’,
making this claim in his apologetic work Against Celsus (c.248 ce)2 and also in
his Commentary on Matthew (c.248 ce).3 It is notable that in one instance, Origen
1 For a summary of the general reception of Josephus amongst Jewish, Christian, and pagan au-
thors, see Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 539–44; Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition, 68–171;
Schreckenberg, Rezeptionsgeschichtliche, 5–70; Kletter, ‘The Christian Reception of Josephus’, 368–81;
Hardwick, Josephus as an Historical Source. For the reception of the TF specifically, see Whealey,
Josephus on Jesus, 1–71. For writers before Eusebius (excluding Origen), see Whealey, ‘Josephus on
Jesus: Evidence from the First Millennium’, 285–7; Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 6–12. Feldman and
Olson think it is telling that so few Christian writers mention the TF and both argue that this points
to the TF’s inauthenticity, but often they (especially Feldman) assume that the TF must have been ei-
ther positive or negative (and hence not neutral or ambiguous) and therefore they both believe that it
is suspicious that Christians did not either trumpet the TF or condemn it; see Olson, ‘Eusebius and
the Testimonium Flavianum’, 307; Feldman, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum: The State of the Question’,
181–5; Feldman, ‘Flavius Josephus revisited’, 822–5; Feldman, ‘On the Authenticity of the Testimonium
Flavianum’, 16. Whealey though spends much time defending the silence that early patristic writers
seem to have over Josephus and deploys various reasons to do so, many of them quite cogent. However,
the simplest reason that so many writers were silent about the TF is that they found it to be unremark-
able insofar as they read it as a neutral, ambiguous, or even vaguely negative account and hence had
little reason to discuss it. Whealey does acknowledge this point; see Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 15–18.
2 Ὁ δ’ αὐτός, καίτοι γε ἀπιστῶν τῷ Ἰησοῦ ὡς Χριστῷ. Origen, Against Celsus 1.47 (ed. Marcovich,
Origenes, 47 line 7 =​TLG 2042.001 line 9).
3 τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἡμῶν οὐ καταδεξάμενος εἶναι Χριστόν. ‘Though not accepting our Jesus to be the
Christ’. Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17 (ed. Klostermann p. 22 line 12. =​TLG 2042.029 lines
37–8). On the dating of these works of Origen, see Nautin, Origène, 375–6.

Josephus and Jesus. T. C. Schmidt, Oxford University Press. © T. C. Schmidt 2025.

DOI: 10.1093/​9780191957697.003.0002
14 Josephus and Jesus

asserts that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ while quoting a pas-
sage from Josephus’ Antiquities that is near to where the TF should have declared
that Jesus was the Christ,4 at least according to how the TF has been typically
understood. On account of this, many have assumed that Origen did not know
about the TF, and have thence concluded that it must have been interpolated by a
later Christian scribe.5
Yet there is evidence for suspecting that Origen did know of some version of
the TF, even though he does not mention it explicitly.6 To begin, Origen is aware
of Josephus’ later reference to James ‘the brother of Jesus who was called Christ’
in Antiquities 20.200.7 Such a statement in and of itself suggests that Josephus had

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

written about Jesus earlier in the Antiquities, for it is unlikely that Josephus would
have mentioned Jesus to identify James, but never have introduced Jesus to his audi-
ence in the first place.8 It is therefore also plausible that Origen would have known
of this earlier passage about Jesus since he wrote within 150 years of Josephus, so
near in time to the Jewish historian that he likely possessed manuscripts of the
Antiquities uncontaminated by later Christian scribes. This is particularly likely
since Origen had access to manuscripts deriving from Jewish circles.9
4 Origen, Against Celsus 1.47 (which discusses Antiquities 18.116–19 and Antiquities 20.200–1). He
also does the same in Commentary on Matthew 10.17 (which discusses Antiquities 20.200–1). For this
exact point, see also Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 229–30.
5 It must be noted that there was a flourishing Hellenistic Jewish literary circle in the first and second
centuries—witnessed by writers like Philo, Josephus, Justus of Tiberias, Theodotion, Aquila, and
Symmachus—so Origen need not have used Christian scribes to obtain Josephus’ texts, but may have
instead accessed it via Jewish scribal circles. He, for example, obtained manuscripts of Symmachus’
work from a woman who had inherited them from Symmachus himself. And Origen was willing to
use a contact of Symmachus even though Symmachus had attacked the Gospel of Matthew; see
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.17.1. Given Origen’s access to manuscripts from Jewish circles, it is a
fair conclusion that if the TF really was omitted from Origen’s manuscript of the Antiquities, then it is
equally possible that a hostile Jewish scribe might have omitted a neutral-sounding TF as that a sym-
pathetic Christian scribe may have inserted a positive-sounding TF. On Origen and Jewish sources,
see Daniélou, Origen, 174–91. Ancient testimony regarding Symmachus is contradictory, some believe
that he was a Jewish Christian (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.17), others that he was Jewish (Origen
as quoted in Palladius Historia Lausiaca, 64.1—Epiphanius considered Symmachus to be a Samaritan
convert to Judaism; see Epiphanius, Weights and Measures 16 [55c]). It is also possible that Origen had
access to the Antiquities via his teacher Clement of Alexandria, but evidence shows that Clement’s circle
did not make interpolations into Antiquities 20.200 even though it contradicted their beliefs, so such a
circle would also be unlikely to interpolate the TF. On this, see p. 236 and Appendix 2 nn. 15, 17.
6 The reasons why Origen may have known the TF, or at least some neutral version of it, are re-
hearsed by Whealey, ‘Josephus on Jesus: Evidence from the First Millennium’, 288–91; Paget, ‘Some
Observations’, 557–61, 618; Feldman, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum: The State of the Question’, 182–3;
Thackeray, Josephus, 139–40; Eisler, The Messiah Jesus, 38; Bardet, Le Testimonium Flavianum, 80–8;
Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 352.
7 Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17; Against Celsus 1.47, 2.13.
8 Niese argues that Josephus sometimes mentions significant figures without introducing them such
as Caiaphas in Antiquities 18.35, 95. But the argument is not that Josephus never does this, but that it
is rare for him to do so. Furthermore, it is one thing to mention someone without introduction when
they have an unremarkable name like Caiaphas, and quite another to offhandedly mention someone,
without introduction, when their name or moniker suggests that they are the Christ. It would also be
strange for Josephus to introduce someone like James and explain that he is the brother of a presumably
more well-known person, Jesus, but then for Josephus to never actually introduce Jesus before or after.
See Niese, De testimonio, IX.
9 See n. 5 above.
 The Greek Reception 15

The idea that Origen did know of at least some version of the TF is further sup-
ported by three intriguing observations. First, Origen twice declares that Josephus
did not believe that Jesus was the Christ,10 even though, apart from the TF,
Josephus never discusses Jesus in any kind of detail. This implies that Origen did
know of some discussion of Jesus in Josephus’ work located before the brief men-
tion of him as the brother of James in Antiquities 20.200.
Secondly, one of the times Origen mentions Josephus’ unbelief, he also refers
to Josephus’ description of John the Baptist in Antiquities 18.116–1911—quite
near where the TF is currently placed in Antiquities 18.63–4—but then, soon after,
Origen says ‘the Jews do not relate John to Jesus, nor the punishment of John with

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

that of Jesus’,12 perhaps because, in the TF Josephus himself also does not make
any connection between John and Jesus. Nor does Josephus draw any link be-
tween their executions. This seems all the more possible because, thirdly, just a
few lines later Origen rather abruptly switches tactics to argue that the fact that
Jesus was ‘prophesied by the Jewish prophets’ is the ‘greatest point in favor of Jesus’
authority’.13 It could be that Origen’s sudden turn in argument toward Jewish
prophets may have been influenced by the content of the TF, which discusses the
Hebrew prophets in relation to Jesus, but only, as I will argue in Chapter 3, in a de�-
tached subjective way.14
It is therefore at least plausible, though surely not conclusive,15 that Origen had
access to a version of the TF, but that he read it in a negative, neutral, or ambiguous
light; otherwise he likely would have deployed it in his apologetic work, as he
did with similar Josephan passages on John the Baptist and James, the brother of
Jesus.16 Yet, on the other hand, Origen also praises Josephus for not being ‘far from
the truth’17 and does so when discussing a passage in the Antiquities near where the
TF should have been located. Consequently, if Origen knew a version of the TF, he
probably considered it to be not overly negative and perhaps neutral, ambiguous,
or otherwise fairly mundane.18 I must say though that one cannot be sure of any of
these things, and indeed so much of our expectation regarding how the TF ought
to have been treated by ancient and medieval writers rests on certain presupposi-
tions that those writers may or may not have held.19 Even so, Origen’s comments

10 Origen, Against Celsus 1.47; Commentary on Matthew 10.17.

11 Origen, Against Celsus 1.47.
12 Ibid., 1.48 (ed. Marcovich p. 50 lines 11–12 =​TLG 2042.001 lines 94–5).
13 Ibid., 1.49 (ed. Marcovich p. 50 lines 15–16 =​TLG 2042.001 lines 1–3).
14 This passage was pointed out to me by Whiston, The Works of Flavius Josephus, 821 dissertation
1.viii.1.
15 Paget, for example, pushes back against the above observations that Origen may have known a ver-
sion of the TF, yet he thinks it still might be possible, especially if Origen interpreted the TF negatively;
see Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 557–61.
16 Origen, Against Celsus 1.47, 2.13; Commentary on Matthew 10.17.
17 οὐ μακρὰν τῆς ἀληθείας γενόμενος. Origen, Against Celsus 1.47 (ed. Marcovich p. 47 line
11 =​TLG 2042.001 lines 13–14).
18 For scholars who discuss this possibility, see above n. 6
19 For discussion on such presuppositions, see Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 545–6, 581–4, 616–19.
16 Josephus and Jesus

are still suggestive, though not proof, that the original version of the TF may have
been neutral, ambiguous, or even slightly negative, and therefore not helpful for
him to use.

Eusebius

In any case, this is where the reception of the TF gets far more difficult to ex-
plain if we interpret it as a suspiciously pro-Christian account of Jesus, as many
scholars have done. For, about sixty-five years after Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

(c.263–339 ce)20 would become the first to explicitly quote the TF, doing so in his
first edition of the Ecclesiastical History written around 313 ce.21 He also gives the
same version of the TF in several succeeding editions of the Ecclesiastical History,
the last of which was issued around 326 ce.22 He further quotes from the TF two
more times in his later apologetic works the Demonstration (c.318–323 ce)23 and
the Theophany (c.325/​326 ce).24 Eusebius’ knowledge of the TF is particularly in-
teresting because he inherited Origen’s library and even possessed manuscripts
with Origen’s own handwriting.25 Yet, he knew a copy of the Antiquities that had
the TF in it, while Origen, at least according to some, did not.
To explain why Eusebius, though not Origen, was aware of the TF, a minority
of scholars, like Solomon Zeitlin, Ken Olson, and Louis Feldman,26 have theor-
ized that Eusebius himself interpolated or forged the TF, but most other scholars
have found this hypothesis to be improbable.27 I discuss this idea at length in

20 For discussion of Eusebius’ treatment of the TF, see Whealey, ‘Josephus on Jesus: Evidence from
the First Millennium’, 291–6; Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 18–29; Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of
Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum’; Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 561–3, 577–8.
21 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7–8. For the dates of the editions of the Ecclesiastical History,
see Burgess, ‘Dates and Editions’, 471–504; Louth, ‘The Date of Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica’, 111–23.
Barnes dates the first edition of the Ecclesiastical History fifteen to twenty years earlier; see Barnes, ‘The
Editions of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History’, 191–201.
22 Burgess, ‘Dates and Editions’, 502; Louth, ‘The Date of Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica’, 111–12.
23 Eusebius, Demonstration 3.5.105 (124b–c). Throughout this book sectional numbering for the
Demonstration is taken from the TLG database, additional numbers in parentheses are from Heikel,
Eusebius Werke 6: Demonstratio Evangelica.
24 Eusebius, Theophany 5.44. Dates for the Demonstration and the Theophany are taken from Barnes,
Constantine and Eusebius, 278. Ferrar dates the Demonstration to 314–18 ce; see Ferrar, Eusebius: Proof
of the Gospel, vol. 1 p. xii–xiii.
25 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.24.3.
26 Zeitlin, ‘The Christ Passage in Josephus’, 237–40; Zeitlin, ‘The Slavonic Josephus’, 41–50; Zeitlin,
‘Josephus on Jesus’, 392–9; Olson, ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 310–14; Olson, ‘A
Eusebian Reading’; Feldman, ‘On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum’, 26–8. Note that in
order to press his case against Eusebius, Olson applies a mistaken chronology to Eusebius’ works.
27 Other scholars who believe Eusebius did not forge or interpolate the TF include, Paget, ‘Some
Observations’, 561–3, 577–8; Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium
Flavianum’; Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 328 n. 4; Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish
Authors, 206–11. Whealey sums up Olson’s arguments: ‘although Olson has a few insightful points,
his overall linguistic analysis is based on an insufficient and occasionally inaccurate reading of both
Eusebius’ works and Josephus’ works, and a few of his general arguments are logically flawed’; see
Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 73.
 The Greek Reception 17

Appendix 1, but for now I will say that in all of his hundreds (or even thousands)
of quotations, Eusebius can never be shown to so fictitiously alter a text.28 He even
preserves a passage in Josephus that contradicts the New Testament, as when he
quotes Josephus contradicting the book of Acts.29 There Eusebius points out the
contradiction and does not bother to change Josephus’ text.30 On another occasion,
Eusebius ignores contradictions between Josephus’ chronology and that given
by Luke.31 Likewise, Eusebius also does not alter potentially negative statements
about Jesus that remain in the TF itself, like the potentially derogatory phrase a
‘certain Jesus’ (Ἰησοῦς τις);32 the perhaps too carnal ‘with pleasure’ (ἡδονῇ);
the ambiguous παράδοξα which can be interpreted to mean ‘incredible’ or even

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

‘magical’ deeds; and also the term ἐπηγάγετο ‘he led away’ or more ominously ‘he
led astray’33—all of which I discuss in Chapter 3 and all of which Eusebius left in�-
tact. I think then that Eusebius should be considered an unlikely candidate for for-
ging or interpolating the TF, at least until clear evidence to the contrary emerges.

Eusebius’ Puzzling Reason for Quoting the Testimonium Flavianum

But most interesting for our purposes is that despite quoting the entire TF three
times, Eusebius never uses its suspiciously pro-Christian claims in his apologetic
defense of Christianity, nor even notices such content at all.34 This would be very
odd if he or anyone else had interpolated the TF to burnish Christian credentials.
In fact, the three times that Eusebius cites the TF35 he uses it merely to verify the
chronological placement of the life of Jesus and to emphasize that Jesus had many
disciples of both Jewish and Greek extraction.
So, the first time he uses the TF comes in his Ecclesiastical History and there he
only quotes it to disprove the chronological claims of an anti-Christian document
which had recently been forged.36 But despite deploying the TF for apologetic

28 See discussion in Appendix 1 pp. 215–22.

29 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.10.10 which refers to the contradictory names for King Herod
(or Agrippa) given in Acts 12:19–23 and Antiquities 19.343–50.
30 Theodoret does the very same with another passage of Josephus in his Commentary on Daniel
81.1393 line 31–81.1396 line 21 (=​TLG 4089.028).
31 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.5.3–4, where he ignores that the census of Quirinius in the
Antiquities 18.1–2, 26 is placed in chronological contradiction to Luke 2:1 and Matthew 2:1. On this,
see Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 20. Eusebius also does not alter the statement in the TF that appears to
contradict the Gospels when it claims that Jesus had many followers who were Greek; see Whealey,
‘Josephus on Jesus: Evidence from the First Millennium’, 295–6; Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 26–7.
32 This variant is missing from Greek manuscripts of the Antiquities, but was preserved by Eusebius;
for discussion, see Chapter 3 p. 68
33 On each of these statements, see the relevant discussions in Chapter 3. For a list of such state�-
ments, see Chapter 7 p. 198 and also Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 353–8; Paget, ‘Some
Observations’, 601.
34 For similar observations about the way Eusebius discusses the TF, see Whealey, Josephus on Jesus,
23–8; Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 561–3; Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors, 206–11.
35 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7–8; Demonstration 3.5.105 (124b–c); Eusebius, Theophany
5.2–20.
36 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.11.9.
18 Josephus and Jesus

purposes, he never mentions any of the astounding assertions seemingly present

in the TF. Thereafter, he edited his Ecclesiastical History several times, but never
altered his rather staid discussion of the TF.37
Yet Eusebius’ next usage of the TF is even more perplexing. This is made in his
Demonstration where in the opening pages he explicitly declares that his purpose
in writing the book was to show that the Hebrew prophets spoke of Christ,38 his
‘wonderous, incredible deeds’ (παραδόξους θαυματουργίας),39 and also his resur-
rection.40 Yet, later when it comes time for him to quote the TF,41 he never marshals
its evidence regarding these matters to his side, nor does he even indicate that he is
aware of its extravagant claims despite having, evidently, just quoted them.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Actually, Eusebius only seems to have used the TF in the Demonstration to prove
that Jesus had many disciples and therefore, according to Eusebius, must have ‘ac-
quired something beyond the rest of men’. For after quoting the TF he concludes:

Hence if even [Josephus] testifies according to the historical [record] that Jesus
not only won over twelve apostles and seventy disciples, but also attracted many
of the Jews and many of the Greeks, then it is clear that he acquired something be-
yond the rest of men. For how else could he have attracted a multitude of Jews and
Greeks except by employing certain wonders and incredible deeds (παράδοξα)
and new teaching?42

Strikingly, after this rather mundane use of the TF, Eusebius then appears wary
that the TF may provide fodder for detractors; for after quoting it he pivots to rebut
those who ‘admit that Jesus performed incredible deeds (παράδοξα), but that he
did so with deceptive magic directed at the onlookers, such as by a conjurer or
sorcerer, to dazzle those who stood by’.43 Eusebius no doubt has in mind the fact
that the TF uses the very same word, παράδοξα, to describe Jesus’ miracles and is
worried that many may not find performing παράδοξα to be all that impressive or
even morally sound. Eusebius’ fear is quite legitimate because παράδοξα were the
very illicit things that anti-Christian writers actually accused Jesus of doing.44 Such
anxiety makes good sense given that Eusebius’ version of the TF (the same that is

37 On different versions of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, see above p. 16.

38 Eusebius, Demonstration 1.proem.1–2 (2).
39 Eusebius, Demonstration 1.1.3 (4) (ed. Heikel GCS 23 p. 3 line 29 =​TLG 2018.005 line 5).
40 Eusebius, Demonstration 1.1.6 (5).
41 Eusebius, Demonstration 3.5.105–6 (124b–c).
42 Eusebius, Demonstration 3.5.107–8 (124c–d) (ed. Heikel GCS 23 p. 131 lines 3–9 =​TLG 2018.005
lines 1–8).
43 τὸ τῶν συνομολογούντων μὲν τὸν Ἰησοῦν τὰ παράδοξα πεποιηκέναι, γοητείᾳ δὲ ἄλλως ἐπὶ
πλάνῃ τῶν ὁρώντων οἷα θαυματουργὸν ἢ ϕαρμακέα τινὰ θαυμασιῶσαι τοὺς παρόντας. Eusebius,
Demonstration 3.5.110 (125a–b) (ed. Heikel GCS 23 p. 131 lines 24–6 =​TLG 2018.005 lines 3–5).
44 For an analysis of παράδοξα, see Chapter 3 pp. 73–5 where Celsus used the word in his accusa�-
tions against Jesus.
 The Greek Reception 19

extant in currently known manuscripts of the Antiquities) does have some fairly
ambiguous if not negative statements to make about Jesus, which I discuss in more
detail in Chapter 3.
This pattern of neglecting or ignoring the (apparently) pro-Christian claims of
the TF continues when Eusebius quotes the TF for the third time in his Theophany,45
a work now only extant in Syriac translation. With this Eusebius mentions that
the portion of the Theophany that contains the TF was mostly reworked from his
Demonstration,46 and, indeed Eusebius is once again sensitive to charges that Jesus
practiced sorcery and so puts forward a similar argument defending Jesus, but here
he places it before the TF not afterward.47 Then after citing the TF, he concludes

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

with words similar to what he had used in the Demonstration:

If therefore this author testifies concerning [Jesus] in this way, that he was a doer
of wondrous deeds (‫ (ܣܘܥܪܢܐ ܕܬܕܡܘܪܬܐ‬and not only was followed by the twelve
apostles and [not only] brought to himself the seventy disciples, but indeed also
myriads of other Jews and myriads of gentiles, is it not clear that he acquired
something greater beyond the rest of mankind? For how otherwise could he have
brought to himself many of those from Jews and from Greeks, if not for the fact
that he employed wonders and amazing deeds and new doctrines?48

One cannot be sure if the Syriac translator of this work introduced any changes
to Eusebius’ thoughts,49 but if not, then on this occasion Eusebius does at least
emphasize Jesus’ miracles more than he has in the past—but even here Eusebius
knows that detractors may not be all that impressed with such things. And, further,
he again finds more relevancy in the great number of disciples which the TF states
that Jesus gained. Oddly then, for the third time, Eusebius does not highlight the
TF’s acknowledgment of Jesus’ messianic status, his divinity, his resurrection, nor
the fact that his marvelous deeds were prophesied in scripture, even though such
would have greatly aided his argument. Why not?

The Puzzling Later Reception

This puzzling treatment can be greatly amplified because many Greek writers after
Eusebius also curiously avoid mentioning the more fabulous claims of the TF, and

45 Eusebius, Theophany 5.44.

46 Eusebius, Theophany 4.37.
47 Eusebius, Theophany 5.2–20, which roughly corresponds to Demonstration 3.6.1–39 (125–34),
whereas Theophany 5.21–45 roughly corresponds to Demonstration 3.4.32–51 (109–14) through
3.5.52–110 (114–25).
48 Eusebius, Theophany 5.45, Syriac from Lee, Theophania, vol. 1 p. 204 lines 6–11.
49 See Chapter 2 pp. 46–8.
20 Josephus and Jesus

instead highlight its lesser statements. Thus, Isidore of Pelusium (c.450 ce) enthu-
siastically quotes the whole TF, but only remarks that he is ‘especially amazed’ that
Josephus, ‘a lover of truth’ praises Jesus as ‘a teacher of those who receive truths’,
because, as Isidore says, Jews are ‘unsurpassably indifferent’ and ‘do not believe’.50
He likewise never remarks upon the suspiciously Christian claims of the TF, even
though he seems to have just quoted them.
In his Commentary on Revelation, Oecumenius (c.550 ce) interprets a pas-
sage in the Revelation of John as affirming that ‘the teachings of the Lord afforded
discernable grace’ and that ‘grace’ had been ‘poured on [Jesus’] lips’.51 To support
these claims he quotes the entire TF and introduces it like so: ‘And Josephus, a

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Jewish man, compelled by truth, writes as follows concerning him [Jesus] in the
book of the Antiquities of Israel’.52 It seems then that Oecumenius used the TF
simply to describe the nature of Jesus’ teachings so that he might use it to support
the idea that such teachings were full of grace. Thus, as with Isidore before him,
Oecumenius likely found that the most noteworthy aspect of the TF to be only
that part which described Jesus’ role as ‘a teacher of men who receive truths with
pleasure’, though in this instance Oecumenius’ text contains a textual variant so
that his version reads ‘a teacher of men who speak true things with pleasure’.53 But
whatever the case, Oecumenius, for some reason, never bothers to point out any of
the far more remarkable claims made by the TF. This is all the more peculiar be-
cause Oecumenius was writing a commentary on Revelation, which Oecumenius
believed frequently described the resurrection of Jesus,54 his divinity,55 and his ful-
fillment of prophecy56—why not quote the TF regarding these matters instead of
deploying it to highlight a basically mundane assertion about Jesus’ teachings?
The anonymous Religious Discussion at the Court of the Sassanids (sixth cen-
tury) does not quote the TF as a whole, but presents a protagonist as enumerating
Jewish witnesses of Jesus (John the Baptist, Nicodemus, etc.) some of whom it says
named Jesus to be the Christ. Yet of Josephus it instead says ‘[What of ] Josephus
your own writer of history, who spoke about Christ, who was demonstrated to be
a righteous and good man by divine grace, by means of signs and wonders, and

50 Isidore of Pelusium, Letter 1259 (4.225) (ed. Évieux, Isidore de Péluse, 258 lines 25–9 =​ TLG
2741.001 lines 25–9). For a translation of this passage and its surrounding contents, see Whealey,
Josephus on Jesus, 37–8. Here, Whealey also shows that Isidore must have known the Antiquities directly.
51 Oecumenius, Commentary on Revelation 4.10.7 (trans. modified from Suggit, Commentary on
Revelation, 70).
52 Oecumenius, Commentary on Revelation 4.10.7 (ed. Hoskier, The Complete Commentary
of Oecumenius on the Apocalypse, p. 88 lines 8–10 =​ TLG 2866.001 p. 88 lines 8–10). The sectional
numbering, 4.10.7, is taken from Suggit, Commentary on of the Apocalypse.
53 διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ λεγομένων; Oecumenius, Commentary on
Revelation 4.10.8 (ed. Hoskier, The Complete Commentary of Oecumenius on the Apocalypse, p. 88 lines
12–13 =​TLG 2866.001 p. 88 lines 12–13).
54 Ibid., 1.11.3, 4.15.2.
55 Ibid., 1.3.5, 3.13.10.
56 Ibid., 1.14.2–3, 1.117.1.
 The Greek Reception 21

one who bestowed benefits on many? And as many other things that are recorded,
which we do not bring forward now?’57 The author thus mentions nothing about
the most incredible statements found in the TF—Jesus’ resurrection, his messianic
status, his divinity, and so on—though such content surely would have aided his
purpose.
Similar examples can be multiplied. George the Monk (ninth century) calls
Josephus a ‘lover of truth’ and quotes an excerpt from Josephus’ passage on John
the Baptist.58 He then quotes the TF in full and briefly complains, ‘A s these things
have been taken from the above Hebrew writings, what defense or excuse do the
stupid and crack-brained Jews have?’59 The first part of this sentence is taken ver-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

batim from Eusebius’ own rather mundane analysis of the TF, but George’s own
alterations still do not mention any of the TF’s most pro-Christian claims.60 Most
surprisingly is that immediately afterward George quotes John Chrysostom to ap-
parently articulate his frustration with what ‘the Jews’ believe about Jesus. This
frustration though only amounts to the fact that they considered John the Baptist
to be superior to Jesus because he had an impressive and unusual upbringing in the
desert, was the son of a High Priest, was born of a barren woman, and called many
to baptism. But Jesus, from the Jewish perspective, did no such thing except to be
baptized by John the Baptist, which George quotes Chrysostom as saying ‘rather
confirms this notion’ of John being superior to Jesus.61 George’s argument is not
exactly clear. He obviously thinks the Jewish TF rebuts the notion that John the
Baptist was superior to Jesus, but the reader is left wondering exactly how. George
never comes around to arguing that, according to the TF, Jesus was not just greater
than John in regard to his clothing and upbringing, but that he was in fact the
Christ, was raised from the dead, was foretold by Jewish prophets, and was per-
haps divine.
The anonymous author of the Theognosia (ninth century)62 presents a series
of prophecies about Jesus found in the Old Testament. When he comes to the

57 Religious Discussion at the Court of the Sassanids §60 (of Bringel), p. 36 lines 8–11 (of Bratke).
English translation modified from Pearse, ‘Religious Discussion’. Greek text from Bratke, ‘Das
sogennante Religionsgesprach’, 1–305. A French translation can be found in Bringel, ‘Une polémique
religieuse’. A slightly different version of this text (which leaves off the last sentence) is preserved in PG
89.1248 lines 36–40 (=​TLG 2897.003) and is falsely attributed to Anastasius of Sinai. For brief mention
of this document, see Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 563, 568 n. 116; Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-Josephus-
Tradition, 106–7.
58 George the Monk, Chronicon p. 324 lines 18–25, p. 325 line 1 (ed. de Boor =​TLG 3043.001).
59 Ibid., p. 325 lines 13–15.
60 George’s use of Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.11.9 are highlighted in bold: ταῦτα τοῦ
ἐξ Ἑβραίων συγγραϕέως ἀνέκαθεν διεξελθόντος, ποίαν ἀπολογίαν ἢ συγγνώμην ἔχουσιν
ἀνοηταίνοντες οἱ ἐμβρόντητοι Ἰουδαῖοι. George the Monk, Chronicon p. 325 lines 13–15 (ed. de Boor).
61 ὅπερ μᾶλλον ἐβεβαίου τὴν ὑπόνοιαν ταύτην. George the Monk, Chronicon 326 p. 326 lines 3–4
(ed. de Boor =​ TLG 3043.001). A recension of George’s work, called the Chronicon breve, exists in PG
110.41–1260 and it too contains the same discussion; see Chronicon breve 385, 388 (=​TLG 3043.002).
62 This work was once incorrectly considered to be by Gregory Nazianzus; see Jaeger, Two
Rediscovered Works, 82–3 n. 5.
22 Josephus and Jesus

topic of the resurrection, he quotes from the Psalms and then introduces the TF by
only saying: ‘Now, Josephus the Hebrew, in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities,
says. . . .’63 But other than quoting the TF, he says nothing more, and so the reader is
left unsure if the TF should be interpreted as affirming the resurrection or merely
as relaying an historical report about it.
This uncertain treatment is confirmed by comments the same author makes in
another work of his, the Dissertatio contra Judaeos.64 There he quotes the entire
TF once again65 and, instead of pointing out its apparently Christian content, he
reasons that ‘either [the Jews] crucified and murdered a true and good and divine
prophet, thus becoming wicked, and lawless and impious, or on the contrary, they

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

seized a cheat and a deceiver and a false prophet’.66 He concludes that with Jesus
‘the Jews’ must have murdered a true prophet because otherwise God would not let
the very ends of the earth proclaim their ‘wretchedness, and ingloriousness, and
contempt’.67 Nowhere does the author point out that the very Jewish TF affirms,
at least apparently, that Jesus was the Christ, was perhaps divine, was resurrected,
and was the true subject of Jewish prophecy. Rather he seems to find the TF to be
quite ambiguous, neutral, or even slightly negative, otherwise why would he sug-
gest that according to the TF Jesus was either a divine prophet or a charlatan?
Sometime between the fifth and ninth centuries, Pseudo-Sophronius translated
Jerome’s work, On Illustrious Men from Latin into Greek,68 making many redactions
and additions in the process.69 As I will discuss in Chapter 2, Jerome did not point
out any of the more fantastic details in the TF, and Pseudo-Sophronius chooses to
preserve Jerome’s discussion on the TF, making no further remarks despite chan-
ging Jerome’s work drastically in other areas.70 But, curiously, Pseudo-Sophronius
carefully follows Jerome’s comments even though he did not follow Jerome’s trans-
lation of the TF and instead sought out a Greek copy of the TF to present to his
audience.71 This brings up the question: why did Pseudo-Sophronius not expand
upon Jerome’s silence over Jesus’ resurrection, his fulfillment of prophecy, and his

63 Φησὶ δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἑβραῖος Ἰώσηπος κατὰ τὸν ὀκτωκαιδέκατον τόμον τῆς Ἀρχαιολογίας αὐτοῦ.
Theognosia PG vol. 130 col. 272. 35–7 (=​TLG 2017.077). This is a fragment of a much larger quotation
preserved by Euthymius Zigabenus in his Panoplia Dogmatica.
64 The authorship of this work is discussed in Hostens, Anonymi auctoris Theognosiae, xxii–xxxii.
65 Dissertatio contra Judaeos 2 lines 386–98 (ed. Hostens p. 33 =​TLG 3186.008).
66 Ibid., 2 lines 405–9 (ed. Hostens p. 34). The author’s whole discussion of the TF, as well as his
introductory remarks, is contained in Dissertatio contra Judaeos 2.321–446 (ed. Hostens pp. 31–5).
67 ἀθλιότητα καὶ ἀκλεΐαν καὶ ἀδοξίαν. Dissertatio contra Judaeos 2 lines 427–8 (ed. Hostens p. 34).
68 The identification and the authenticity of this translation is of some dispute with certain scholars
claiming that Erasmus made the translation himself, though this seems doubtful. For discussion on
this, see Gebhardt, ‘Hieronymus de Viris Inlustribus’, iii–xvii. For the dating of the work, see Gebhardt,
vii–viii. See also the introduction to Jerome’s Illustrious Men in NPNCF2 vol. 3 pp. 355–6.
69 For example, Pseudo-Sophronius nearly doubles the number of Jerome’s entries before Josephus is
discussed, so that Josephus becomes the twenty-third entry rather than the thirteenth.
70 Pseudo-Sophronius, Jerome’s Illustrious Men 23.
71 This is clear because Pseudo-Sophronius’ version follows the Greek ‘he was the Christ’ (ὁ
χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν), instead of Jerome’s intriguing variant ‘he was believed to be the Christ’ (Christus
credebatur esse).
 The Greek Reception 23

divinity when he was so willing to alter Jerome’s comments in other areas and even
change his translation of the TF? It seems unlikely that Pseudo-Sophronius’ si-
lence is due to doubts about the authenticity of the TF since he is quite willing
elsewhere to make other misleading and pro-Christian claims about Josephus, as
when he states that Josephus credited great righteousness to James the brother of
Jesus.72 So why not also mention the pro-Christian content of the TF?
Whatever the reason, the Suda, a tenth-century encyclopedia, does similarly
and reuses practically wholesale Jerome’s passage on Josephus (via the above
Greek redaction) for its own entry concerning Josephus.73 It then crafts a second
entry on Josephus as well.74 But once more, the Suda nowhere notes the TF’s report

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

of Jesus’ resurrection, or that his ‘wonders’ were foretold by Hebrew prophets, or
that he was possibly divine. And like Pseudo-Sophronius, the Suda freely repeats
the same false claim about Josephus describing James as being righteous, so its si-
lence is likely not due to any kind of scruples over the TF’s authenticity.75 The most
that can be said of the Suda and Pseudo-Sophronius is that they may acknowledge
that the TF calls Jesus ‘the Christ’, but even this is not clear.76
Several manuscripts of the Chronicle of Simeon Magister Logothete (tenth
century)77 quote the TF in full when discussing Emperor Tiberius. Here the TF
is introduced by merely saying ‘Josephus writes concerning our Lord’78 with no
further remarks. George Cedrenus (eleventh–twelfth century) begins his treat-
ment of the TF by quoting from Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History to establish
the chronological span of Jesus’ life and ministry, but then rather than giving a
direct quotation of the TF, he only paraphrases it, yet still does not emphasize
any of the Christian claims, nor show any kind of awareness about its fabulous
content.79 In fact his paraphrase avoids explicitly claiming that Josephus de-
clared that Jesus ‘was the Christ’, and instead says ‘Christ led many also from the

72 Pseudo-Sophronius, Jerome’s Illustrious Men 2 (ed. Gebhardt p. 4 lines 21–3).

73 Suda, iota 503 (Ἰώσηπος) (=​TLG 9010.001).
74 Ibid., 504.
75 Ibid., 503.
76 This ambiguity is due to the following reason: by reusing Jerome’s material, these two Greek wit-
nesses repeat his claim that Josephus ‘admits that the Christ was slaughtered by the Pharisees on ac-
count of his many signs, that John the Baptist was truly a prophet, and that Jerusalem was destroyed
on account of the slaughter of James the apostle’; see Pseudo-Sophronius, Jerome’s Illustrious Men 23
(ed. Gebhardt p. 17 lines 6–9). But with Jerome, this statement was clearly not intended to claim that
Josephus called Jesus ‘the Christ’, because in Jerome’s ensuing quotation of the TF, his version reads that
Jesus was merely ‘believed to be the Christ’. Jerome was therefore merely employing Christian nomen-
clature when writing to his Christian audience and is not claiming that Josephus called Jesus the ‘Christ’.
Jerome did likewise when he called James ‘the apostle’ in the same sentence. Yet because the later Greek
redactor and the Suda made use of a Greek copy of the TF, their versions instead state that Jesus ‘was the
Christ’ (ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν), meaning that their use of Jerome’s remarks might, though not necessarily,
indicate that they thought that Josephus did call Jesus ‘the Christ’.
77 Wahlgren argues that this author should not be identified with Simeon Metaphrastes; see
Wahlgren, Symeonis Magistri, 3*–4*.
78 Simeon Magister Logothete, Chronicle 51 (ed. Wahlgren pp. 82–3).
79 George Cedrenus, Compendium Historiarum 1.345 lines 2–10 (=​TLG 3018.001).
24 Josephus and Jesus

Greeks’,80 leaving it unclear to the reader as to whether Cedrenus thought that

Josephus called Jesus the title ‘the Christ’ or instead if Cedrenus himself was re-
wording Josephus’ statement by inserting a Christian name for Jesus.81 John
Zonarus (eleventh–twelfth century) also treats the TF in a similarly mundane
fashion and introduces it purely as a chronological anchor: ‘At this time our Lord
and God Jesus Christ appeared in Judaea, concerning which things Josephus says
word for word in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities’.82 After quoting the TF,
he adds only: ‘And from the Antiquities Josephus writes these things concerning
Christ’.83
Lastly, in his Ecclesiastical History, Nicephoras Callistus (c.1325 ce) devotes a

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

chapter to the TF which he modestly entitles, ‘that Josephus mentions our Savior
Jesus Christ in the eighteenth book of his work and what words he relates concerning
him’.84 He then says: ‘I thought it fitting to put forward Josephus the historian, a lover
of truth among the Hebrews, as a kind of completion to my first book of history. He
relates these things concerning our Savior Jesus Christ in the eighteenth book of the
Antiquities’.85 Nicephoras seems to have thought the TF to be noteworthy, but it is not
clear what he found so noteworthy about it—all he says of it in the title heading to his
chapter is that Josephus ‘mentions’ Jesus. This is in contrast to how he treats similar
passages from Josephus about John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus. With
John, Nicephoras also calls Josephus a ‘lover of truth’,86 but then highlights the fact
that Josephus gives ‘praise’ (ἔπαινος) to John,87 and claims that Josephus’ account
corroborates the Gospels.88 With James, Nicephoras emphasizes that Josephus testi-
fies to his righteous character89 and that Jews of Jerusalem suffered much because of
his murder—though Josephus never actually says such things.90 Yet Nicephoras does
not highlight anything specifically remarkable about the TF.

80 πολλοὺς γὰρ καὶ ἀπὸ Ἑλλήνων ἠγάγετο Χριστός. George Cedrenus, Compendium Historiarum
1.345 lines 5–6 (=​TLG 3018.001).
81 Paget wonders if this version hints at a more neutral version of the TF, but is unsure; see Paget,
‘Some Observations’, 571. I believe this is unlikely because Cedrenus tells us that he received his in-
formation from Eusebius (1.344 line 16 and 1.345 lines 11–12). Therefore, the most likely reason
for Cedrenus’ version is that he is simply summarizing the TF, which is why his version labels Jesus
as ‘Christ’ and why it completes the verb ‘cease’ (παύω) with a predicate so as to make it say ‘cease
preaching’. For further discussion on παύω and its awkward lack of a predicate in the TF, see Chapter 3
pp. 94–5. For a brief discussion about Cedrenus’ version, see Whealey, ‘Josephus on Jesus: Evidence
from the First Millennium’, 301.
82 John Zonarus, Epitome historiarum 2.12 lines 14–17 (=​TLG 3135.001).
83 Ibid., 2.12 lines 30–1.
84 Nicephoras Callistus, Ecclesiastical History 1.39 lines 1–3 (=​TLG 3236.001).
85 Ibid., 1.39 lines 6–11.
86 Ibid., 1.20 line 46.
87 Ibid., 1.20 lines 3–4.
88 Ibid., 1.20 lines 44–6.
89 Ibid., 2.38 lines 92–6.
90 Ibid., 2.38 lines 97–100.
 The Greek Reception 25

Summary

Twelve Greek authors mention the TF and ten quote it fully,91 some of them
multiple times, making thirteen whole quotations and two paraphrases.92 Yet
none mention the TF’s extraordinary content and instead prefer to focus on
matters like chronology, Jewish culpability in Jesus’ death, the nature of Jesus’
teachings, and the number of Jesus’ disciples. Several also point out Jesus’ mir-
acles as reported in the TF, but as I will show in Chapter 3, it was quite common
for non-Christians to acknowledge Jesus’ miracles, and even anti-Christian
writers would do so. Other than that, none of the sources speak about Jesus’

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

purported divinity in the TF, nor his resurrection, nor the fact that the Hebrew
prophets spoke of his wonders. A few might notice the TF’s claim about Jesus
being ‘the Christ’, but even this is debatable. One could of course argue that
a few might have had reason for ignoring the TF’s fantastic content, perhaps
because they were unsure of its authenticity. But it seems unlikely that all or
even most of them felt suspicious of it, for if they did, why promote its authen-
ticity by quoting it?93 Why not instead mention doubts about it? And if authen-
ticity was a concern, why would so many feel no qualms at making other false
claims about Josephus, such as that he credited great righteousness to James, the
brother of Jesus?94

91 The two paraphrases of the TF are The Religious Discussion at the Court of the Sassanids and
George Cedrenus. I exclude three Greek sources from the list of quotations or paraphrases; one is
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, On Virtues and Vices, 1.84 [50] lines 17–26 (=​ TLG 3023.002), be-
cause though he makes a direct excerpt of the whole TF without comment, his lack of comment is
only due to the fact that his work is a patchwork of excerpts from various historians for which he does
not usually leave supplementary remarks. I also exclude an anonymous marginal note containing the
epitome of the Greek Tripartite History that says: ‘The glorious Josephus concerning Christ, for he
says that in this time Jesus was a wise man if it is necessary to call him a man, for he was a doer of won-
derful deeds and a teacher of men who receive true things with pleasure [lacuna] and many also from
the Greeks Christ led off ’. (My translation from Hansen, Theodoros Agnostes: Kirchengeschichte, 3.)
Though this note comments on nothing in particular about the TF, its nature as marginalia suggests
that one should not put too much emphasis on its silence. Lastly, I also do not include the different ver-
sion of George the Monk’s Chronicon.
92 Eusebius quotes from the TF three times and an anonymous author quotes it twice, once in his
Theognosia and again in his Dissertatio contra Judaeos.
93 Paget suggests that many writers may have been unwilling to quote the TF because they did not
want to call attention to the pro-Christian claims of the TF, since they knew of other versions of it or
because the TF was not in their manuscripts; see Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 556–7, 561. But if so, why
do so many who quote the whole TF likewise neglect to mention its pro-Christian claims?
94 This is made by many authors, such as the Suda, iota 503 (Ἰώσηπος) (=​ TLG 9010.001);
Pseudo-Sophronius, Jerome’s Illustrious Men 2 (ed. Gebhardt p. 4 lines 21–3); Nicephoras Callistus,
Ecclesiastical History 2.38 lines 92–6 (=​TLG 3236.001); George the Monk, Chronicon p. 379 lines 6–10
(ed. de Boor =​TLG 3043.001); Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.20; George Cedrenus, Compendium
Historiarum 1.362 lines 8–10 (=​TLG 3018.001).
26 Josephus and Jesus

The Puzzling Indirect Reception

This is an unexpected result if one interprets the TF as a pro-Christian account

of Jesus. And it so happens that the same phenomenon can be observed with sev-
eral additional writers who do not quote the TF (despite its apparent relevancy for
their purposes), yet who were certainly aware of it insofar as they likely knew both
the Antiquities of Josephus and the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, in which the
TF is quoted. In other words, there are several writers who definitely knew of the
TF from Eusebius and probably also from Josephus, and yet who curiously do not
mention it even though its apparent Christian claims would have been of great

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

interest to them.95
Thus, Theodoret96 frequently quotes from Josephus’ Antiquities throughout
his Commentary on Daniel,97 which he wrote around 431 ce.98 He even quotes
from Antiquities 18.33–5, a passage just thirty or so verses from the TF.99 He also
knows of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, which he uses numerous times in his
own work Compendium of Heretical Fables,100 composed around 423 ce.101 He
further shows familiarity with Eusebius’ Demonstration.102 But despite having
access to up to three copies of the TF—from Josephus’ Antiquities, Eusebius’
Ecclesiastical History, and Eusebius’ Demonstration103—Theodoret says quite
precisely that Josephus did not ‘accept the Christian message’,104 even though
Eusebius’ version of the TF (apparently) states that Josephus did accept the mes-
sage. This is suggestive that Theodoret, like Eusebius before him, did not interpret
the TF in a positive manner.

95 Chrysostom and Ambrose might also be added, but though they knew Josephus, I cannot tell
if they knew Eusebius’ work. For a discussion on their usage of Josephus, see Schreckenberg, Die
Flavius-Josephus-Tradition, 88–9, 90–1.
96 For discussion on Theodoret and the TF, see Schreckenberg, 98–9; Paget, ‘Some Observations’,
559, 567–8; Whealey, ‘Josephus on Jesus: Evidence from the First Millennium’, 301; Whealey, Josephus
on Jesus, 36.
97 Most frequently he draws upon Josephus’ historical knowledge (Theodoret, Commentary on
Daniel 8 [1444], 9 [1479–80]), but occasionally he corrects Josephus (Theodoret, Commentary on
Daniel 6 [1395–6]).
98 On the dating of this work, see Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus, xiii.
99 Theodoret, Commentary on Daniel 9 [1480].
100 Explicit references to Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History comes from Theodoret, Compendium of
Heretical Fables 2.2 and Theodoret’s own Ecclesiastical History 1.preface. That Theodoret was greatly
indebted to Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History is abundantly clear throughout most of his Compendium of
Heretical Fables. For a translation of this work, see Cope, ‘An Analysis of the Heresiological Method of
Theodoret’.
101 Quasten, Patrology, vol. 3 p. 544.
102 The evidence for this is discussed by Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 36, 49 n. 65. Theodoret also
knows Eusebius’ Preparation of the Gospel; see Theodoret, Cure for Greek Maladies 2.97 (ed. Scholten,
Theodoret, De Graecarum affectionum curatione, 244.)
103 Paget does not think it certain that Theodoret had access to the TF, but acknowledges that it as
possible, Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 559, 567–8.
104 Theodoret, Commentary on Daniel 12 [1544] (translation modified from Hill p. 327). Note, that
in this passage Theodoret is quite hostile to Jews in general. This may show that he interpreted the TF
quite negatively.
 The Greek Reception 27

The Paschal Chronicle (seventh century) cites Josephus several times.105 In

one instance the chronicle appeals to the Antiquities about the death of John the
Baptist,106 and another time it misleadingly credits Josephus as claiming that
Jerusalem was destroyed because the Jews had killed James, the brother of Jesus.107
But when the document comes to Jesus, it instead emphasizes chronological con-
cerns, saying that Josephus supports the idea that Jesus preached ‘for three years’108
and then adds that ‘Josephus in the eighteenth book of the Jewish Antiquities writes
that there were three high priests after Annas’.109 In evaluating these mentions of
Josephus, two things become clear: firstly, the Paschal Chronicle has no reserva-
tions about incorrectly citing Josephus to support Christian claims, and, secondly,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

it also obviously follows Eusebius throughout large portions of its narrative, even
citing him explicitly at times.110 In fact when it mentions that Jesus preached ‘for
three years’ it is borrowing from Eusebius who cites Josephus to support the no-
tion that Jesus preached for about three years.111 Immediately after this, Eusebius
quotes from the TF.112 Yet, despite surely knowing the TF from Eusebius, if not
from the Antiquities directly, the Paschal Chronicle never mentions it.113 What can
explain this? It cannot be that the chronicle was concerned about the TF’s authen-
ticity, for it is quite willing to misrepresent Josephus elsewhere. Is there some other
explanation?
George Syncellus (c.810 ce) too wrote a lengthy chronicle of world history, and
in it he mentions Josephus by name sixty-five times and Eusebius 141 times,114 all
while frequently citing passages from both the Antiquities and the Ecclesiastical
History.115 Syncellus also makes sure to deploy Josephus to corroborate Christian
claims concerning the death of John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus,116
but he says nothing of the TF. This does not seem to be because he doubted the
genuineness of the testimony, for he does not hesitate to make Josephus falsely say,
once again, that Jerusalem was destroyed because the Jews had killed James, the
brother of Jesus.117 George surely knew about the TF at least from Eusebius, so why
avoid discussing it?

105 For a list of citations, see Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition, 106.

106 Paschal Chronicle p. 408 lines 1–11 (ed. Dindorf =​TLG 2371.001).
107 Ibid., p. 463 lines 16–21.
108 Ibid., p. 417 lines 6–9.
109 Ibid., p. 417 lines 17–19.
110 Ibid., p. 461 line 21, p. 477 lines 4–5, and p. 490 line 2.
111Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.10.4 (quoting from Antiquities 18.33–5).
112 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7–8.
113Schreckenberg says that the Paschal Chronicle did not know Josephus directly, Schreckenberg,
Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition, 106. Yet Schreckenberg lists Josephan passages in the Paschal Chronicle
that are not found in Eusebius, Schreckenberg, 79–84, 106.
114 I obtained these numbers through a TLG lemma search for Ἰώσηπος and Εὐσέβιος.
115 For a list of the citations, see the index in Adler and Tuffin, The Chronography of George Synkellos.
Also see Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition, 110–12.
116 George Syncellus, Chronicle §388, §413. See also §407 where Syncellus cites Josephus to corrob-
orate a passage from the book of Acts.
117 George Syncellus, Chronicle §413.
28 Josephus and Jesus

Photius (c.890 ce) is interesting for similar reasons. He was extraordinarily

well read and is often considered to have been the most educated scholar of his
day. In one of his lengthy works, the Library, he makes 280 summaries of various
ancient and medieval books including Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History118 and
his Demonstration,119 both of which of course quoted the TF. He also knows the
Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen,120 who gives a Christianizing paraphrase of the
TF, about which I will speak in the next section below. Most importantly though,
Photius also discusses Josephus’ works and describes the Antiquities on two dif-
ferent occasions,121 once giving a lengthy two-dozen paragraph summary of
Antiquities books 14–20, the portion of the Antiquities where the TF should have

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

been placed.122 In this summary, Photius briefly mentions Josephus’ discussions of
John the Baptist123 and James the brother of Jesus,124 but all he may say of the TF
is ‘At this point also the saving passion occurred’ (Κατὰ τοῦτον καὶ τὸ σωτήριον
ἐγεγόνει πάθος).125
It is unclear if one should take this remark as a short summary of the TF, much
like how Photius treated Josephus’ reports of John and James.126 Or if instead one
should take the remark simply as an editorial note of Photius, much like an earlier
statement Photius makes in the same summary that points out when Jesus was
born,127 or when he reminds the reader that the Agrippa mentioned in Josephus’
narrative was Agrippa I who executed James, the brother of John.128 One reason to
think Photius has in mind the TF is that he begins his brief statement about Jesus
with the phrase ‘in this’ (κατὰ τοῦτον) and then follows it with the word ‘to be’ or
‘was’ (ἐγεγόνει), quite similar to the opening phrase in the TF, which includes the
three same Greek words with the same meanings: ‘in this time there was’ (γίνεται
δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον). What is also striking is that a TLG search for the
exact phrase κατὰ τοῦτον in the vast works of Photius, which number around a
million words, reveals only nine other times that he deploys it, but none refer to a
time frame, like Photius seems to do in this instance.129 It is plausible then (though
not provable) that while writing this passage Photius altered his customary style

118 Photius, Library 27. For a critical edition and a French translation of this work, see Henry,
Photius: Bibliothèque.
119 Ibid., 10, 12.
120 Photius, Library 30. Note that with his discussions of Eusebius and Sozomen, Photius does little
more than to indicate that he had read their books, something which he also confirms in his prologue
where he claims he read all of the books given an entry in the Library.
121 Photius, Library 76, 238.
122 Ibid., 238.
123 Ibid., 238 [316a] (ed. Henry vol. 5 p. 149 lines 36–9).
124 Ibid., 238 [317b] (ed. Henry vol. 5 p. 152 lines 6–9).
125 Ibid., 238 [316a] (ed. Henry vol. 5 p. 149 lines 39–40).
126 Ibid., 238 [315a] (ed. Henry vol. 5 p. 149 lines 36–9); 238 [317b] (ed. Henry vol. 5 p. 152 lines 7–9).
127 Ibid., 238 [314a] (ed. Henry vol. 5 p. 142 lines 19–21).
128 Ibid., 238 [316b] (ed. Henry vol. 5 p. 150 lines 26–8).
129 Of these nine instances, five complete κατὰ τοῦτον with τρόπον, two complete it with λόγον, and
one each with ἀγών and ὅρος.
 The Greek Reception 29

because as he summarized the Antiquities he was plugging in Josephus’ turns of

phrase as he went,130 and therefore also loosely followed the introductory wording
of the TF.131
But either way, this makes for something of a puzzle: why does Photius not men-
tion the TF more explicitly? Some have suggested that the TF goes unmentioned
in Photius since it was not in the manuscripts of the Antiquities that he had read.132
Yet this seems unlikely because in another location, Photius complains that a
Jewish contemporary of Josephus, Justus of Tiberias, does not mention ‘the mir-
acles performed by him [i.e. Jesus]’ (τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ τερατουργηθέντων) in his own
historical work.133 Yet Photius complains about no such thing regarding Jesus and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

his miracles in the Antiquities. Such suggests that Photius thought that Josephus
did mention Jesus’ miracles.
It also does not seem probable that Photius ignored or minimized the TF be-
cause the manuscript of the Antiquities which he had before him contained a dif-
ferent version of the TF which was quite negative. The reason for this being so
unlikely is that Photius has no qualms about pointing out when Josephus contra-
dicts biblical history,134 and frequently criticizes other authors for what he views as
false or blasphemous statements.135 He does this even with revered authors con-
temporaneous with Josephus, as with Clement of Rome.136
Nor is it likely that Photius omitted mentioning the TF because he considered
it to be a forgery since Photius often critically discusses both forgeries137 and in-
terpolations in various works.138 Likewise, he also sought out old manuscripts139
and gathered multiple copies for verificational purposes,140 and spent much time
talking about the results of these investigations, giving many references to manu-
script variants and authorial editions.141 He even paid attention to marginal notes
in order to establish authorship.142 In the latter case, he summarizes another work
attributed to Josephus, but is suspicious that it has been misattributed to the Jewish

130 For example, Photius clearly follows the wording of Antiquities 15.8 in Library 238 [315b–316a]
(ed. Henry vol. 5 p. 147 lines 41–5). Many other examples can be found by using the TLG ‘Parallel
Browsing’ feature to compare the Antiquities and the Library.
131 This point though should not be pressed too far, for it is also possible that κατὰ τοῦτον should in-
stead be translated ‘under him [Herod]’, but in this case it would still depart from Photius’ style because
with all the other times he uses κατὰ τοῦτον he supplies a noun to partner with τοῦτον, which still hints
that the phrase was suggested to Photius by another writer, see n. 129. This would be a stronger argu-
ment if Photius had instead written κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον, matching the TF more precisely.
132 Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 556–7.
133 Photius, Library 33 [6b] (ed. Henry vol. 1 p. 19 lines 34–8).
134 Ibid., 76 [52b] (ed. Henry vol. 1 p. 155 lines 19–21).
135 Ibid., 13, 75, 77, 108, 109, 111, 114.
136 Ibid., 126.
137 Ibid., 1, 75, 112–13.
138 Ibid., 233.
139 Ibid., 77, 111.
140 Ibid., 77, 111–13, 172–74.
141 Ibid., 13, 77, 98, 111–13.
142 Ibid., 48.
30 Josephus and Jesus

historian because of its openly Christian claims,143 whereas Josephus, Photius

understood, was a Jew, not a Christian.144
So then, if Photius viewed the TF as suspiciously Christian, why not criticize
its authenticity as he does elsewhere? On the other hand, if Photius had access
to a different, more negative version of the TF, why would he not criticize its
anti-Christian content, as he also does for other passages? And, lastly, if the TF
was simply not present in the manuscripts of the Antiquities Photius had before
him, why would he not then follow his standard practice of discussing interpol-
ations and forgeries, especially since he knew of at least three other works that
did discuss the TF? Moreover, why would he not complain that Josephus omits

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

describing Jesus in detail, just as he complained about Josephus’ contemporary
Justus of Tiberias?
To summarize, throughout Photius’ literary pursuits, he explicitly discusses
manuscript variants, authorial editions, interpolations, and forgeries; he com-
plains when Jesus’ miracles go unmentioned in historical works; and he criticizes
authors for various theological and historical errors, even including Josephus him-
self. And indeed, he once also discounts Josephus as an author of a work because
of that work’s Christian content. Given all this, and the fact that Photius knew of
the TF through at least Eusebius and Sozomen, it certainly seems that the best ex-
planation for Photius’ treatment (or lack of treatment) of the TF is that he simply
found it unremarkable. And so, he only briefly summarized it, just like he did with
Josephus’ reports of John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus.145

The Pro-Christian Reception

Unlike those individuals given above, there are five Greek writers who do no-
tice the TF’s allegedly pro-Christian content. They interpret the TF as claiming
that Jesus was divine, was prophesied in Scripture, was resurrected, and was the
Christ—though only one author notes all of these claims.
But be that as it may, their treatment of the TF is very instructive, for three of
them only paraphrase the TF and therefore do not actually quote it directly. Of
these, Sozomen’s (c.450 ce) paraphrastic summary forms almost a small com-
mentary. He claims that Josephus spoke of Jesus’ miraculous works (παραδόξων
ἔργων), attested to his ‘true words’ (λόγων ἀληθῶν), affirmed his resurrec-
tion, called him ‘Christ’, and acknowledged the prophecies about him. Sozomen
then concludes his summary by saying ‘it seems to me that while narrating these

143 Ibid., 48 [11b] (ed. Henry vol. 1 p. 34 lines 38–9).

144 Ibid., 47, 48, 76.
145 For discussion of Photius and his relationship to the TF, see Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 556–7
n. 57. See also Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition, 120–2.
 The Greek Reception 31

things [Josephus] in reflecting on his works all but proclaims that Christ is God’
(μοι δοκεῖ ταῦτα ἱστορῶν μονονουχὶ βοᾶν ἀναλόγως τοῖς ἔργοις θεὸν εἶναι τὸν
Χριστόν).146 Notably, Sozomen covers all the potentially positive claims of the
TF, interpreting them in a favorable light as he goes, though this does require him
to alter the ambiguous ‘truisms’ (τἀληθῆ) to the more praiseworthy ‘true words’
(λόγων ἀληθῶν).
But while Sozomen covers almost every point of the TF, Malalas (c.565 ce)
and Michael Glycas (twelfth century) provide paraphrases that truncate the TF
while also vamping up its ambiguous phrasing. Malalas, for instance, does not ac-
tually mention any of the most fabulous details of the TF except for claiming that

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Josephus considered calling Jesus ‘God’, but he does not say that Josephus actu-
ally did. He also claims that Josephus described Jesus’ miracles, though with this
it seems that Josephus’ phrasing may have made him uncomfortable since he sub-
stitutes the more positive term σημεῖα ‘signs’ for the TF’s potentially negative term
παράδοξα ‘incredible’ or even ‘magical’ deeds.147
In fact, Malalas may have also found the TF’s phrase ‘if it is necessary to call
him a man’ too ambiguous for his tastes given that such a phrase could be read
as implying that Jesus was actually less than a man.148 And so, in his brief sum-
mary, Malalas changed the phrase to ‘if it is necessary to call such a one a man
and not God’.149 In these efforts to gussy up the TF, Malalas even goes so far as to
falsely claim that Josephus called Jesus ‘good and just’ (ἀγαθὸς καὶ δίκαιος), which
Josephus did not say.150 It hence is not even clear that Malalas should be counted as
noticing the spectacular claims of the TF, since the only ones he points out either
were not stated by Josephus or, if they were, seem to have struck Malalas as being
too ambiguous in Josephus’ original phrasing.
Glycas, on his part, does at least seem to mention Josephus’ description of Jesus’
resurrection appearance after three days, but this depends on how one interprets
the Greek.151 But other than this, all he points out is that Josephus called Jesus ‘wise’
and then, like Malalas, he claims that Josephus testified to the miracles of Jesus, but
with this he uses the positive σημεῖα ‘signs’ for the ambiguous παράδοξα.152

146 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.1.5–6 (ed. Hansen, Sozomenus: Kirchengeschichte, GCS NF
4 p. 7 lines 3–16 =​ TLG 2048.001). For brief discussion, see Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-Josephus-
Tradition, 97.
147 John Malalas, Chronicle 10.26 [247–8] lines 11–23 (ed. Thurn, Ioannis Malalae: Chronographia,
187 =​TLG 2871.004). For brief discussion, see Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition, 104.
148 On this, see Chapter 3 pp. 71–2.
149 εἴπερ ἄρα τὸν τοιοῦτον ἄνθρωπον δεῖ λέγειν καὶ μὴ θεόν, John Malalas, Chronicle 10.26 [248]
lines 19–20 (ed. Thurn, Ioannis Malalae: Chronographia, 187 =​TLG 2871.004). For a similar point, see
Bammel, ‘A New Variant Form of the Testimonium Flavianum’, 146.
150 This claim is reminiscent of what Josephus said of John the Baptist in Antiquities 18.117.
151 Glycas uses the Greek phrase ζῶντα ϕανῆνα, which, as I explain in Chapter 3 pp. 96–100, can
be translated ‘appeared alive’ or ‘appeared to be alive’ (Michael Glycas, Annales 436 line 20 (=​ TLG
3047.001)). Sozomen uses the same wording, but the context makes it clearer that he is interpreting the
phrase as actually claiming that Jesus rose again.
152 Michael Glycas, Annales 436 lines 16–20 (=​TLG 3047.001).
32 Josephus and Jesus

In total, neither Malalas nor Glycas mention that Josephus called Jesus ‘the
Christ’, or that he spoke of any prophecies concerning Jesus, or that he praised
Jesus’ teachings or that Jesus worked παράδοξα. One must wonder, if Malalas
and Glycas thought that the TF spoke so highly of Jesus, why not quote it for their
readers to see? Why briefly summarize it and omit so many of its apparently flat-
tering claims?
All this means that, as far as I can tell, only two Greek sources—the anonymous
Acta Sanctorum Donati et sociorum (fifth–sixth century)153 and the anonymous
Dialogue with the Jews (sixth–seventh century)154—point out the extraordinary
Christian content of the Greek TF, and also quote it for their readers to evaluate.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

But even they do not clearly claim that that the TF states Jesus was ‘the Christ’.155
Instead, all they mention is that Josephus testified to the resurrection of Jesus and
to his divinity. Yet, both greatly exaggerate this latter claim with one saying that
Josephus ‘expressly testifies to the divinity’ (ῥητῶς τὲ θεότητι),156 and the other
misleadingly stating that Josephus ‘testifies that Christ was true God’ (μαρτυρεῖ
τὸν Χριστὸν τὸν Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν γεγονότα).157 This tendency to exaggerate makes
one wonder if the only other positive claim they point out—the resurrection—has
also been exaggerated.
In stepping back to evaluate the five authors who notice the pro-Christian claims
of the TF, it is relevant that three of them find the claims so unbelievable that they
spend great effort in justifying why Josephus would have written words so like a
Christian would have. One anonymous writer asks, ‘Who compelled Josephus,
being a Jewish man, to write such things?’158 He then rifles through a sampling
of reasons, dismissing each one in turn, and finally concludes that Josephus had
been ‘beguiled’ (παρέπεισεν) into saying such things by the providential power
of Christ himself.159 Glycas cautions ‘but you, beloved, do not be amazed that
even certain barbarians put forth good things, for God, when he molded man, im-
planted within him the discernment between good and evil’.160 And Sozomen like-
wise argues that Josephus must have been ‘struck by a miracle’.161
It appears then that those who notice the sensational details tend to be so
shocked that they feel the need to openly justify such content to their audience
by, quite literally, appealing to the miraculous. This kind of reaction to the fabu-
lous claims in the TF greatly contrasts with the staid reactions of so many others

153 Acta Sanctorum Donati et sociorum 3.11 (Palmé, Acta Sanctorum, vol. 18 Maii (5) p. 150a–b). For
a very brief discussion, see Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition, 98.
154 Dialogue with the Jews 10 lines 342–82 (ed. Declerck pp. 97–8 =​TLG 3186.001).
155 Sozomen is the only author to clearly point this out; see n. 166.
156 Dialogue with the Jews 10 line 347 (ed. Declerck p. 97).
157 Acta Sanctorum Donati et sociorum 3.11 (Palmé, Acta Sanctorum, vol. 18 Maii (5) p. 150a.)
158 Dialogue with the Jews 10 lines 360–2 (ed. Declerck p. 98).
159 Dialogue with the Jews 10 line 375 (ed. Declerck p. 98).
160 Michael Glycas, Annales 436 lines 20–1 (=​TLG 3047.001).
161 ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ παραδόξου πράγματος καταπλαγείς. Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.1.5 (NPNCF2
translation; ed. Hansen p. 7 line 13 =​TLG 2048.001).
 The Greek Reception 33

who instead matter-of-factly point out several unremarkable claims in the TF and
move on.

Conclusion

Running through the twenty times the TF is quoted or paraphrased in Greek lit-
erature, it seems that, all told, only three or four authors claim that the TF asserts
Jesus’ resurrection.162 Four authors mention Jesus’ implied divinity in the TF, but
three greatly exaggerate the statement.163 Three authors treat ‘truisms’ (τἀληθῆ) as

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

an endorsement of Jesus, but two change the phrasing to be more positive.164 Six
authors point out the miraculous deeds of Jesus, but four of them swap out the pos-
sibly negative παράδοξα ‘incredible deeds’ for a more palatable word, and a fifth
is concerned with the implications of παράδοξα.165 Only one author, Sozomen,
clearly claims that the TF ‘conspicuously names [Jesus] the Christ’,166 though per-
haps a few could be added to this number if we count ambiguous instances.167
Lastly, it is again only Sozomen who notes the TF’s claim that Jesus fulfilled Jewish
prophecy.168 Thus, the number of Greek writers who sensationally interpret the
TF is far less than those writers who make no mention of any such things, even
when it would have been most helpful to them. And those few who interpret the TF
positively often alter it when describing it to their readers. Consequently, the great
majority of Greek writers seem to have considered the TF to be fairly mundane and

162 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.1.5–6 (ed. Hansen p. 7 line 8 (=​TLG 2048.001), Acta Sanctorum
Donati et sociorum 3.11 (ed. Palmé p. 150a), and the anonymous Dialogue with the Jews 10 lines 342–3
(ed. Declerck p. 97 =​TLG 3186.001). Depending on how one interprets the Greek, Michael Glycas may
also claim that the TF affirms the resurrection of Jesus.
163 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.1.6 (ed. Hansen p. 7 lines 11–12 =​ TLG 2048.001); Acta
Sanctorum Donati et sociorum 3.11 (ed. Palmé p. 150a); the anonymous Dialogue with the Jews 10
line 347 (ed. Declerck p. 97 =​ TLG 3186.001); John Malalas, Chronicle 10.26 [247–8] lines 11–23 (ed.
Thurn, Ioannis Malalae: Chronographia, 187 =​ TLG 2871.004). Malalas is the only one to not exag-
gerate the statement.
164 Isidore of Pelusium, Letter 1259 (4.225) (ed. Évieux, Isidore de Péluse, 258 lines 25–9 =​ TLG
2741.001 lines 25–9); Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.1.6 (ed. Hansen p. 7 line 7 =​ TLG 2048.001);
Oecumenius, Commentary on Revelation 4.10.8 (ed. Hoskier, The Complete Commentary of
Oecumenius on the Apocalypse, p. 88 lines 12–13 =​TLG 2866.001 p. 88 lines 12–13).
165 Eusebius, Demonstration 3.5.107–8 (124c–d) (ed. Heikel GCS 23 p. 131 lines 3–9 =​TLG 2018.005
lines 1–8); Eusebius, Theophany 5.2–20; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.1.6 (ed. Hansen p. 7 lines
11–12 =​ TLG 2048.001); Religious Discussion at the Court of the Sassanids §60 (of Bringel), p. 36 lines
8–11 (of Bratke); Pseudo-Sophronius, Jerome’s Illustrious Men 23 (ed. Gebhardt p. 17 line 6); John
Malalas, Chronicle 10.26 [247–8] lines 11–23 (ed. Thurn, Ioannis Malalae: Chronographia, 187 =​TLG
2871.004); Michael Glycas, Annales 436 lines 16–20 (=​TLG 3047.001). Sozomen is the only one to treat
παράδοξα positively, while Eusebius is concerned about its implications.
166 Χριστὸν δὲ περιϕανῶς ὀνομάζει. Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.1.5–6 (ed. Hansen p. 7 line 5 =​
TLG 2048.001).
167 These are Acta Sanctorum Donati et sociorum, the anonymous Dialogue with the Jews,
Pseudo-Sophronius, the Suda, and George Cedrenus. Michael Glycas, Annales 436 line 20 (= TLG
3047.001) may be a another instance depending on how one translates his summary.
168 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.1.5 (ed. Hansen p. 7 line 9 =​TLG 2048.001).
34 Josephus and Jesus

some, like Eusebius and the anonymous author of the Dissertatio contra Judaeos,
appear to have found it to be potentially negative.
All this urges the conclusion that in the TF most Greek authors noticed no
spectacular claims of any kind. And their reticence regarding such incredible con-
tent cannot be credited to suspicions over the TF’s authenticity, because, as I have
pointed out above, so many do not blush to make other false, pro-Christian state-
ments about Josephus. What then can explain such disparate reactions to the TF?
In the present book I suggest a solution to this puzzling reception history.
I argue that those statements in the TF which sound so extravagantly suspicious to
our modern ears seemed quite different to most ancient and medieval writers who

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

read them as not only ambiguous, but as also quite similar to other non-Christian
reports about Jesus. This explains why so many never bothered to make use of the
spectacular details in the TF; for to them, the TF did not have anything spectacular
about it. Instead, the TF merely presented a neutral, ambiguous, or even vaguely
negative account about Jesus that was of little benefit for their purposes. Yet, that
very ambiguity allowed a minority of writers—most of whom only summarized or
even manipulated its content—to interpret the TF in a way that promoted various
Christian claims about Jesus.
But, before I make my case about the ambiguity of the TF, I must discuss other
authors who wrote in Latin, Syriac, and Arabic, yet who knew the TF in Greek, or
at least knew those who did.
 2
The Western and Eastern Reception

The Puzzling Latin Reception

In the previous chapter, we saw how Greek authors tended to interpret the
Testimonium Flavianum not as a pro-Christian account of Jesus, but as something

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

far less positive and far more ambiguous, or even in some cases slightly negative.
But what of other writers in Latin, Syriac, and Arabic, who were able to read the TF
in the original Greek, or had access to those who could? How did they treat the TF?
In what follows I introduce these non-Greek writers and note several peculiarities
in their responses to the TF. I show that though many translated the Greek TF in
a positive manner, most give hints that they were not entirely comfortable with its
original Greek content and some even provide what I will argue in Chapters 3 and
4 are authentic variant readings.
Most important of these authors are Jerome of Stridon (c.393 ce), Michael the
Syrian (c.1199 ce), and Agapius of Menbij (c.941/​2 ce), all of whom do not present
the TF as saying that Jesus ‘was the Christ’, but rather that he was, respectively, ‘be-
lieved to be’, or ‘thought’ to be, or ‘was perhaps’ the Christ. The source that Agapius
and Michael used for the TF has been somewhat of a mystery to scholars, but new
evidence presented in this chapter points to noted Syriac translator Jacob of Edessa
(c.708 ce), whom I argue had access to the Antiquities of Josephus in the original
Greek. Throughout the chapter I also introduce various names, dates, and key
terms. Given the breadth of this chapter, it may be helpful to first consult the sum-
mary provided at the chapter’s conclusion.

Pseudo-Hegesippus (c.370 ce)

Pseudo-Hegesippus (c.370 ce) is the first Latin writer to make any kind of mention
of the TF.1 He rewrote the Greek version of Josephus’ War in a work entitled On
the Ruin of the City of Jerusalem (de excidio urbis hierosolymitanae). He therefore
had great facility in Greek. The oldest manuscript of his work is quite early, coming
from the sixth century.2 Pseudo-Hegesippus’ project, though, can hardly be called

1 Pseudo-Hegesippus, On the Ruin of the City of Jerusalem 2.12.1. For discussion, see Whealey,
‘Josephus on Jesus: Evidence from the First Millennium’, 297–9; Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 30–4;
Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition, 56–8.
2 MS Ambrosianus C 105 inf. (sixth century ce). For discussion of manuscripts, see Ussani,
Hegesippi qui dicitur historiae libri V, vol. 2 pp. viii–xxiii.

Josephus and Jesus. T. C. Schmidt, Oxford University Press. © T. C. Schmidt 2025.

DOI: 10.1093/​9780191957697.003.0003
36 Josephus and Jesus

even a paraphrastic translation as the author freely imports material and changes
Josephus’ text, by, for example, inserting a lengthy discussion on Peter and Paul in
Rome.3 However, Pseudo-Hegesippus also presents a paraphrase of the TF that he
appears to have derived directly from Greek manuscripts of the Antiquities,4 and
upon which he also provides some comments.
In both his paraphrase and his short comments, he characterizes the TF in a
stridently pro-Christian and even anti-Jewish manner touching on almost every
point, mentioning its affirmation of Jesus’ resurrection, his miracles, his divinity,
and his fulfillment of prophecy—except, oddly, he does not claim that TF called
Jesus ‘the Christ’. Pseudo-Hegesippus also notably does not actually translate

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

the TF, but simply paraphrases it, which follows the pattern of those few Greek
writers who likewise interpreted the TF in a Christianizing vein, as I observed in
Chapter 1.
In this regard Pseudo-Hegesippus goes even so far as to distort the content of the
TF to suit his aims by portraying ambiguous or possibly negative Greek phrases
with far more positive Latin parallels.5 Thus, for him the TF’s run-of-the-mill
‘truisms’ (τἀληθῆ) are described as ‘moral precepts’ (praeceptis moralibus); that
Jesus ‘brought over’ or even ‘misled’ (ἐπηγάγετο) becomes ‘they believed in him’
(crediderunt in eum); the questionable term ‘incredible’ or perhaps ‘magical’ deeds
(παράδοξα) is turned into ‘wonders’ (mirabilium) and also repeated as ‘deeds be-
yond human ability’ (operibus ultra humanam possibilitatem); and the rather am-
biguous ‘if indeed it is necessary to call him a man’ (εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή)
is vamped up in his comments into the unrecognizable ‘the leaders of the syna-
gogue who had laid hold of him unto death confessed him to be God’ (principes
synagogae quem ad mortem comprehenderant deum fatebantur). Lastly, the pro-
saic ‘and up till now the tribe of the Christians, who were named from him, has
not disappeared’ (εἰς [ἔτι] τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ
ἐπέλιπε τὸ ϕῦλον) is greatly exaggerated as ‘from whom [i.e. Jesus] the congre-
gation of the Christians has also penetrated into every race of men, with not one
nation in the Roman world remaining that is without his veneration’ (ex quo coepit

3 Pseudo-Hegesippus, On the Ruin of the City of Jerusalem 3.2.

4 It is clear that Pseudo-Hegesippus had access to the Antiquities because he places Josephus’ tes-
timony of John the Baptist after his testimony about Jesus (On the Ruin of the City of Jerusalem
2.12.1–2), just as they are found in Antiquities 18.63–4 and 18.116–19. This is not how such passages
are found in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 1.11.1–9, who is likely the only other source from whom
Pseudo-Hegesippus could have learned of the passages. Pseudo-Hegesippus also includes material
from an adjacent passage in the Antiquities that Eusebius and earlier Christians had not mentioned
regarding the incident involving Paulina found in Antiquities 18.65–80 and in Pseudo-Hegisippus, On
the Ruin of the City of Jerusalem 2.4.1. On this, see Whealey, ‘Josephus on Jesus: Evidence from the First
Millennium’, 297–8.
5 I discuss these ambiguous and negative phrases in detail in Chapter 3. For a list of them, see
Chapter 7 p. 198.
 The Western and Eastern Reception 37

congregatio Christianorum et in omne hominum penetravit genus, nec ulla natio

Romani orbis remansit, quae cultus eius expers relinqueretur).6 Pseudo-Hegesippus
also highlights the TF’s claim that Jesus was resurrected and that the Hebrew
prophets spoke of him, but it appears to me that his willingness to so distort the TF
ought to make one question whether he has presented these latter two statements
accurately. He does after all seem like a very poor exegete.
One further item of interest is that—like Sozomen, Michael Glycas, and the an-
onymous author of the Dialogue with the Jews—Pseudo-Hegesippus also feels the
need to provide some kind of rationale as to why Josephus would have remained
a Jew after saying such spectacular things about Jesus. And so, he reasons that

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Josephus ‘did not believe his own words’ (nec sermonibus suis) because of his ‘de-
vious mind’ (mente devius) and the ‘hardness of his heart’ (duritiam cordis).7 In
view of this, it must be observed that for Pseudo-Hegesippus to conclude such a
thing about Josephus, there must have been something Josephus said that clearly
indicated he was not a believer in Jesus. As will become apparent below, it is likely
that Pseudo-Hegesippus had before himself no version of the TF that claimed Jesus
‘was the Christ’, but instead a version which read much more like ‘was believed to
be the Christ’. This would explain how Pseudo-Hegesippus knew that Josephus did
not believe in Jesus. And, in fact, Pseudo-Hegesippus likely alludes to such a state-
ment when he paraphrases the TF as ‘they believed in him’ (crediderunt in eum).8
This sounds very like the textual variant witnessed by Jerome, our next Latin au-
thor to treat the Greek TF.

Jerome of Stridon (c.393 ce)

Jerome of course is the famous translator of many Greek texts, including the
New Testament, and thus knew Greek quite well. He also cites Josephus more
than fifty times throughout his writings,9 though he only quotes from the TF
on one occasion. This version of the TF can be found in his Illustrious Men

6 Pseudo-Hegesippus, On the Ruin of the City of Jerusalem 2.12.1 (ed. Ussani, CSEL 66 vol.
1 pp. 163–4).
7 Ibid., 2.12.1 (ed. Ussani, CSEL 66 vol. 1 p. 164). For a translation and discussion of this passage, see
Whealey, ‘Josephus on Jesus: Evidence from the First Millennium’, 298.
8 Pseudo-Hegesippus, On the Ruin of the City of Jerusalem 2.12.1 (ed. Ussani p. 163 line 12).
9 For discussion on Jerome’s usage of Josephus, see Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition,
91–5. For discussions on Jerome and the TF specifically, see Whealey, ‘Josephus on Jesus: Evidence
from the First Millennium’, 299–300; Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 29–30; Schreckenberg, Die
Flavius-Josephus-Tradition, 94–5. Alice Whealey thinks it likely that Jerome translated his version of the
TF from Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, but Jerome was very familiar with Josephus’ works, so I think it
also possible that he utilized manuscripts of the Antiquities; see Whealey, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum
in Syriac and Arabic’, 581.
38 Josephus and Jesus

(c.393 ce),10 a work witnessed by manuscripts as early as the sixth or seventh

century.11
Here, however, Jerome is forced to conduct some imaginative hermen-
eutics to claim that Josephus ‘manifestly confesses that Christ was killed by the
Pharisees on account of the greatness of his signs, and that John the Baptist was
truly a prophet, and that because James the apostle was killed, Jerusalem was des-
troyed’.12 But Jerome’s translation of the TF says no such thing about Jesus13 and
it even departs from the TF’s extant Greek version by saying that Jesus was ‘be-
lieved to be the Christ’ (credebatur esse Christus),14 not that ‘he was the Christ’.
On the face of it, Jerome’s translation of this phrase is, in context, reminiscent of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Pseudo-Hegesippus’ paraphrase ‘nevertheless, many Jews and even more gentiles
believed in him’ (plerique tamen Iudaeorum, gentilium plurimi crediderunt in
eum),15 whereas Jerome’s more literal translation has ‘He also had very many fol-
lowers, from the Jews as much as from the gentiles, and was believed to be the
Christ’ (Plurimos quoque tam de Iudaeis quam de gentilibus habuit sectatores et
credebatur esse Christus).16
Apart from this parallel, there are also hints that Jerome did not exactly relish
all the implications of the TF’s contents, for he substitutes more positive Latin
phrases for statements that could be construed as negative in the original Greek.
Thus, the potentially negative ‘incredible’ deeds (παράδοξα) is rendered ‘wonders’
(mirabilium); the possibly carnal term ‘with pleasure’ (ἡδονῇ) is instead ‘gladly’
(libenter); and ‘he brought over’ or even ‘he misled’ (ἐπηγάγετο) becomes the
much plainer ‘he had followers’ (habuit sectatores).
What is most curious, however, is that Jerome never mentions the most
pro-Christian statements allegedly present within the TF, especially Jesus rising
from the dead, even though he points out positive material about James the apostle
and John the Baptist in other parts of the Antiquities.17 And his silence is unlikely
due to worries over the authenticity of the TF or to concerns that the fabulous con-
tent in the TF would simply be a bridge too far for incredulous readers; otherwise

10 Jerome, Illustrious Men 13.5–6. Sectional numberings for this work are taken from Halton, St.
Jerome: On Illustrious Men. On the dating of this work, see Quasten, Patrology, vol. 4 pp. 228–9.
11 MS Vaticanus Regin. Lat. 2077 may come from the sixth century; see Image 7. A seventh-century
manuscript is MS Paris Lat. 12161 page 43 lines 3–16 found at https://​gall​ica.bnf.fr/​ark:/​12148/​btv​
1b52​5068​80r. For information, see Richardson, ‘Hieronymus liber de viris inlustribus’, xii–xiii.
12 manifestissime confitetur propter magnitudinem signorum Christum a Pharisaeis interfectum, et
Iohannem Baptistam vere prophetam fuisse, et propter interfectionem Iacobi apostoli, Hierosolymam
dirutam. Jerome, Illustrious Men 13.4 (ed. Richardson p. 16 lines 10–13). See also another edition of
this version of the TF in Levenson and Martin, ‘The Latin Translations of Josephus on Jesus’, 78.
13 It appears that Jerome may have derived the first part of this statement from John 11:47.
14 Jerome, Illustrious Men 13.6 (ed. Richardson p. 16 line 18). This phrase can be found in the
seventh-century manuscript MS Paris Lat. 12161 page 43 lines 8–9.
15 Pseudo-Hegesippus, On the Ruin of the City of Jerusalem 2.12.1 (ed. Ussani p. 163 lines 11–12).
16 Jerome, Illustrious Men 13.5 (ed. Richardson p. 16 lines 17–18). I owe this observation to Whealey,
‘Josephus on Jesus: Evidence from the First Millennium’, 298–9.
17 Jerome, Illustrious Men 2.9, 13.4.
 The Western and Eastern Reception 39

why would he falsely claim that the TF credits the Pharisees with the killing of
Jesus on account of his signs? And, again, if genuineness was a concern for Jerome,
why would he misleadingly claim that Josephus blamed the fall of Jerusalem on the
killing of James when Josephus did not do so?18 And, lastly, why would he substi-
tute more positive Latin terms for the TF’s potentially negative phrases if he was
worried about readerly doubts over authenticity?
One way to account for this is to suppose that Jerome has interpreted the TF
quite differently from modern readers and has consequently found nothing really
remarkable about it. This explains why throughout Jerome’s voluminous works he
thought it useful to quote from the TF on only one occasion, but would quote from

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

other Josephan passages many times, such as Josephus’ statement about a supernat-
ural voice saying ‘we are departing’ from the Jewish temple,19 which he mentions six
times.20 In this regard Jerome may have viewed the TF’s statement about Jesus’ res-
urrection as presenting a subjective report, not a statement of fact, an interpretation
which I think has great merit and which I will discuss further in Chapter 3. It is
possible then that Jerome intended his Latin translation apparuit enim eis tertia die
vivens to mean ‘he appeared to them on the third day to be alive’ or ‘it was evident to
them that he was alive on the third day’. This would match the meaning of the Greek
word ϕαίνω in the TF, which can be translated as ‘seem’ or ‘appear to be’.
Yet, while such are allowable meanings of appareo and authors like Cicero, Livy,
and Suetonius use it so,21 in context appareo more easily reads ‘he appeared to
them on the third day alive’. And this indeed is the meaning behind similar con-
structions in Jerome’s own Latin translation of the Bible,22 and is also similar to
Pseudo-Hegesippus’ Christianizing paraphrase discussed above. Clearly then,
appareo would have probably sounded like an affirmation of the resurrection to
Jerome’s ancient readers.

18 Ibid., 2.9, 13.4. Jerome likely inherited this statement from Eusebius, who in turn derived it from
Origen’s mistaken summary of Josephus. See Appendix 2 pp. 237–38 for more details.
19 War 6.300. Note, some editions place this at War 6.299.
20 For references, see Whealey, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum’, 346.
21 See, for example, Cicero, who uses appareo with a participle to mean ‘seeming’, when he writes
alterum nimis est vinctum, ut de industria factum appareat, ‘the other is too compressed so that it seems
made on purpose’. Cicero, Orator 195 (my translation from Hendrickson and Hubbell, Cicero: Brutus;
Orator, 470 lines 19–20). Or Livy who says desertum apparuisset forum, ‘The forum appeared to be
deserted’. Livy, History 3.52.5 (my translation from Foster, Livy, p. 172 lines 11–12). Or again, Quintus
Curtius who says diuque circa equum Alexandri pendenti magis quam volanti similis apparuit, ‘[an
eagle] appeared for a long time to be suspended over Alexander’s horse rather than to be flying’, and
wonders if such was an illusion. Quintus Curtius, History of Alexander 4.15.26 (my translation from
Rolfe, Quintus Curtius: History of Alexander, p. 308). Or, once more, Suetonius, who says Paulatim
et ipsa utilis honestaque apparuit, ‘[Rhetoric] itself gradually appeared to be useful and honorable’.
Suetonius, On Rhetoricians 1 (my translation from Rolfe, Suetonius, 436 line 7). See also similar in-
stances of appareo used with the participle or adjective in Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, appareo I.C.1.
See also Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary, appareo, I.B.
22 For instance, Mark 16:9 reads Surgens autem mane prima sabbati, apparuit primo Mariae
Magdalene, de qua ejecerat septem daemonia, though this example is not an exact match since apparuit
can be interpreted as missing a subordinate participle. See also Matthew 1:20, 2:7, 2:13. Latin taken
from Gryson, Fischer, and Weber, Biblia Sacra.
40 Josephus and Jesus

If, however, Jerome had not intended such a claim, he must have been truly care-
less when translating the TF. But as it happens, Jerome is well known to have been
awfully sloppy when composing his Illustrious Men, where his version of the TF is
found. Moreschini and Norelli for instance say that Illustrious Men contains ‘abun-
dant errors and details not checked by the writer’;23 and Quasten agrees saying ‘it is
not difficult to point out his errors of interpretation which betray his ignorance’.24
Jerome himself acknowledges this overhasty tendency of his when he elsewhere
writes of the great speed in which he composed certain works.25 He even claims
he wrote his roughly three-hundred-page Commentary on Matthew in just two
weeks.26

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Jerome’s treatment of the TF is thus a bit of a puzzle. If he had wanted to accen-
tuate the factuality of the resurrection, why in his comments on the TF did he make
an obviously false statement about the Pharisees killing Jesus ‘on account of his
signs’ when he could have instead highlighted the TF’s even more extraordinary
statement about the resurrection or any of the other incredible claims of the TF?
On the other hand, if he wanted to highlight the subjectivity of the resurrection in
his translation of the TF, why choose a poorly suited term like appareo to do so?
Jerome’s sloppiness is the key to all this, I think. It is probable that as he was
working on Illustrious Men and writing about the TF, he was hastily shifting be-
tween Greek and Latin, commenting as he went, not paying all that much attention
to what he was doing and thus merely translating and recording the first things that
came to his mind—which in this case, conspicuously, did not include a single one
of most pro-Christian details allegedly found in the Greek TF. In fact, Jerome may
well have had in mind the more ambiguous Greek version of the TF when making
his comments, as any translator might do.
This explanation answers why Jerome added his inaccurate comment about
Jesus being killed by the Pharisees ‘on account of the greatness his signs’ (he really
wasn’t reading carefully), and could readily explain why Jerome used the more
concrete appareo to translate the TF’s more ambiguous ϕαίνω, which to the Greek
reader can mean ‘seem’ as well as ‘appear’ (he also wasn’t translating carefully).27
Jerome’s sloppiness also explains why he falsely quoted Josephus elsewhere, but for
some reason never drew attention to the spectacular claims of the TF.
But such carelessness makes it difficult to discover what Jerome actually thought
of the TF. He may have considered it to be highly complementary of Jesus, but
then never mentioned such things due to his inattentiveness. Or, he may have con-
sidered the TF to be ambiguous or even negative, and so decided to gussy it up a

23 Moreschini and Norelli, Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature, vol. 2 p. 319.
24 Quasten, Patrology, vol. 4 p. 228.
25 See for example, Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah prefaces to books 1, 2, 13, and 17.
26 Jerome, Commentary on Matthew preface.4.
27 I discuss the ambiguity of ϕαίνω at length in Chapter 3 pp. 96–100.
 The Western and Eastern Reception 41

bit in his Latin translation only to end up sloppily saying things in his comments
about the TF that his own translation of the TF never actually says.
One thing is clear however. Even if Jerome did think of the TF as markedly posi-
tive, it would be unwise to put too much stock in his interpretation given how care-
less his treatment of the TF actually was. And, furthermore, Jerome’s practice of
recasting negative or neutral phrases in the TF ought to raise the possibility that he
has done the same thing to the TF’s account of Jesus’ resurrection and fulfillment
of prophecy.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Rufinus of Aquileia (c.402/​3 ce)

Whatever the case, about ten years later, Rufinus of Aquileia also encountered the
Greek TF while working on his free Latin translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical
History (c.402/​3 ce),28 which is preserved in manuscripts as early as the eighth
or ninth century.29 With this translation, as one scholar has said, Rufinus did not
‘hesitate to rewrite or add explanations of his own that would aid understanding’,
and did so to such an extent that his translation should be considered ‘in actual fact
an independent piece of work’.30 Rufinus even goes so far as to insert ‘some incom-
parably absurd miracle stories’ in one location, as another scholar observes.31 Yet
though being willing to interpolate absurdities, when Rufinus comes to Eusebius’
mundane comments about the TF, spoken of in Chapter 1, he leaves them as he
found them, adding no further remarks.32
What Rufinus does do though is substitute positive Latin phrases in the place of
ambiguous or potentially negative Greek terms, much like Jerome did. This follows
Rufinus’ larger translational practice of ‘replacing imprecise words and phrases
in Eusebius with expressions which were clear and unambiguous’.33 Hence, the
perhaps derogatory ‘a certain Jesus’ (Ἰησοῦς τις) becomes just ‘Jesus’ (Iesus).34
‘Incredible’ or possibly ‘magical’ deeds (παράδοξα) are ‘wonders’ (mirabilium).

28 On the dating of this translation, see Amidon, The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia, x.
29 Levenson and Martin, ‘The Latin Translations of Josephus on Jesus’, 16–17.
30 Christensen, Rufinus of Aquileia and the Historia Ecclesiastica, Lib. VIII–IX, of Eusebius, 333. For
a similar assessment, see Schwartz and Mommsen, Eusebius Werke 2.1–3: Die Kirchengeschichte, vol.
3 pp. ccli–cclii. Examples of Rufinus’ changes include his omission of an entire paragraph in Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History 3.33.3.
31 einige unvergleichlich absurde Wundergeschichten. Schwartz and Mommsen GCS vol. 9.3 p. cclii.
32 This can be seen from a comparison of the Greek of Eusebius and the Latin of Rufinus, which may
be found side by side in Schwartz and Mommsen GCS vol. 9.1 pp. 78–81.
33 Christensen, Rufinus of Aquileia and the Historia Ecclesiastica, Lib. VIII–IX, of Eusebius, 333.
34 Jerome makes the same translational decision here, but I have not included it as one of the in-
stances where Jerome may have altered ambiguous or negative terms in the text because he may not
have had access to a manuscript that actually had τις in it since I show in Chapter 3 p. 68 that many
Greek manuscripts omitted it. Rufinus, on the other hand, almost certainly had access to such a variant
reading because he was not using manuscripts of the Antiquities of Josephus, but rather manuscripts of
the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, which contained the variant.
42 Josephus and Jesus

The seemingly carnal phrase ‘receive . . . with pleasure’ (τῶν ἡδονῇ . . . δεχομένων)
is transformed as ‘listened gladly’ (libenter . . . audiunt). And ‘he brought over’ or ‘he
misled’ (ἐπηγάγετο) becomes the innocuous ‘he joined to himself ’ (adiunxit sibi).
The tendency to re-furnish the TF with more positive terms is all the more not-
able because Rufinus, like Jerome before him, chose not to use readily available
Latin terms that would have preserved the ambiguity of certain Greek phrases. This
is the case with the TF’s term ἐπηγάγετο, which could have been nicely mirrored
by the Latin perducere meaning ‘to bring over’, but also ‘to induce’;35 or again with
παράδοξα, which could have been matched by the Latin incredibilis meaning ‘extra-
ordinary’, but also ‘not worthy of belief ’.36 Rufinus also seems to translate the TF as

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

claiming that Jesus was actually resurrected, but again this depends on how appareo
should be interpreted, as I said above.37 Like with Jerome and Pseudo-Hegesippus
though, Rufinus’ practice of interpreting (or doctoring) the TF so as to make it favor
Jesus should probably make one suspicious that he has done the same with its ac-
count of Jesus’ resurrection and the prophecies concerning him.

Cassiodorus (c.585 ce)

Cassiodorus (c.585 ce) is the last ancient Latin author to encounter the Greek TF.
In his day he was one of the few Latin writers to know Greek and he supervised
the translation of both Sozomen’s Ecclesiastical History and Josephus’ Antiquities,38
the latter of which is preserved in manuscripts dating as early as the eighth cen-
tury.39 Hence he, or at least his team of translators, would have known both the
pro-Christian summary of the TF given by Sozomen, mentioned in Chapter 1,
and also the version of the TF found in Greek manuscripts of the Antiquities. With
Sozomen’s work, the Latin translators carefully follow his Christianizing para-
phrase of the TF quite literally,40 but with the Antiquities, something interesting

35 Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary, perduco II.B.

36 Ibid., incredibilis I.A.
37 apparuit enim eis tertio die iterum vivus, ed. Schwartz and Mommsen GCS vol. 9.1 p. 81 line
6. Rufinus closely follows the Greek word for word, but uses the adjective vivus, whereas Jerome de-
ployed the participle vivens.
38 Cassiodorus, Institutions 1.17.1. Cassiodorus had the three ecclesiastical historians Socrates,
Sozomen, and Theodoret combined into one volume known in Latin tradition as the Tripartite
Ecclesiastical History. Cassiodorus says that this was translated ‘by friends’, see Cassiodorus, Institutions
1.17.1 (trans. Jones, Cassiodorus Senator: An Introduction to Divine and Human Readings, 116). In the
same passage, Cassiodorus also says that the Antiquities of Josephus was translated by a man named
Epiphanius.
39 The earliest manuscript is MS Copenhagen Det Kongelige Bibliotek GKS 157 f. 149r lines 28–34;
found here http://www5.kb.dk/manus/vmanus/2011/dec/ha/object307901/en/#kbOSD-0=page:303.
For a list of manuscripts see, Levenson and Martin, ‘The Latin Translations of Josephus on Jesus’,
14–16. For the only complete transcription of the Latin text of the Antiquities, see Pollard et al., Flavius
Josephus: Antiquities.
40 Cassiodorus, Tripartite Ecclesiastical History 1.2.4–5 (ed. Jacob and Hanslik,
Cassiodori-Epiphanii: Historia Ecclesiastica Tripartita, 10–11).
 The Western and Eastern Reception 43

happens. Instead of translating the TF themselves, as they appear to have had done
for the almost three hundred thousand previous words in the lengthy Antiquities,41
they instead turn to Rufinus’ Latin version of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History and
copy his positive rendering of the TF verbatim. They then do the same thing for
Josephus’ passage on John the Baptist, which is also present in Rufinus’ translation
of Eusebius.42
Cassiodorus and his team copied only one other passage from Rufinus in their
translation,43 a passage just thirty or so verses from the TF and which discusses the
High Priests Ananus I and Caiaphas. Yet the translators chose not to copy many
other passages in the same vicinity of the TF that can also be found in Rufinus’ ver-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

sion of Eusebius.44 What could be the cause of this? Alice Whealey suggests simple
laziness on behalf of the translators,45 and this may well be true. But it is strange
that a team of translators so expert and industrious as to plow through nearly three
hundred thousand words in the Greek Antiquities—something even the renowned
translator Jerome said he could not do46—would somehow find that it saved them
time to stop, locate another manuscript, and then thumb through it only to copy
a few brief passages, all while simultaneously not copying other nearby Josephan
passages. It is possible they would have done so, of course, but it is also possible
that, when the translators were looking ahead to the latter books of the Antiquities
in preparation for their translation, they did not exactly like what they saw in
the Greek version of the TF, and so cast about for Rufinus’ friendlier version of
it. Then, with the manuscript of Rufinus already before them, they copied the
TF (Antiquities 18.63–4), and two other passages in the general area (Antiquities
18.34–5, 116–19), but did not find it worth the trouble to do so with most of the

41 The TLG says that the Antiquities of Josephus numbers 312,006 words. My statement that there
was almost 300,000 words before book 18 of the Antiquities should be therefore taken as a general
estimate.
42 The translators likely first came upon the passage about Jesus since Josephus gives this passage
first in Antiquities 18.63–4, and then afterward presents the passage on John the Baptist in Antiquities
18.116–19. These two passages are given in reverse order in Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius’
Ecclesiastical History.
43 Antiquities 18.34–5.
44 Whealey is technically incorrect that Cassiodorus only copied the TF and the passage on John
the Baptist, for Levenson and Martin argue that two other passages were copied as well; see Whealey,
‘Josephus on Jesus: Evidence from the First Millennium’, 300; Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 35; Levenson
and Martin, ‘The Latin Translations of Josephus on Jesus’, 6 n. 14. However, one of the passages that
Levenson and Martin believe was copied (Antiquities 17.168–70 from Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
1.8.6–8) does not seem to me to be a clear case of copying, leaving only one other in Antiquities 18.34–5.
Other passages where Josephus is quoted in Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius, but which were not
copied by Cassiodorus include Antiquities 18.1 (Ecclesiastical History 1.5.4); Antiquities 18.257–60
(Ecclesiastical History 2.5.2–5); and several others listed in Levenson and Martin, 6 n. 14. An exhaustive
study on Cassiodorus’ use of Rufinus has yet to be carried out.
45 Whealey, ‘Josephus on Jesus: Evidence from the First Millennium’, 300; Whealey, Josephus on
Jesus, 35.
46 Jerome, Letter 71.5. See also Cassiodorus, Institutions 1.17.1.
44 Josephus and Jesus

Josephan passages found in Rufinus’ Latin version of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical

History.47
Yet though Cassiodorus and his team did not actually translate the TF them-
selves, it is still illuminating to observe how they translated words and phrases in
the TF when they are found in other passages of the Antiquities, for these instances
show just how ambiguous or potentially negative the Greek TF may have appeared
to them. For example, a similar construction to the Greek TF’s possibly derogatory
‘a certain Jesus’ (Ἰησοῦς τις) occurs elsewhere in the Antiquities and is translated
by Cassiodorus as ‘a certain Achen’ (Achar . . . quidam),48 whereas in Rufinus’ ver-
sion of the TF the word quidam is omitted. The TF’s ambiguous ‘incredible’ deeds

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

(παράδοξα) is ‘wonders’ (mirabilium) in Rufinus’ version of the TF, but in other
passages of the Antiquities, Cassiodorus translates the same term far more neutrally
as ‘inconceivable’ or ‘surprising’, or ‘paradoxical works’ (inopinabilia opera).49 The
TF’s perhaps too sensuous ‘with pleasure’ (ἡδονῇ) is translated by Rufinus ra-
ther positively as ‘gladly’ (libenter), but elsewhere Cassiodorus translates the term
quite literally as ‘with pleasure’ (cum voluptate).50 The TF’s ‘he brought over’ or ‘he
misled’ (ἐπηγάγετο) is the neutral ‘he joined to himself ’ (adiunxit sibi) in Rufinus,
but when this Greek term shows up in other passages Cassiodorus renders it am-
biguously as ‘he persuaded’ (persuasio facta est)51 or more sinisterly as ‘pretending’
or ‘feigning’ (simulans).52 Most crucially, the TF’s key word regarding Jesus’ res-
urrection ‘he appeared (ἐϕάνη) to them alive again’ is translated by Cassiodorus
in another passage, one that is almost grammatically identical to the TF, as ‘seem’
(viderentur),53 meaning that the TF could also be translated as ‘he seemed alive to

47 One might posit that Cassiodorus and his team did not find any statement about Jesus in their
Greek manuscripts of Antiquities 18, which is why they relied upon Rufinus. But this is very unlikely,
otherwise how would Cassiodorus have known to place Rufinus’ version in precisely Antiquities
18.63–4? One must remember that, in the ancient world, there were not finely delineated sectional
numberings in manuscripts and so Cassiodorus would not have been able to tell from Rufinus’ quota-
tion of the TF (or from Eusebius or Jerome or likely anyone else) where exactly to place the TF in
Antiquities 18. Furthermore, the TF’s placement in Antiquities 18.63–4 is quite odd from a Christian
perspective because it comes before the testimony about John the Baptist in Antiquities 18.116–19, once
again suggesting the Cassiodorus and his team did find at least some version of the TF in Antiquities
18.63–4, for otherwise they would have hardly placed the passage in the appropriate spot on their own.
It also seems unlikely that Cassiodorus and his team turned to Rufinus because Rufinus’ version of
the TF had become a kind of canonically known rendition that they thought fitting to repeat. This
is because Jerome’s version was just as famous, slightly older, and of course, stemmed from the le-
gendary translator of the Vulgate itself, something for which Cassiodorus greatly revered Jerome; see
Cassiodorus, Insititutions 1.4.1, 1.5.4–5, 1.6.1.
48 Cassiodorus, Josephus’s Antiquities 5.33 (ed. Pollard). Here the Latin quidam is written in a dif-
ferent hand in the earliest manuscript, MS Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek Bamberg, Msc. Class. 78 f. 52r
col. 2, line 41, but the word must surely be based on the original translation of Cassiodorus given that it
precisely corresponds with the Greek.
49 Cassiodorus, Josephus’s Antiquities 9.182 (ed. Pollard). See also Cassiodorus, Josephus’s
Antiquities 2.223, 2.267, 2.345. Definitions of inopinabilis from Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary,
inopinabilis I, II.
50 Cassiodorus, Josephus’s Antiquities 17.329 (ed. Pollard).
51 Ibid., 17.327 (ed. Pollard).
52 Ibid., 1.207 (ed. Pollard). Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary, simulo II.
53 Cassiodorus, Josephus’s Antiquities 2.35 (ed. Pollard).
 The Western and Eastern Reception 45

them again’—thus placing the belief in the resurrection in the mind of the disciples,
not in the mind of Josephus. Put together, if these translational choices are applied
to the TF, they would make it markedly more ambiguous with respect to Jesus and
perhaps even hostile to him.54

Conclusion Regarding the Latin Reception

No matter the conclusion one might reach concerning the above Latin versions,
there are certainly difficulties in claiming that they all witness to a pro-Christian

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

interpretation of the TF. Indeed, with every one of them there is evidence sug-
gesting that their authors considered the Greek TF to be less than positive in places
thereby causing them to ignore certain aspects or to burnish them up with more
complimentary Latin phrasing. In this regard, Pseudo-Hegesippus mangles the TF
so badly that one can hardly trust his reading of it. Jerome emphasizes none of
the supposedly Christian details despite highlighting an outlandish claim not ac-
tually in the TF. Rufinus also adds none of his characteristic changes to his transla-
tion of Eusebius’ mundane comments on the TF. Pseudo-Hegesippus, Jerome, and
Rufinus repeatedly reconstrue potentially negative or ambiguous Greek phrases by
replacing them with more positive Latin terms. And Cassiodorus’ expert team sus-
piciously turns to Rufinus’ positive version of the TF for help with translation when
it seems fair to say that they needed no help at all. More than this, Cassiodorus’
translational decisions elsewhere in the Antiquities show just how ambiguous or
even negative the Greek TF may have actually been.
There are of course other explanations for some of these things, but it is difficult
to understand why so many translators would have consistently responded in such
ways if the TF was obviously complimentary to Jesus—perhaps some of their re-
actions are explainable in this vein, but not likely all of them. In fact, their willing-
ness to recast potentially negative terms in the TF suggests at least the possibility
that they may have recast the allegedly pro-Christian claims of the TF, especially
regarding the resurrection of Jesus and the prophecies made concerning him. In
other words, given that they revamp the TF’s possibly negative phrasing, should we
not expect them to also do the same with the more neutral and ambiguous phrases
in order to make them sound unambiguously positive, such as with the resurrec-
tion of Jesus? Taking all this into account then, it is all the more striking that not
one of the above writers argues that the TF called Jesus ‘the Christ’, except for when
Cassiodorus translates Sozomen’s Greek paraphrase of the TF. This is much like
how no Greek author clearly interprets the TF as calling Jesus ‘the Christ’ either,
with once again the exception of Sozomen.55

54 For a list of these passages, see p. 198.

55 The other debatable examples are the Acta Sanctorum Donati et sociorum, the anonymous
Dialogue with the Jews, Pseudo-Sophronius, the Suda, Michael Glycas and George Cedrenus.
46 Josephus and Jesus

The Puzzling Syriac and Arabic Reception

The Syriac Translations of Eusebius (fourth century ce)

A similar pattern of reception is just as discernable in Syriac and Arabic tradition,

if not more so. The first treatment of the Greek TF in these eastern languages can
be found in the Syriac translations of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (c.313 ce) and
his Theophany (c.325/​6 ce).56 It is not known who translated these, but the great
antiquity of the manuscripts which contain them points to a translation date some-
time in the fourth century, perhaps during Eusebius’ own lifetime. The manuscript

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

tradition of the Syriac Ecclesiastical History is extremely ancient, being witnessed
by a sixth-century manuscript57 and another from 462 ce, the latter of which hap-
pens to be the second oldest dated literary manuscript in existence.58 Yet the manu-
script containing the Theophany is earlier still, having been written in 411/​12 ce,
actually making it the earliest dated literary manuscript in the world.59 Images of
these manuscripts may be found in the back of this book.
When comparing the original Greek of the Ecclesiastical History to the Syriac
translation it is clear that the translator has not enhanced Eusebius’ pedestrian
comments about the TF.60 With the Theophany, the original Greek is no longer ex-
tant, so one cannot make a direct comparison with it to see if the Syriac translator
has made changes.61 But still, Eusebius tells us that the portion of the Theophany
that contains the TF was mostly a reworking of his Demonstration,62 which does
exist in Greek. And, when comparing the Syriac Theophany to the parallel por-
tion of the Greek Demonstration,63 it becomes clear that, again, the translator has
not added much to Eusebius’ mundane discussion of the TF there either. The only
possible exception to this is that the Syriac translator (whether following Eusebius
or not) emphasizes Jesus’ miracles in the TF, which he positively renders as ‘won-
drous deeds’ (‫ )ܣܘܥܪܢܐ ܕܬܕܡܘܪܬܐ‬instead of the more ambiguous ‘incredible deeds’
implied by the Greek παράδοξα.64

56 No Syriac translation seems ever to have been carried out on Eusebius’ Demonstration (c.318–23
ce), the other work wherein Eusebius quotes the TF.
57 MS British Library Add. 14,639. See Image 10. For a description of this manuscript and its dating,
see Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts, vol. 3 pp. 1039–40 (catalog #1411).
58 MS National Library of Russia Siriyskaya novaya seria 1 (#24 in the Pigulevskaya catalog). See
Image 9. For discussion on the date of the manuscript, see Wright, vol. 2 p. 631 n. *. For detailed descrip-
tion of this manuscript and the Syriac manuscript mentioned immediately above, see Wright, Maclean,
and Merx, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius in Syriac, v–xii.
59 British Library MS Add. 12,150. See Image 8. For a description of the manuscript and its dating
in relation to other known manuscripts, see Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts, vol. 2 pp. 631–3
catalog #1226. For another discussion of the date of the manuscript, see Lee, Theophania, vol.
2 pp. xi–xv.
60 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (Syriac) 1.11.9 (ed. Wright pp. 48–9).
61 The TF is found in Eusebius, Theophany 5.44.
62 Eusebius, Theophany 4.37.
63 The parallel sections are Theophany 5.45 and Demonstration 3.5.107–8 (124c–d).
64 For further discussion on Eusebius’ treatment of the TF in his Theophany, see Chapter 1 p. 19.
 The Western and Eastern Reception 47

In terms of their translations of the TF, the Syriac translator of the Ecclesiastical
History does a better job witnessing to the ambiguity of the TF. He preserves the
possibly derogatory ‘a certain Jesus’ (Ἰησοῦς τις) as ‘a certain man’ (‫ )ܓܒܪܐ ܚܕ‬and
he maintains the perhaps carnal sounding ‘receive with pleasure’ with an identical
phrase ‘receive with pleasure’ (‫)ܒܪܓܬܐ ܡܩܒܠܝܢ‬. The translator of the Theophany,
however, omits the word ‘certain’ and reworks ‘receive truisms with pleasure’ to
the far more confessional ‘in truth receive him [i.e. Jesus] pleasantly’ (‫ܕܢܝܚܐ ܒܫܪܪܐ‬
‫)ܩܒܠܘܗܝ‬. Both translators turn the prosaic ‘truisms’ (τἀληθῆ) into the more pro-
found ‘truth’ (‫)ܫܪܪܐ‬,65 and both also embellish the ambiguous Greek ‘incredible
deeds’ (παράδοξα) with either ‘celebrated deeds’ (‫ܫܒܝܚܐ‬ ̈ ̈
‫)ܥܒܕܐ‬ 66 or ‘wondrous

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

67
deeds’ (‫(ܣܘܥܪܢܐ ܕܬܕܡܘܪܬܐ‬. Both also turn the potentially negative ‘he brought
over’ or ‘he misled’ (ἐπηγάγετο) into the far less ambiguous ‘make disciples’
(‫)ܬܠܡܕ‬68 or ‘gather’ (‫)ܟܢܫ‬.69
Finally, both translate the resurrection appearance with the same grammat-
ical syntax and vocabulary: ‘he appeared to them alive’ (‫ ܟܕ ܚܝ‬. . . ‫)ܐܬܚܙܝ ܠܗܘܢ‬.
Interestingly, the Syriac word ḥza in the Ethpeel conjugation can mean either ‘ap-
pear’ or ‘seem’.70 Thus the Syriac Peshitta uses the same wording as the TF (‫ܐܬܚܙܝ‬
‫ ܟܕ‬. . . ‫ )ܠ‬to describe the physical appearance of Jesus upon his resurrection.71 But
the Peshitta also deploys a similar turn of phrase in the subjective sense of ‘to seem
to someone’ in several instances,72 as when the disciples do not believe the resur-
rection account because ‘these words appeared in their eyes like dreams and they
did not believe them’ (‫)ܘܐܬܚܙܝ ܒܥܝܢܝܗܘܢ ̈ܡܐܠ ܗܠܝܢ ܐܝܟ ܫܢܝܬܐ ܘܐܠ ܗܝܡܢܘ ܐܢܝܢ‬,73
or in the phrase ‘it seemed also to me’ (‫)ܐܬܚܙܝ ܐܦ ܠܝ‬,74 or ‘how does it seem to
you?’ (‫)ܐܝܟܢܐ ܡܬܚܙܐ ܠܟ‬,75 or ‘you seem righteous before men (‫ܡܬܚܙܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܠܒܢܝ‬

65 The reader should be aware though, that the difference in Syriac between the singular and plural
of ‘truth’ is but two small dots placed above the word, sometimes combining with other dots—so the
plural becomes (‫ )ܫܪܪܐ‬instead of the singular (‫—)ܫܪܪܐ‬which might easily fall out in later transcription.
Hence one cannot be certain that the original translator did not include such plural markings. However,
given the extreme antiquity of the manuscript witnesses, it seems likely that the dots were not included
in the original translation. It is also possible that this change was not meant to make the TF more posi-
tive since it is not unusual for Greek plural words to be translated as singular in Syriac.
66 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (Syriac) 1.11.7. The Syriac translator for the Ecclesiastical History
seems to have incorrectly fixated on the etymological root of παράδοξα and so thought the word had
something to do with δόξα ‘glories’.
67 Eusebius, Theophany 5.44.
68 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (Syriac) 1.11.7.
69 Eusebius, Theophany 5.44.
70 Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 136.
71 Mark 16:14; Acts 9:17. For other similar instances, see Mark 16:9; Acts 7:2, and especially Acts
7:26; Matthew 17:3; Mark 9:4. I searched the Peshitta using Gwilliam, Pinkerton, and Tritton, The New
Testament in Syriac, as digitized by George Kiraz for the Syriac Digital Corpus, whose XML version is
copyrighted by James. A. Walters. https://​syria​ccor​pus.org/​100#.
72 For ‫ ܚܙܐ‬meaning ‘appear’ and ‘seem’, see Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 136 ‫§ ܚܙܐ‬Ethpe
b; Nöldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar, 201 §254.
73 Luke 24:11.
74 Luke 1:3.
75 Matthew 22:17.
48 Josephus and Jesus

‫)ܐܢܫܐ ܐܝܟ ܙܕܝܩܐ‬, yet inside you are full of wrongdoing’.76 Philoxenus uses a similar
grammatical construction when he sarcastically criticizes an adversary, ‘he seems
so wise (‫)ܘܗܢܐ ܟܠܗ ܐܬܚܙܝ ܚܟܝܡܐ‬, though he does not even understand the force of
the argument’.77
Yet, it must be said that these latter examples either omit the Syriac word kad or
place it in a different syntax from how it is deployed in the Syriac TF. The Syriac
Peshitta, by contrast, does in several verses contain kad in the same syntax as the
Syriac TF, and here the Peshitta means to assert an actual appearance, not a sub-
jective one.78
It is likely then that the Syriac translators understood the TF as stating that Jesus

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

was actually seen alive by the disciples. Still, the potential ambiguity is noteworthy
given that, as I will argue in Chapter 3, the phrase regarding Jesus’ resurrection is
even more ambiguous in the original Greek of the TF.79 And furthermore, our next
author may have read the Syriac TF in just such a subjective light.

Agapius of Manbij (c.941/​2 ce) and Michael the Syrian (c.1199 ce)

The Arabic version of the TF comes from the Kitāb al-Tārīkh or Book of History,
composed by the historian Agapius of Manbij (c.941/​2 ce).80 Agapius derived
his information from Greek and Syriac sources81 and intended his work to func-
tion as a kind of universal history from creation to his present day. Unfortunately,
the portion of his history that contains the TF can now only be found in a single

76 Matthew 23:28.
77 Philoxenus, Dissertations 4.26 (ed. Briere, Philoxeni, 38.3: p. 558 [88] lines 8–9).
78 See, for example, the Peshitta in Matthew 17:3 (‫ )ܘܐܬܚܙܝܘ ܠܗܘܢ ܡܘܫܐ ܘܐܠܝܐ ܟܕ ܡܡܠܠܝܢ ܥܡܗ‬and
Mark 9:4 (‫)ܘܐܬܚܙܝܘ ܠܗܘܢ ܐܠܝܐ ܘܡܘܫܐ ܟܕ ܡܡܠܠܝܢ ܥܡ ܝܫܘܥ‬.
79 Alice Whealey has pointed out that a Syriac florilegium contains a quote of the TF derived from
Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History that adds the phrase (‫ )ܝܕܝܥܐ ܗ ܼܝ‬at the end of the TF. Whealey wonders if
this phrase may have been understood by later readers as indicating subjectivity. However, this phrase
likely emphasizes factuality and should be rendered ‘it is clear’ or ‘it is obvious’. See for example how
the phrase is used to translate the Greek words δῆλον and σαϕής in the Syriac version of Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History 2.17.24, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.10.5. Whealey could still be right though that later readers,
like Agapius, may have misinterpreted the phrase as emphasizing subjectivity and not factuality. For
further discussion on this, see Whealey, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic’, 587.
80 His chronicle is often erroneously labeled Kitāb al-ʿUnwān or ‘Book of the Title’, but its likely au-
thentic title can be found in early manuscripts and is Kitāb al-Tārīkh or ‘Book of History’. Agapius is also
known by various names such as Agapius of Hierapolis (the Greek name of Manbij), or Maḥbūb ibn
Qustantīn al-Manbijī; or al-Rumi (the Byzantine); or simply al-Manbijī. As can be seen from his many
names, he was of Greek descent from the northern Syrian city of Manbij and was the son of Constantine
the Orthodox Metropolitan of that same city. See Lamoreaux, ‘Agapius of Manbij’, 136–45; Swanson,
‘Christian-Muslim Relations’, vol. 2 pp. 241–5; Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur,
vol. 2 pp. 39–41.
81 On Agapius’ knowledge of Greek and Syriac, see Lamoreaux, ‘Agapius of Manbij’, 138. Lamoreaux
is a bit hesitant to credit Agapius with a knowledge of Syriac, but I think that this must be regarded as
certain given that he depended on Syriac sources like Theophilus of Edessa, see nn. 116, 118. Regarding
Theophilus; see Rompay, ‘Theophilos of Edessa’.
 The Western and Eastern Reception 49

manuscript,82 and one filled with so many scribal errors that what Agapius origin-
ally wrote must be reconstructed with the help of a later Arabic writer, al-Makīn
Ǧirǧis ibn al-ʿAmīd (c.1080 ce), who quotes Agapius quoting the TF in full.83 Their
combined version of the TF reads as follows:

‫وكذلك يوسفيوس العبراني فانه‬ And likewise Josephus the Hebrew, for
‫قال في ميامره التي كتبها على شر‬ he says in his treatises which he wrote
‫ انه كان في هذا الزمان رجل‬:‫اليهود‬ concerning the evil of the Jews: ‘There
‫حكيم يقال له ايسوع وكانت له سيرة‬ was in this time a wise man who was
called Jesus and his conduct was good
‫حسنة وعلم انه فاضل وانه تتلمذ‬

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

and it was known that he was right-
‫له كثير من الناس من اليهود وسائر‬
eous and that many from among the
‫الشعوب وكان فيالطس قضى عليه‬
people—from both Jews and the sur-
‫بالصلب والموت والذين تتلمذوا له‬ rounding nations—became his fol-
‫لم يتركوا تلمذته وذكروا انه ظهر لهم‬ lowers. And Pilate sentenced him to
‫بعد ثلثة ايام من صلبه وانه عاش‬ crucifixion and to death. And those
‫فلعله هو المسيح الذي قالت عنه‬ who followed him did not forsake fol-
.‫االنبياء االعاجيب‬ lowing him, but they reported that
he appeared to them three days after
his crucifixion and that he was alive.
Perhaps he was the Christ of whom the
prophets spoke marvels’.84

This version of the TF is remarkable in that it, more explicitly than any versions
we have hitherto seen, does not imply that Jesus was divine, nor that he worked
supernatural deeds, nor that he was executed at the instigation of Jewish leaders.
Most intriguingly, it also does not claim that Jesus was resurrected, but only that

82 MS Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana Or. 323 (1288 ce); see Image 14. The TF can be
found in f. 6v lines 11–17, 7r lines 1–2. Note that this manuscript is listed incorrectly as ‘Or. 132’ in-
stead of ‘Or. 323’ in Swanson, who derived it from the old number of Assemani’s catalog; see Assemani,
Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae et Palatinae codicum, 213; Swanson, ‘Christian-Muslim
Relations’, vol. 2 p. 244. For two different scholarly editions of Agapius, see Cheikho, Agapius Episcopus
Mabbugensis Historia Universalis, 239; Vasiliev, Agapius episcopus Mabbugensis historia universalis, PO
7.4 pp. 471–2 (15–16).
83 MS Paris, BnF ar. 4729 (nineteenth century) f.107v line 11, 108r lines 1–6; MS Paris, BnF ar.
294 (fourteenth century). f. 162r line 15, 163r lines 5–11. For discussion on Agapius and Al-Makin
as well as a transcription of the TF in al-Makin, see Diez, ‘Les antiquités gréco-romaines’. For another
transcription of al-Makin quoting Agapius, see Cheikho, Agapius Episcopus Mabbugensis Historia
Universalis, 391.
84 This Arabic text is taken from Cheikho, Agapius Episcopus Mabbugensis Historia Universalis, 239,
391 with reference to the Arabic manuscript Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana Or. 323 (see
Image 14) and to the text of al-Makīn. For an alternative translation and slightly different edition of the
Arabic text, see Pines, An Arabic Version, 9–10.
50 Josephus and Jesus

his disciples ‘reported’ (‫)ذكروا‬85 that he was; nor does it state Jesus was ‘the Christ’
or that he was the subject of prophecy, but rather speculatively suggests that such
things might be so. Agapius also adds a curious detail about Jesus being sentenced
to not just be crucified but also to ‘death’, a little fact that will become important
later on.
Despite the omissions of the suspicious details, Agapius is not exactly the
most reliable of witnesses,86 a trait easily observed in the larger passage wherein
he quotes the TF. Here, Agapius gives six different testimonia about Jesus which
he says are derived from the writings of Longinus, Tertullian, Phlegon, Ursinus,
Josephus, and King Abgar of Edessa. These sources each describe various reports

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

about Jesus, many of them legendary, and each of which go on to relate the deeds
and words of various famous figures like Emperor Augustus, Emperor Tiberius,
Pontius Pilate, and King Herod to name a few. Agapius feels free to elaborate on
many of these quotations adding, taking away, and poorly summarizing,87 but
even so, his unreliability lurches in an obviously pro-Christian and anti-Jewish
direction. So then, why, as Agapius came to the TF, would he present such a neutral
version, instead of embellishing it with Christianizing details, as was his custom?88
Before answering this question, it will be clarifying to examine another eastern
version of the TF, this time in Syriac and found in the Record of Times (‫ܡܟܬܒܢܘܬ‬
̈ 89 written by the historian and patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church,
‫)ܙܒܢܐ‬
Michael the Syrian (c.1199 ce).90 It begins from creation and continues to 1195 ce,
just four years before Michael’s death.91 It exists in two different Armenian recen-
sions,92 but in only one original language manuscript, MS Archdiocese of Aleppo
250 S, copied in 1598 ce.93 Michael’s version of the TF reads as follows:

85 Lane, Arabic–English Lexicon, 968 ‫ذكر‬.

86 For a similar observation, see Bammel, ‘A New Variant Form of the Testimonium Flavianum’, 145–6.
87 I give examples of this below.
88 Pines himself argued along similar lines in favor of the authenticity of Agapius’ version of the TF;
Pines, An Arabic Version, 21–3, 66–7.
89 This is the title given by Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical Chronicle 1.693; see Wilmshurst, Bar
Hebraeus: The Ecclesiastical Chronicle, 246–7; Weltecke, ‘The World Chronicle by Patriarch Michael
the Great (1126–1199): Some Reflections’, 24.
90 Michael is also called Michael the Great; or Michael Rabo; or Michael Qīndasī; or Michael
the Elder.
91 Weltecke, ‘Michael I Rabo’; Weltecke, ‘The World Chronicle by Patriarch Michael the Great
(1126–99): Some Reflections’. The Syriac text and a French translation of Michael’s chronicle may be
found in Chabot, Chronique de Michel Le Syrien.
92 There is also an Arabic Garshuni translation which may be based on a different exemplar than the
single remaining complete Syriac manuscript; see Takahashi, ‘Excerpts’, xxxvi. However, I have not
been able to check this translation.
93 Edessa-Aleppo Codex f. 50r left column lines 15–27 (f. 47r in print edition); see Image 12. For
printed pictures of the manuscript, see Ibrāhīm, The Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex. The manuscript can
now also be found online at https://​www.vhmml.org/​read​ingR​oom/​view/​500​917. Note that the folio
numbers in the online version are three greater than the print version (so, for example, f. 47r in the print
edition becomes 50r in the online version and so on).
 The Western and Eastern Reception 51

‫ܐܦ ܝܘܣܝܦܘܣ ܡܟܬܒܢܐ ܐܡܪ ܒܡܐܡܪܐ‬ Also the author Josephus says in the
‫ܙܒܢܐ ܐܝܬ‬ ̈
̈ ‫ܕܝܘܕܝܐ ܕܒܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܥܠ ܕܘܒܪܐ‬ treatise concerning the Government of
‫ ܐܢ‬.‫ܗܘܐ ܓܒܪܐ ܚܕ ܚܟܝܡܐ ܕܫܡܗ ܝܫܘܥ‬ the Jews:‘In these times there was a cer-
‫ܘܐܠ ܠܢ ܕܓܒܪܐ ܢܩܪܝܘܗܝ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ‬ tain wise man whose name was Jesus, if
‫ܫܒܝܚܐ ܘܡܠܦܢܐ‬ ̈
̈ ‫ܕܥܒܕܐ‬ ‫ܓܝܪ ܣܥܘܪܐ‬ it is lawful for us to call him a man, for
̈ ̈
‫ܘܠܣܓܝܐܐ ܡܢ ܝܘܕܝܐ ܘܡܢ ܥܡܡܐ‬ ̈ .‫ܕܫܪܪܐ‬ he was a doer of glorious works and a
.‫ ܡܣܬܒܪܐ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ‬.‫ܬܠܡܕ‬ teacher of the truth. And he made dis-
‫ ܐܝܟ ܣܗܕܘܬܐ ܕ̈ܪܝܫܢܘܗܝ ܕܥܡܐ‬94‫ܘܠܘ‬ ciples of many from the Jews and from
‫ܡܛܠܗܕܐ ܝܗܒܗ ܦܝܠܛܘܣ ܠܡܣܡܒܪܝܫܐ‬ the peoples. It was thought that he was
‫ ܘܗܢܘܢ ܕܝܢ ܕܐܚܒܘܗܝ ܐܠ‬.‫ܕܨܠܝܒܐ ܘܡܝܬ‬ the Christ. And it was through the tes-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

‫ ܐܬܚܙܝ ܠܗܘܢ ܡܢ ܒܬܪ ܓ‬.‫ܫܠܝܘ ܡܢ ܚܘܒܗ‬ timony of the leaders of the people, on
‫ܢܒܝܐ ܓܝܪ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܘܕܐܝܟ‬ ̈
̈ .‫ܝܘܡܝܢ ܟܕ ܚܝ‬ account of this, that Pilate gave him
̈
‫ ܘܥܕܡܐ‬.‫ܗܠܝܢ ܐܡܪܘ ܥܠܘܗܝ ܬܡܝܗܬܐ‬ over to the punishment of the cross
‫ܠܝܘܡܢܐ ܐܠ ܡܓܪܕܐ ܥܡܐ ܕܟ̈ܪܣܛܝܢܐ‬ and he died. But those who loved him
.‫ܕܡܢܗ ܐܫܬܡܗ‬ did not cease from his love [as] he ap-
peared to them after three days alive.
For the prophets of God spoke such as-
tonishing things concerning him. And
until today the people of the Christians
have not disappeared and have been
named from him’.

This particular version of the TF agrees with Agapius’ version in three key places.
Like Agapius, Michael’s version says that Jesus was not just sentenced to be cruci-
fied, but also ‘he died’ and like Agapius, it does not specifically blame the Jews for
Jesus’ death.95 For our purposes though, the most interesting parallel with Agapius
is that Michael does not report Josephus as saying that Jesus ‘was the Christ’,
only that ‘it was thought that he was the Christ’ (‫)ܡܣܬܒܪܐ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ‬.
One could also translate the phrase as ‘it was proclaimed that he was the Christ’,
though this is not a common way to understand the Syriac.96 But whatever the case,

94 Michael’s Syriac contains ‘not’ (‫ )ܘܠܘ‬at this point, whereas the original reading was clearly ‘through’
(‫ ;)ܘܠܗ‬see n. 95.
95 This latter observation has gone unnoticed by scholars due to mistranslations that have had
Josephus say that it was the rulers of ‘our people’ which were responsible for Jesus’ death, though the
Syriac more vaguely says it was the rulers of ‘the people’ (‫)ܥܡܐ‬. Michael in fact literally says ‘not ac-
cording to the testimony of the leaders of the people’ though this is likely because the direct object
marker and its pronoun (‫ )ܠܗ‬was mistaken by a copyist for the quite similar looking Syriac negative
particle (‫ ;)ܠܘ‬see Whealey, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic’, 586; Pines, An Arabic
Version, 28.
96 On ‘proclaimed to be’ as a possible translation, see Chapter 3 pp. 86–7.
52 Josephus and Jesus

the Syriac translation is of particular interest given that Jerome around the year 393
ce quotes the TF in Latin with the basically synonymous translation, ‘he was be-
lieved to be the Christ’.97 Pseudo-Hegesippus (c.370 ce) suggests a similar wording
as well.
The parallels shared between Agapius and Michael do not end with the TF,
however, because Michael also embeds the TF within the very same roster of six
testimonia about Jesus and gives them in the same order as Agapius does. In fact,
much of Michael’s and Agapius’ material that cover the first two centuries of the
Christian era corresponds with one another.98
This means one of three things: either Michael, writing 250 years after Agapius,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

was directly (or indirectly) dependent upon Agapius for the six testimonia; or that
Michael was reliant on a common source for the testimonia, a source that Agapius
also used; or some combination thereof as if, for example, Michael had before him
both Agapius and also the source used by Agapius.
In examining these possibilities, it is clear that Michael must have, at minimum,
used a source other than Agapius, and that for two reasons.99 First, Michael gives us
a list of the sources that he utilized, and he does not mention Agapius.100 Secondly,
if we take the six testimonia in Agapius and Michael, and compare them with how
earlier writers quote the same sources, we find that Agapius routinely expands, dis-
torts, and omits material while Michael more conservatively preserves material
and, importantly, never follows Agapius’ changes in any instance as far as I can tell.
For example, the wording of Michael’s Syriac version of the TF corresponds
closely with the version given in the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical
History,101 showing that Michael must have used a source other than the Arabic
of Agapius because he could hardly have independently turned Agapius’ Arabic
back into the very Syriac from which it was derived. Or again with the Longinus
testimonium, Agapius adds more than five hundred words of extra material, dis-
cussing a letter exchanged between Augustus and King Herod about the Magi not
found in this testimonium’s earliest source, the mid-seventh-century Maronite
Chronicle.102 On the other hand, Michael preserves the Longinus testimonium
‘practically in the same form’103 as it is found in the Maronite Chronicle.104 If

97 Another similarity between Jerome and Michael is that they both use ‘until today’ instead of ‘until
now’, which the Greek TF has. Not much should be made of this coincidence though because Rufinus,
who was using Eusebius’ version that contained ‘until now’, also similarly translates it as hodiernum
‘today’. So it seems to have been a common way of interpreting the original phrase.
98 I discuss these parallels below
99 Their source is discussed in Whealey, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic’, 575–80.
100 Michael the Syrian, Record of Times preface (ed. Chabot vol. 1 p. 2; Zhamanakagrut’iwn, 1–3
(Armenian)). Michael’s preface is lost in Syriac and so one must rely on two different Armenian transla-
tions published in 1870 (Tear’n Mixaye’li) and 1871 (Zhamanakagrut’iwn). I rely on the 1871 edition.
101 Pines, An Arabic Version, 23–30; Whealey, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic’,
578–80.
102 Witakowski, ‘Magi Syriac Tradition’, 822.
103 Witakowski, ‘Magi Syriac Tradition’, 822.
104 Agapius, Book of History 2.1 (Vasiliev vol. 7.4 pp. 463–7 [7–11]).
 The Western and Eastern Reception 53

Michael had been following only Agapius here, he would not have been able to pre-
serve what was already distorted by Agapius.105
Quotations from outside of the six testimonia of Jesus also bear the same pat-
tern. Thus, Michael adequately summarizes Eusebius’ statements about an ancient
writer named Papias.106 Agapius however does not mention the name of Papias,
and inaccurately states that an author from Papias’ era and hometown wrote
a commentary on the Gospel of John.107 Michael also provides large quotations
from Josephus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem,108 but Agapius quickly
summarizes them.109 Michael further correctly cites Hegesippus as the source for
Emperor Domitian’s order to kill the descendants of Jude, the brother of Jesus,110

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

while Agapius summarizes it unattributed.111 Agapius also gives a confused ver-
sion of Hegesippus’ account describing the death of James the brother of Jesus, but
does not attribute it to any source and then, on top of that, inserts a fabulous tale
about how after the death of James, certain Jews confiscated the cross of Christ and
then shortened the genealogies in the Hebrew Torah.112 Michael, however, cor-
rectly gives the account of Hegesippus, though without attribution.113 And so on.
The first conclusion one can draw from examining the above citations is that
Agapius is totally unreliable. At times he summarizes and at other times he greatly
expands, often distorting the original meaning in the process, while Michael,
though by no means perfect, tends to be far more conservative when it comes to his
quotational practices.114 This renders Agapius’ version of the TF greatly suspect,

105 Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 5.10 (Chabot vol. 1 pp. 138–9 (French); vol. 4 p. 88 (Syriac);
MS Edessa-Aleppo Codex MS f. 45v center column lines 21–37).
106 Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 6.2 (Chabot vol. 1 pp. 165–6 (French); vol. 4 p. 100 (Syriac)).
107 Agapius, Book of History 2.1 (Vasiliev vol. 7.4 pp. 504–5 [48–9].
108 Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 6.2 (Chabot vol. 1 pp. 163–8 (French); vol. 4 pp. 98–102
(Syriac)).
109 Agapius, Book of History 2.1 (Vasiliev vol. 7.4 pp. 497–8 [41–2]).
110 Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 6.3 (Chabot vol. 1 pp. 169–70 (French); vol. 4 p. 102 (Syriac)).
111 Agapius, Book of History 2.1 (Vasiliev vol. 7.4 p. 498 [44]).
112 Agapius, Book of History 2.1 (Vasiliev vol. 7.4 p. 492 [36]).
113 Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 6.1 (Chabot vol. 1. pp. 159–60 (French); vol. 4 pp. 97–8
(Syriac)).
114 The one great exception to this that I could find is that Michael erroneously claims that Phlegon
said that at the crucifixion of Jesus ‘the dead were resurrected and entered Jerusalem and cursed the
Jews’ (Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 5.10, my translation from Chabot vol. 1. p. 143 (French)
4 p. 90 (Syriac); MS Edessa-Aleppo Codex f. 49v right column lines 42–4 (f. 46v)). Here Michael or
his source seem to have derived this account from Eusebius’ Chronicon, but misread Eusebius’ prior
statement that Greek historians corroborated the miraculous occurrences at Jesus’ crucifixion and as-
sumed that Phlegon must have also spoken of the Matthean account (Matthew 27:52) of the saints
being raised from the dead at the resurrection and that they entered Jerusalem. See Eusebius, Chronicon
Olympiad 202.3 as found in the Armenian and Latin versions Karst, Die Chronik, GCS 20 p. 213; Helm,
Die Chronik des Hieronymus, GCS 24 pp. 174–5. For a Greek version of Phlegon derived from Eusebius,
see Paschal Chronicle 412 lines 9–16, p. 417 lines 9–15 in Dindorf, Chronicon paschale, vol. 1. In a study
of Michael’s sources, van Ginkel argues that Michael does indeed manipulate sources to suite his aims,
but even so, van Ginkel is speaking about how Michael adapted sources covering periods after the con-
clusion of Jacob of Edessa’s Chronicle. This Chronicle of Jacob, as I will argue below, was continued by
Michael and hence may not have been manipulated as much as later sources, which van Ginkel hints is
possible; Ginkel, ‘Michael the Syrian and His Sources’, 59 n. 11. In any case, my larger point is not that
54 Josephus and Jesus

but increases the likelihood that Michael has preserved his source’s version of the
TF at least somewhat accurately.
Despite these observations, Shlomo Pines, the scholar who first brought at-
tention to Agapius’ version, argued that Agapius had actually preserved the TF
reliably. Pines’ principal reason for this was that he viewed it as so unlikely for a
Christian like Agapius to greatly minimize Josephus’ positive references to Jesus.
On these grounds Pines believed that Agapius must have therefore had before him
a version of the TF different from the Greek version, a version that was neutral or
even ambiguous. Otherwise, Pines thought, one could not explain why the zeal-
ously pro-Christian Agapius would have lessened the pro-Christian claims of the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

TF as they currently exist in Greek manuscripts.115 All this seems especially prob-
able since, as already noted, Agapius makes it a practice to routinely Christianize
his sources and is viciously anti-Semitic.
At first approach the above arguments appear to have merit, but closer examin-
ation reveals that their foundations are quite weak. In fact, contra Pines, it is clear
that with the TF Agapius has followed his habit of enhancing (and summarizing)
his sources along favorable Christian lines. But the source he used was not much
different from the Greek TF, and is fairly well preserved in Michael’s version. This
is in evidence for several reasons. As shown previously, Michael and Agapius util-
ized a common source which contained a version of the TF, a source which was
likely preserved better by Michael given the evidence from their quotational prac-
tices. Therefore, when Agapius read this source, he would have encountered the
neutral or even negative phrase ‘it was thought that he was the Christ’ which is
reflected in Michael’s version of the TF. Seeing this phrase, Agapius embellished it
into something that hypothetically might be true, so as to make Josephus say ‘per-
haps [Jesus] was the Christ’. Agapius also mildly enhanced the phrase ‘a certain
wise man’ who performed ‘celebrated works’, by instead emphasizing the goodness
and righteousness of Jesus, by saying ‘a wise man who was called Jesus and his con-
duct was good and it was known that he was righteous’.
Next, upon coming to the descriptions of Jesus’ resurrection and his fulfillment
of prophecy, Agapius likely read the Syriac116 as giving a subjective report about
what the disciples believed, not what Josephus actually affirmed. In response to
this, Agapius summarized the phrase as ‘they reported that he appeared to them

Michael perfectly preserved his sources, but that he did a better job than Agapius. See Ginkel, ‘Michael
the Syrian and His Sources’; Ginkel, ‘Making History’.

115 Pines, An Arabic Version, 21–3, 66–7.

116 Though Agapius used Greek sources, in this instance he seems to have been following a Syriac
source for the six testimonia on Jesus because Michael follows the same source and Michael implies that
he only made use of Syriac sources, Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 11.17. For a similar assessment,
see Pines, An Arabic Version, 23; Whealey, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic’, 575–8. It
might also be possible that Agapius and Michael are using the same source, but that Agapius is referring
to a Greek version and Michael to a Syriac.
 The Western and Eastern Reception 55

three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive’. Then, Agapius enhanced
the statement about prophets speaking of Jesus by casting it as a possibility in the
mind of Josephus, rather than presenting such a belief from the perspective of the
disciples. Thus, Agapius wrote ‘perhaps he was the Christ of whom the prophets
spoke’. Finally, though Agapius was quite anti-Semitic throughout his works, in his
version of the TF he does not omit Jewish involvement in Jesus’ death because the
version of the TF he had before him, witnessed in Michael’s version, never expli-
citly mentioned Jewish leaders, since it only ambiguously said ‘the leaders of the
people’ (‫ )ܥܡܐ‬had Jesus crucified. In fact, Michael’s version had earlier used the
same term ‘peoples’ (‫)ܥܡܡܐ‬ ̈ to refer to Gentiles, thus implying to the Syriac reader

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

that it was Gentile, not Jewish, leaders who crucified Jesus.
For these reasons, Agapius’ Arabic version of the TF should be properly viewed
as a secondary witness to the version of the TF found in Michael the Syrian since
Michael is far more consistent at preserving his sources. However, regardless of
who preserved the source more accurately, it is remarkable that both Agapius and
Michael do not highlight any suspiciously pro-Christian statements in the TF. This
parallels a similar trend in most of the Greek writers I have already discussed.

Jacob of Edessa as the Common Source for Michael and Agapius

But this then leads to some questions: who was originally responsible for com-
posing the source used by Michael the Syrian and Agapius? And did this person
have access to Josephus’ Antiquities—and therefore also to the TF—in the original
Greek? And if so, did this Greek version of the TF include a phrase like ‘it was
thought that he was the Christ’, as witnessed by Michael, Agapius, and Jerome?
Scholars have agreed that Michael and Agapius mutually relied upon
Theophilus of Edessa, a Syriac chronographer and translator of Greek works,117
who died around 785 ce.118 Though this seems to be the case, it is unlikely that
Theophilus is the source for the six Jesus testimonia within which the TF can be
found in Michael’s work, for Theophilus only seems to have covered the Islamic
era.119 This time is centuries after the six testimonia regarding Jesus would have

117 On Theophilus’ translations, see Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle, 6–7.

118 Agapius claims in the latter part of his work that he used Theophilus of Edessa; see Agapius,
Book of History 2.2 (Vasiliev PO 8.3 p. 525 [265]). Michael makes a large quotation of Dionysius of
Tel Mahr, who in turn mentions Theophilus of Edessa as a source of his own; see Michael the Syrian,
Record of Times 10.20 (Chabot vol. 2. p. 358 (trans.); vol. 4 p. 378 (Syriac)). On the use of Theophilus’
work by Dionysius, see Conrad, ‘The Conquest of Arwad’, 326–32; Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa’s
Chronicle, 11–15.
119 Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, 402–3; Rompay, ‘Theophilos of Edessa’. Conrad contra-
dicts this and claims that Theophilus’ Chronicle began with creation, but this seems unlikely because
no source can be shown to use Theophilus for events before the Islamic era; see Conrad, ‘The Conquest
of Arwad’, 331. Hoyland agrees and persuasively argues that Theophilus likely did not contain material
before 590 ce; see Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle, 19–20.
56 Josephus and Jesus

been historically relevant. It thus is likely that Michael and Agapius had another
source, one which wrote about the first century ce.
Alice Whealey has instead hypothesized that Michael and Agapius may have
also relied, perhaps indirectly, upon the now lost Chronicle of Jacob of Edessa
(c.708 ce),120 though in her most recent publication she is somewhat circumspect
about this conclusion.121 I think, however, that her suggestion is quite right, for
there is as yet unnoted evidence that points toward Jacob of Edessa as indeed the
ultimate source used by Agapius and Michael, and therefore also their source for
the TF.
To begin, in the preface of Michael’s Record of Times (preserved only in

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Armenian) he says, ‘First we must mention the names of the historians from which
we will be gathering the material for our structure’.122 Among several sources,
Michael lists Eusebius and Josephus, but then says that ‘the blessed Jacob of Edessa
made an abridgement of all these’ (Եւ սուրբն Յակովբ ուռհայեցին համառօտ
ընդ ամենն էանց).123 Then, when Michael’s history reaches the twentieth year of
Constantine (c.326 ce), he includes a large quotation from Jacob’s Chronicle giving
a detailed description of Eusebius’ Chronicon. In this quotation Jacob also de-
clares that he translated, added pre-Constantinian material, and then continued
Eusebius’ work past Constantine.124 This assertion is confirmed by a fragment of
Jacob’s Chronicle that still survives, wherein Jacob declares that he would not only
continue, but also add to Eusebius’ work.125
Michael further indicates that he was making direct use of Jacob of Edessa’s
Chronicle because he cites him both before and after Constantine.126 And, in-
deed, one scholar who compared the few surviving fragments of Jacob’s Chronicle
with Michael’s Record of Times concluded that they are ‘with very few exceptions
identical’.127
In fact, far from creating a totally original work, Michael even explains that the
whole of Jacob’s Chronicle was actually inserted into his Record of Times:

120 Whealey, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic’, 577–8; Whealey, Josephus on
Jesus, 39–40.
121 Whealey, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic’, 577–8.
122 Michael the Syrian, Record of Times preface (trans. Bedrosian §2 translation; see also Chabot vol.
1. p. 1 (French)).
123 Michael the Syrian, Record of Times preface (my trans. from Zhamanakagrut’iwn, 3 lines 5–6. For
other modern translations, see Bedrosian §2 (English); Chabot vol. 1. p. 2 (French). It should be em-
phasized that here Michael, does not mention Agapius as a source, as I mentioned above.
124 Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 7.2 (Chabot vol. 1. pp. 253–5 (French); vol. 4 pp. 127–8
(Syriac); f. 68r–v (f. 65r–v in print edition)).
125 This is MS British Museum Add. 14,685. For Syriac text, see Wright, Catalogue of Syriac
Manuscripts, vol. 3 pp. 1062–4. For a French translation of a portion of this fragment, see Chabot vol.
1 p. 255 n. 1. For further discussion, see Brooks, ‘The Chronological Canon of James of Edessa’, 263.
126 For example, Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 5.10, 6.1, 6.3 (Chabot vol. 1 pp. 140, 159, 168
(French); vol. 4 pp. 89, 97, 102 (Syriac)).
127 Brooks, ‘The Chronological Canon of James of Edessa’, 264. The above observations regarding
Michael’s Record of Times and its relationship to Jacob’s Chronicle was first made by Whealey, ‘The
Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic’, 577 n. 13; Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 39–40.
 The Western and Eastern Reception 57

This Chronicle [i.e. Michael’s Record of Times] has been collected and laboriously
written very distinctly and methodically, from the books of the Chroniclers who
are worthy of trust, and from a great number of books that exist in our language
pertaining to the things in question, and especially from the works of Abbas Mar
Jacob of Edessa, whose entire Chronicle (‫ )ܕܟܠܗ ܡܟܬܒܢܘܬܗ‬on this subject is in-
serted here (‫ ;)ܣܝܡܐ ܗܪܟܐ‬so, since he [i.e. Jacob] noted methodically in his book
the designation of the numbers and the sum of the years from Adam, that is to say,
from the beginning of this temporal world, up to that time, we have inserted here
his entire Chronicle, as well as notable parts of the others.128

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

While the above indicates that Michael used other historians at points, all of the
ones that Michael names as sources in his preface can be eliminated as sources for
the six Jesus testimonia (and hence for the TF) on various chronological or topical
grounds. First, Michael and Agapius clearly used the same source for the six Jesus
testimonia, and so this source must have been written before Agapius (c.941/​2
ce), but after the sixth or seventh centuries, when at least one of the six testimonia
was written.129 This eliminates many of the historians mentioned by Michael.130
Secondly, of the remaining historians, none cover historical material before
Constantine, when the Jesus testimonia would have been relevant131—none, that
is, except Jacob of Edessa.132
The above evidence undoubtedly argues that Jacob first translated Eusebius’
Chronicon from Greek into Syriac,133 reworking it and supplementing in the

128 Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 11.17 (my translation in consultation with Chabot’s French
and Syriac and the Edessa-Aleppo codex; see Chabot vol. 2 p. 482 (French); vol. 4 p. 450 (Syriac); MS
Edessa-Aleppo Codex f. 229v middle note lines 2–4 (f. 226v in printed edition)).
129 The latest testimonium is likely the Longinus testimonium, whose earliest attestation is not till
664 ce by the Maronite Chronicle; see Witakowski, ‘Magi Syriac Tradition’, 822.
130 These sources are Julius Africanus (c.221 ce), Hegesippus (c.180 ce), Annianus of Alexandria
(c.400 ce), Ignatius Bishop of Melitene (c.1094 ce), Saliba of Melitene (twelfth century ce), John of
Kaisoum (c.1171 ce), and Dionysius bar-Salibi (c.1171 ce). For dates of the medieval figures, see
Chabot vol. 1 p. 481; Langlois, Chronique de Michel le Grand, 20.
131 These are sources like Zosimus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and John of Antioch, all of
whom only discussed events after Constantine, as Michael explains in his preface. Theodosius of
Edessa (c.832), Dionysius of Tel-Mahre (c.845), Theophilus of Edessa (c.785 ce) are also mentioned
by Michael later in his work, but again, these only discussed events after Constantine. For these latter
three, see Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 7.2 (Chabot vol. 1. p. 255 (French); vol. 4 p. 128 (Syriac);
10.20 (Chabot vol. 2 p. 358 (French); vol. 4 p. 378 (Syriac)).
132 If one were to date the Longinus testimonium far earlier to the fourth century then Annianus
could be considered a source for the six testimonia (and therefore the TF), but as Annianus wrote in
Greek, Michael would hardly have been able to access his work directly and so must have relied on a
Syriac intermediary, which again would point to the translator Jacob of Edessa, whom Michael states in
his preface did in fact use Annianus.
133 Witakowski doubts whether Jacob actually translated Eusebius’ Chronicon, but his reasons are
unsound. First, Witakowski states that only Theodosius of Edessa, as cited by Michael, claims that
Jacob translated Eusebius’ Chronicon (Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 7.2 in Chabot vol. 1 p. 255
(French), vol. 4 p. 128 (Syriac)), but this is not true, for Michael also cites a long quotation from Jacob
himself saying the same (Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 7.2 in Chabot vol. 1 pp. 253–5 (French);
vol. 4 pp. 127–8 (Syriac)) and Michael goes into great detail explaining this as well (Michael the
Syrian, Record of Times 11.17 in Chabot vol. 2 pp. 482–3; vol. 4 p. 450). Witakowski also thinks that
58 Josephus and Jesus

process, and then continuing it to around 708 ce.134 Afterward, Michael adopted
or at least adapted Jacob’s entire Chronicle and then likewise continued it to around
1195 ce. And all this follows the custom of Syriac chronographers whose practice it
often was to utilize a ‘layering’ technique by taking up material from earlier chron-
icles sometimes wholesale.135
For our purposes then, Jacob of Edessa is the obvious candidate for the source
used by both Agapius and Michael the Syrian, and therefore the one who was
responsible for the version of the TF to which they both witness. It is probable
that as Jacob was translating and reworking Eusebius’ Chronicon, he noticed re-
ports involving Jesus that Eusebius had cited from sources, like Josephus, Abgar,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Phlegon, and Tertullian,136 all of whom can be found quoted by Eusebius in his
Chronicon or in his Ecclesiastical History. Jacob then added in testimonies from
two sources that he had discovered in Longinus and Ursinus, thus making a roster
of six testimonia that came to be used by both Agapius and Michael.

Jacob of Edessa and Josephus

But I would like to press this study on sources even further. What can be said about
the sources which Jacob himself used? Did he derive his version of the TF from
Eusebius or did he instead consult Josephus, or even another writer? As it happens,

Jacob should have mentioned in his own writings that he translated Eusebius’ Chronicon, but Jacob’s
translation of Eusebius occurred at the very end of his life and was even interrupted by his death (as
Witakowski acknowledges on p. 39), giving good reason for why he may not have mentioned the trans-
lation in his other writings, and, furthermore, Michael does cite Jacob speaking about his translation
of Eusebius’ Chronicon, as stated above. Thirdly, Witakowski thinks that Jacob could not have included
Eusebius’ Chronicon within his own because Jacob believed his own Chronicle was a continuation of
Eusebius; but Jerome also continued the work of Eusebius and still included a translation of Eusebius’
Chronicon within his own work, as Jerome says in his preface (ed. Helm GCS 24 p. 6). It is also pos-
sible that Jacob conceived his continuation as a separate work from his translation of Eusebius, but if
so, Jacob still could have expanded upon Eusebius’ Chronicon when translating it. Witakowski’s only
substantive objection is that ʿAbdishoʿ bar Brīkā (EbedJesus) (c.1300 ce) claims that the Chronicon of
Eusebius was translated by a different author, but it is possible that the Chronicon was translated more
than once, or that Jacob (as was his custom) revised this earlier translation, or that ʿAbdishoʿ simply
got his facts wrong since he does not seem to be directly familiar with the work in question, whereas
Michael quotes from Jacob explicitly. See Witakowski, ‘The Chronicle of Jacob of Edessa’, 32, 41. For
ʿAbdisho’s claim, see Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, vol. 3.1 p. 168.

134 It is possible that Jacob envisioned his translation of Eusebius’ Chronicon and his own continu-
ation to be two separate works, but Michael clearly imagines them as one and the same. For further
discussion, see Harrak, ‘Jacob of Edessa as a Chronicler’.
135 Van Ginkel, ‘Making History’, 351. Van Ginkel refers to a forthcoming article by Larry Conrad on
the topic of Syriac ‘layering’, but this article never seems to have been published. For another reference
to the article, see van Ginkel, ‘Michael the Syrian and His Sources’, 59 n. 3. For a similar assessment, see
Mazzola, ‘A “Woven-Texture” Narration’.
136 For these testimonia, see Eusebius, Chronicon Olympiad 202.4 as found in the Armenian and
Latin versions Karst, GCS 20 p. 213, Helm, GCS 24 pp. 174–5 (Phlegon); Eusebius, Chronicon
Olympiad 203.3 as found in Karst, GCS 20 p. 214, Helm, GCS 24 pp. 176–7 (Tertullian); Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7–8 (Josephus); Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.13.6–20 (Abgar).
 The Western and Eastern Reception 59

Jacob was quite proficient in Greek and was a renowned translator and linguist
in his own right, often making a practice of revising earlier Syriac translations
by checking the original Greek.137 Could Jacob have continued his accustomed
translation habit by reading the TF in the Syriac version of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical
History, and then checking the original Greek in Josephus’ Antiquities? This ques-
tion is important to answer, because if around 708 ce Jacob knew the TF from a
Greek version of the Antiquities, then he would become a powerful witness for the
authenticity of the Syriac variant ‘it was thought that he was the Christ’, a variant
paralleled in Latin by Jerome (c.393 ce) as ‘he was believed to be Christ’. If so,
this would raise the possibility that this particular variant can be traced back to

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Josephus himself.
On the face of things, it seems at least possible that Jacob consulted both Eusebius
and Josephus when translating the TF since a comparison between Jacob’s version
of the TF and that found in the Syriac version of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History
shows so many parallels that they must be related in some way. Yet, at the same
time, they also depart from one another on several occasions, perhaps indicating
Jacob’s own customary habit of revising previous Syriac translations.138 This could
imply that Jacob used a source other than Eusebius. But with this data alone, such
is only simple speculation. Other evidence relevant in this regard is that Michael
claims that Jacob used both Josephus and Eusebius,139 but again it is not entirely
clear if Jacob used Josephus directly or if he only used Josephus through Eusebius’
many citations of Josephus’ work.
Further guidance on this matter is given by Silvia Castelli, who conducted a study
on the use of Josephus’ work in Syriac sources. She notes that though Josephus’
War was translated into Syriac, all are agreed that his Antiquities, the work which
contains the TF, was never translated into Syriac.140 Therefore, practically all
quotations of the Antiquities that remain in Syriac literature are ultimately derived
from the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, which quotes the
Antiquities many times. In Castelli’s survey of Syriac authors, no Syriac work can be
shown to be consistently familiar with the Greek Antiquities in any kind of direct
way,141 but for one exception: the Record of Times by Michael the Syrian.142 Yet,

137 Jacob was the author of the first comprehensive Syriac Grammar and also revised the Syriac trans-
lations of various Greek homilies and biblical texts. For discussion, see the articles in Romeny, Jacob of
Edessa.
138 For a good discussion on this matter, see Whealey, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and
Arabic’, 578–80.
139 Michael the Syrian, Record of Times preface (found in Bedrosian §2; Chabot vol. 1. p. 2;
Zhamanakagrut’iwn, 3 lines 5–6).
140 Castelli, ‘Riferimenti a Flavio Giuseppe’, 202; Brock, ‘Some Syriac Legends Concerning Moses’,
249; Brock, ‘Josephus’.
141 For a survey of Syriac authors and their relationship with Josephus, see Castelli, ‘Riferimenti a
Flavio Giuseppe’, 202–17.
142 ‘Michael seems to have been the first to benefit from Joseph’s Greek text’ (Michele pare essere stato
il primo a fruire del testo greco di Giuseppe); Castelli, ‘Riferimenti a Flavio Giuseppe’, 223.
60 Josephus and Jesus

as I have just discussed, Michael portrays the pre-Islamic portion of his Record of
Times—the portion in which he many times quotes Josephus—as incorporating
wholesale Jacob’s own Chronicle. So, the fact that Michael’s work contains unique
quotations of the Antiquities in its earlier sections can be accounted for not because
Michael had access to a Greek version of the Antiquities, but because his source,
Jacob, did.143
Castelli then surveys Michael’s Record of Times and gives several examples of its
quotations of the Antiquities that are unknown in both Eusebius and other Syriac
sources, noting that many of these quotations closely follow the Greek text of the
Antiquities, while others abbreviate material.144 Most crucially, she also observes

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

that whenever Michael’s Record of Times utilizes material from the Antiquities not
quoted in other Syriac sources, then it explicitly cites its source as coming from one
of Josephus’ ‘books’ or otherwise makes an explicit citation.145 Twice it even gives
a title, once using the term ‘Antiquities’ (‫)ܐܪܟܐܘܠܘܓܝܐ‬146 and another time the
ܵ
‘Government’ or ‘Polity of the Jews’ (‫ܕܝܘܕܝܐ‬ ‫)ܕܘܒܪܐ‬.147 On the other hand, when the
Record of Times appears to be indirectly using Josephan material derived from an-
other source, it then only records more vaguely that Josephus ‘said’ something,148
and twice even indicates that it is quoting Josephus ‘through Eusebius’.149 Castelli
concludes, ‘Consequently, the direct use of the text of Josephus seems limited to
the passages in which Michael makes explicit declaration’.150

143 Adding to this is the fact that Michael appears to claim that he only used Syriac sources for his
Record of Times; see Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 11.17.
144 Castelli, ‘Riferimenti a Flavio Giuseppe’, 217–20. Castelli also indicates, without specifying, that
there are times when Michael expands on the testimony of Josephus (p. 220), but I have only been able
to discover one of these instances. Here, Michael, or his source, states that the words of Eusebius in
Ecclesiastical History 3.5.3 are actually those of Josephus (Michael, Record of Times 6.2; Chabot vol.
1 pp. 163–4 (French); vol. 4 p. 99 (Syriac)). But this likely occurred because in the next section, 3.5.4,
Eusebius somewhat confusingly says that the previous events can be found in Josephus, thus perhaps to
some readers Eusebius might be read as attributing the former statement to Josephus. Though Michael’s
source has been sloppy here, Michael does not preface the quotation by stating that the information
was found in a ‘book’, which follows Castelli’s observation that here Michael (or more accurately his
source, Jacob of Edessa) is indicating that he obtained this information indirectly, a fact I discuss imme-
diately below.
145 Michael, Record of Times 1.4, 1.5, 2.2 (Chabot vol. 1 pp. 5, 6, 8, 17 (French); vol. 4 pp. 3, 4, 8
(Syriac).
146 Michael, Record of Times 2.2 (Chabot vol. 1 p. 17 (French); vol. 4 p. 8 (Syriac); MS f. 7v left col.
line 30 (f. 4v in print edition)).
147 Michael, Record of Times 5.10 (Chabot vol. 1 p. 144 (French); vol. 4 p. 91 (Syriac); MS f. 50r left
column line 16 (f. 47r in print edition)).
148 Michael, Record of Times 2.1, 6.1 (Chabot vol. 1 pp. 14, 152 (French); vol. 4 pp. 6, 94 (Syriac)).
149 Michael, Record of Times 5.10 (Chabot vol. 1 pp. 137, 139 (French); vol. 4 pp. 88, 89 (Syriac)).
150 ‘Di conseguenza, l’uso diretto del testo di Giuseppe pare limitato ai passi in cui Michele ne
fa dichiarazione esplicita’. Castelli, ‘Riferimenti a Flavio Giuseppe’, 220. Castelli also argues that
Michael’s Record of Times (or as I think, his source Jacob of Edessa) only had access to the first book
of the Antiquities because Michael only seems to cite directly from this book, with all other citations,
including the TF, coming through Eusebius (pp. 220, 221, 223). To be fair, however, aside from the
TF, Michael’s Record of Times shows little interest in Josephus’ Antiquities as it moves on through his-
tory. In fact, other than the TF, it only explicitly quotes material after Josephus’ Antiquities book 1 on
one occasion (a long quote it says is taken from Eusebius; see Michael, Record of Times 5.10 (Chabot
vol. 1 pp. 137, 139 (French); vol. 4 pp. 88, 89 (Syriac)). This is despite the fact that Michael (or Jacob)
 The Western and Eastern Reception 61

In other words, Michael’s source for his Record of Times, likely Jacob of Edessa,
seems to have used both the Syriac version of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History and
Josephus’ Greek Antiquities, going back and forth between the two, but in each
case giving indications as to which source was being directly utilized. Intriguingly,
this practice is quite analogous to how Jacob is known to have conducted his trans-
lational work insofar as he would take Syriac translations and revise them in com-
parison with the original Greek.151
It is thus striking how Michael’s Record of Times presents Josephan ma-
terial which could have only been derived from Josephus’ Antiquities, but also
Josephan material that must have been derived from Eusebius, while apparently

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

in each scenario leaving clues as to the ultimate source of the quotations. As I said
above, the best explanation for this is that Michael’s source, Jacob of Edessa, used
both the Syriac version of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History and also the original
Greek of Josephus’ Antiquities. And this is in fact what Michael’s Record of Times
indicates when it cites Josephus ‘through Eusebius’152 and when it says that Jacob
used both Josephus and Eusebius.153 It bears repeating that this practice par-
allels Jacob’s habit of revising previous Syriac translations by checking the ori-
ginal Greek.

certainly had access to other material in the Antiquities through Eusebius. For example, Eusebius
quotes from Josephus’ Antiquities in his Ecclesiastical History 1.5.4 (Antiquities 18.1), 1.10.4 (Antiquities
18.33–5), 1.11.4–6 (Antiquities 18.116–19), 2.5.2–5 (Antiquities 18.257–60), and at least several other
places as well, but these are not used in the Record of the Times. Thus, any silence regarding the later
parts of the Antiquities is more probably due to lack of interest and not because Michael’s source, likely
Jacob, was unable to access the later books of the Antiquities. Moreover, as I will argue below, Michael’s
source indicates that with the TF he is quoting Josephus directly.

151 This practice also squares with how Jacob seems to have checked quotations made by Eusebius.
For example, the Record of Times—which as the reader will remember is based off of Jacob’s
Chronicle—quotes a passage from Josephus’ War that Eusebius also quotes. Here a prophet is presented
wandering throughout Jerusalem prophesying its downfall. But unlike Eusebius, the Record of Times
accurately describes how the prophet was killed upon the city walls and then correctly gives his last
words ‘[woe] to me’ (Chabot vol. 1 p. 168; vol. 4 p. 101; MS f. 55r right col. lines 44; Josephus, War 6.309;
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.8.9). This phrase is also not present in the Syriac translation of the
Ecclesiastical History; see Wright, Maclean, and Merx, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius in Syriac,
133. Indeed, the Record of Times explicitly claims to have consulted Josephus directly, ‘Know, oh reader,
lover of wisdom, that all that is written in the lower column of the preceding page, which makes known
the famine and the massacre which took place during the destruction of Jerusalem, is taken from the
book of Josephus, the diligent chronographer who lived in that time and who wrote seven books on this
last and total destruction of Jerusalem. We have taken partially that which is necessary for the strain of
this history. Whoever desires to know the whole story which exposes all that happened, then read the
book of Josephus. That which I have gathered and placed here is sufficient for this work, which in the
same manner takes up and arranges the exposition of [his] many writings’ (my translation from Syriac
in consultation with the French of Chabot vol. 1 p. 168 (French); Chabot vol. 4 p. 102 (Syriac); MS
f. 55v left column lines 1–10 (f. 52v in print edition)). However, though Jacob has consulted Josephus
directly, this may not have been the Greek version of War, but a pre-existing Syriac translation. But the
Antiquities was never translated into Syriac, so Jacob would have needed to check a Greek manuscript
when consulting that work.
152 Michael, Record of Times 5.10 (Chabot vol. 1. pp. 137, 139 (French); vol. 4 pp. 88, 89 (Syriac)).
153 Michael the Syrian, Record of Times preface (found in Bedrosian §2; Chabot vol. 1. p. 2;
Zhamanakagrut’iwn, 3 lines 5–6).
62 Josephus and Jesus

But most notable of all is that when Michael’s Record of Times comes to the TF,
it employs one of its characteristic explicit citations of Josephus saying that it was
taken from Josephus’ ‘Government of the Jews’ (‫)ܕܘܒܪܐ ܕܝܘܕܝܵܐ‬.154 Per Castelli’s own
observation then, this explicit citation suggests that Jacob’s version of the TF was
taken directly from a Greek manuscript of one of Josephus’s works concerning the
governmental administration of the Jews—and the Antiquities is of course the best
candidate.

Summary and Conclusion

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

In assessing the observations gathered above, it is remarkable that Latin, Syriac,
and Arabic authors, much like their Greek counterparts, all leave hints that the
TF was not as pro-Christian as many of today’s scholars believe. Jerome (c.393 ce)
and Rufinus (c.402/​3 ce) mention none of the fantastic claims in the TF and both
reshape the TF to be much more complimentary to Jesus via their various transla-
tion choices. Cassiodorus (c.585 ce) translated the Antiquities into Latin, yet when
he comes to the TF, he suspiciously chooses to copy Rufinus’ pro-Christian ren-
dering of it. However, when words and phrases in the TF show up throughout the
Antiquities, Cassiodorus instead chooses to translate them ambiguously or slightly
negatively. Jerome, for his part, also provides an interesting textual variant when he
quotes the TF as saying that Jesus was ‘believed to be the Christ’ not that he ‘was
the Christ’. This variant is likewise suggested by Pseudo-Hegesippus’ (c.370 ce)
paraphrase.
Importantly, the same variant is also mirrored in the version of the TF found in
Michael the Syrian’s Record of Times (c.1199 ce), which says ‘it was thought that
he was the Christ’. The variant is also witnessed in Agapius’ Arabic paraphrase
(c.941/​2 ce) which says ‘perhaps he was the Christ’. As I have shown in this chapter,
Michael and Agapius relied on a common source for their versions of the TF, with
Michael clearly preserving the source far more accurately than Agapius. It is also
clear that the identity of their shared source seems to have been Jacob of Edessa
and his now mostly lost Chronicle (c.708 ce). Jacob is by far the most likely can-
didate because Michael the Syrian explicitly casts his Record of Times as a con-
tinuation of Jacob’s work and the few fragmentary remains of Jacob’s Chronicle are
practically identical with corresponding portions of Michael’s Record of Times.
Jacob in turn derived his version of the TF from the Syriac translation of
Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, but he also appears to have corrected it against a
Greek manuscript of the Antiquities. This is probable for five reasons. First, Jacob’s
version of the TF mirrors the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History

154 Michael, Record of Times 5.10 (Chabot vol. 1 p. 144 (French); vol. 4 p. 91 (Syriac); MS f. 50r left
column line 16 (f. 47r in print edition).
 The Western and Eastern Reception 63

quite closely in certain areas, showing that he must have derived the TF from this
translation. Yet his version of the TF also departs from the Ecclesiastical History in
several areas, suggesting at least the possibility that Jacob relied on another source
as well. Secondly, Jacob elsewhere quotes passages from the Antiquities of Josephus
that cannot be found in Eusebius or in any other known Syriac work, implying he
had direct access to the Greek Antiquities. Thirdly, Jacob, is described by Michael
as using both Josephus and Eusebius as sources, again suggesting that Jacob did
in fact use both authors directly. Fourthly, a study of Jacob’s citational practices
show that he reveals whether he is citing Josephus directly or indirectly by making
certain prefatory remarks before each quotation, occasionally even saying that he

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

is citing Josephus through ‘Eusebius’. With the TF, Jacob seems to indicate he is
citing Josephus directly. Fifthly, the idea that Jacob revised a Syriac translation by
checking it with the Greek Antiquities makes good sense for Jacob since he was an
accomplished translator with a known practice of revising previous Syriac transla-
tions by comparing them with the Greek originals.
Taken together, these five points argue persuasively that Michael’s important
variant ‘it was thought that he was the Christ’ can be traced back through Jacob of
Edessa to a Greek manuscript of Josephus’ Antiquities which existed in the Syriac
world no later than 708 ce, when Jacob died.155 Therefore, the Syriac variant pre-
sented by Michael provides a powerful confirmation of Jerome’s synonymous
Latin translation ‘he was believed to be the Christ’, which he made around 393 ce.
Pseudo-Hegesippus (c.370 ce) also suggests that he was aware of a similar reading.
Given these early witnesses, a version of the TF that did not say Jesus ‘was the
Christ’ must have originated quite early. Such a version would have the effect of
making the TF far more neutral or ambiguous regarding Jesus and would in turn
suggest that a non-Christian like Josephus wrote it. As I will show in the next
chapter, there are many reasons for believing that Josephus was responsible for the
TF, and that in it he did not claim that Jesus ‘was the Christ’ but only that Jesus was
‘believed to be’ or was ‘thought to be’ or was simply ‘called’ the Christ.

155 But even if evidence arises proving Jacob not to be the source for Michael's TF, probability would
fall to the next most probable candidate, Theophilus of Edessa (c.785 ce). He, like Jacob, was also a
renowned historian and translator of Greek works. He therefore could have similarly translated the
variant ‘it was thought that he was the Christ’, from Greek manuscripts of the Antiquities of Josephus.
 3
An Authorial Commentary on the
Testimonium Flavianum

In order to make my case about the ambiguity of the Testimonium Flavianum and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

its authenticity, let us now turn to it and work through its various statements.1 As
we go, I will take care to note stylistic similarities between the TF and Josephus’
work, as well as other parallels between the TF and ancient non-Christian state-
ments about Jesus. These observations will aid in evaluating whether Josephus
wrote the words and phrases in the TF and, if so, what he meant by them.
Throughout the investigation I will be guided by the practice of forensic author-
ship attribution and stylistic analysis.2 This field of inquiry is predicated on the
assumption that ‘language users have individual preferences and habits that de-
termine their use of language’.3 Cumulatively, these predilections work to form a
unique linguistic fingerprint, an idiolect, whereby an individual author has the
potential to be identified.4 In this it must be noted that there exists a potential con-
founding factor with identifying stylistic patterns in Josephus’ work, for he reports
that he wrote his War when he was not fully familiar with Greek, and implies that
he used scribes or secretaries to help him.5 It may also be that Josephus further

1 For other close readings of the TF which attend to issues of authenticity and interpretation, see
Bammel, ‘Zum Testimonium Flavianum’; Bardet, Le Testimonium Flavianum, 93–107; Bermejo-Rubio,
‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 353–61; Cernuda, ‘El testimonio flaviano’; Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of
Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum’; Goldberg, ‘Josephus’s Paraphrase Style’, Schwartz, Judaean
Antiquities, Books 18–20, 75–7. For a survey and analysis of the various ways that the TF has been trans-
lated and understood in French literature, see Bardet, Le Testimonium Flavianum, 48–56.
2 Ainsworth and Juola, ‘Modern Forensic Authorship Analysis’; Grant, The Idea of Progress in
Forensic Authorship Analysis. Note that the practice of stylistic analysis is crafted according to each
particular investigation of authorial identity, whereas the discipline of stylometric analysis takes pre-
selected markers of authorship—such as word use frequency, or length of clauses, etc.—and applies
them in a rigorous statistical process, often requiring complex computation. On this, see Grant, The
Idea of Progress in Forensic Authorship Analysis, 24.
3 Ainsworth and Juola, ‘Modern Forensic Authorship Analysis’, 1165.
4 For a brief discussion of what may qualify as a marker of authorial style, see Ainsworth and Juola,
1166–7.
5 Apion 1.50. Forensic authorship attribution becomes more and more accurate to the degree that a
given corpora of documents were written under similar circumstances, in similar genres, and to similar
audiences; see Grant, The Idea of Progress in Forensic Authorship Analysis, 22, 61–2. If Josephus used
secretaries to assist him in writing, then it follows that the circumstances in which he wrote his works
could drastically differ. Interestingly, Josephus does claim personal responsibility for translating his
Antiquities into Greek (Apion 1.1), but he says much the same thing in regard to the War (1.3). However,
in this latter case, he seems unsure of the quality of his Greek (War 7.454).

Josephus and Jesus. T. C. Schmidt, Oxford University Press. © T. C. Schmidt 2025.

DOI: 10.1093/​9780191957697.003.0004
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 65

employed a cast of secretaries to assist him in composing the Antiquities, where

the TF is located. Thackeray even claimed to be able to identify which secretary
was being used based on peculiarities of style evident in various books within the
Antiquities.6 Others have disputed that Josephus used assistants in the Antiquities,7
but even if he only did for his War, then such could still hinder identifying a unique
stylistic fingerprint for Josephus.8
Be that as it may, a sound response to these possibilities is to more heavily
weight stylistic parallels found in the Antiquities than those found in other works
of Josephus. Especially valuable would be parallels in the books of the Antiquities
near to where the TF is located. As the reader will see, many of the stylistic parallels

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

shared between the TF and Josephus’ work do indeed cluster in the sections of the
Antiquities surrounding the TF.

Γίνεται δὲ . . . Ἰησοῦς
‘and Jesus became . . .’

We begin9 in the first line of the TF and straightaway, to the careful reader of
Josephus’ work, the introductory phrase γίνεται δέ could be interpreted as com-
mencing a negative account. For, as Robert Eisler, Henry Thackeray, and Fernando
Bermejo-Rubio have pointed out, γίνεται δέ, in this exact form, is used by Josephus

6 Thackeray claims that one secretary who was fond of Thucydidean phrasing was responsible for
Antiquities books 17–19, Thackeray, Josephus, 110–14, 141.
7 Feldman, ‘Flavius Josephus Revisited’, 860.
8 When forensic stylistic principles are applied to the TF there are several other issues that may either
aid or hinder in identifying its author. Firstly, forensic authorship attribution becomes more and more
simple as the authorial candidates being considered become fewer. In the present investigation, the
main question of interest is whether one author, Josephus, wrote the TF; hence this investigation quali-
fies as the simplest binary form of forensic authorship attribution; see Ainsworth and Juola, ‘Modern
Forensic Authorship Analysis’, 1165–6; Grant, The Idea of Progress in Forensic Authorship Analysis, 18.
Secondly, forensic authorship attribution becomes more and more accurate as the corpora of docu-
ments to be analyzed become larger. In the case of the TF, I will be analyzing a very large corpus of
documents attributed to Josephus (467,298 words, according to the Accordance database), against the
small ninety-word TF. The smallness of the target corpus is not insurmountable though, as the target
document is often quite small in these kinds of investigations, and evidently in criminal cases it aver-
ages 248 words, with most being smaller than two hundred words; see Grant, The Idea of Progress in
Forensic Authorship Analysis, 22–3; see 61–2 for other considerations.
9 It is appropriate at the beginning of this investigation to say that the TF is not mentioned in the an-
cient tables of contents associated with the Antiquities. There is reason for thinking that this table was
assembled by a Jew, perhaps at the time the Antiquities was composed or shortly thereafter. However, the
fact that the tables do not mention the TF is unremarkable given that they also do not mention assuredly
authentic passages about John the Baptist, or James the brother of Jesus, and many other events de-
scribed in the Antiquities. On account of this, it seems to have been the case that whoever composed the
tables of contents did not think that events related to Jesus and his associates were worth highlighting.
Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 556–7 n. 58. For discussion on the tables of contents, their Greek text and
a translation pertaining to Antiquities books 18–20; see, respectively, Thackeray, Josephus: Jewish
Antiquities, Volume IV: Books 1–4, 636–7; Feldman, Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, Volume VIII, Books
18–19, 390–403; Feldman, Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, Volume IX: Book 20, 146–54.
66 Josephus and Jesus

on many other occasions (twenty-seven by my counting),10 and with roughly half

of these11 it introduces ‘a calamity, disturbance or trouble, or some individual who
is the source of such trouble’.12 For instance, a parallel occurs when ‘Antiochus
became an origin of disturbances once more’ (Γίνεται δὲ πάλιν ἀρχὴ θορύβων
Ἀντίοχος);13 or ‘there was a group of women in the court who agitated newer
disturbances’ (Γίνεται δὲ καὶ γυναικῶν σύνταγμα κατὰ τὴν αὐλήν, ὃ νεωτέρους
ἐκίνησεν θορύβους).14 Some even occur in the very book of the Antiquities where
the TF is placed, as when Josephus says, ‘A terrible calamity arose . . .’ (Γίνεται δὲ . . .
συμϕορὰ δεινή).15
In fact, γίνεται δέ is so stereotypically Josephan that Eisler and Thackeray

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

wanted to emend the TF to make it say that Jesus ‘became’ (γίνεται) a ‘disturbance’
(θόρυβος) or a ‘sedition’ (στάσις), on the grounds that this matched Josephus’ typ-
ical style of partnering γίνεται with a predicate, and because it also fitted the sur-
rounding context of the TF, which speaks of five similar stories of uproar, most of
which use θόρυβος to describe each affair.16 But, as the passage stands, it can al-
ready be interpreted as having a predicate, ‘In this time Jesus became a wise man’17
or just ‘In this time there was Jesus, a wise man’. And, in any case, Josephus did not
always use γίνεται with a predicate,18 nor did he always use the phrase in a nega-
tive way,19 as when he says, ‘And not long afterward a son came for Abraham from
Sarah’ (Γίνεται δὲ Ἁβράμῳ μετ᾿ οὐ πολὺ καὶ παῖς ἐκ Σάρρας);20 or ‘an ark also
was [devoted] to God’ (Γίνεται δὲ καὶ κιβωτὸς τῷ θεῷ),21 or the almost identical,

10 Excluding the TF, Josephus uses the exact form of the phrase γίνεται δέ eighteen times and the
phrase γίνεται δ᾿ nine times. I tabulated these numbers by searching for the exact form of each phrase
in the Accordance Josephus Tagged Greek Database.
11 These may be found in Antiquities 18.310, 20.76, 20.118, 20.173; War 1.45, 1.86, 1.99, 1.128, 1.292,
1.517, 1.568, 1.648, 4.76, 4.208.
12 Thackeray, Josephus, 142–3. For further discussion, see Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’,
353–4; Eisler, The Messiah Jesus, 42–5.
13 War 1.99.
14 War 1.568. Also, War 4.208, ‘John became a cause for the destruction of all of these people’
(Γίνεται δὲ τούτοις πᾶσιν ὀλέθρου παραίτιος Ἰωάννης). See also War 1.517, 4.76; Antiquities 18.310,
20.118, 20.173. As these passages demonstrate, γίνεται need not be translated with the present tense
and hence does not indicate that Jesus was still alive, contrary to Feldman, ‘On the Authenticity of the
Testimonium Flavianum’, 21.
15 Antiquities 18.310.
16 Eisler, The Messiah Jesus, 50–1; Thackeray, Josephus, 140–3. Mason finds five incidents of uproar
(Antiquities 18.55–9, 60–2, 65–80, 81–4, and 85–7), which are placed immediately surrounding the TF
(Antiquities 18.63–4); see Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 225–6. Bermejo-Rubio, Eisler, and
Nordon, though, note four different occasions of uproar (Antiquities 18.55–9, 60–2, 65–84, and 85–7);
see Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 359; Eisler, The Messiah Jesus, 42–3; Norden, ‘Josephus und
Tacitus’, 640–1. However, this method of segmentation combines two stories that even Josephus himself
considered to be distinct accounts (Antiquities 18.65). See further discussion in Chapter 4 pp. 130–31.
17 I first learned of this possible interpretation from Cernuda, ‘El testimonio flaviano’, 359.
18 Thus, he sometimes used the phrase to introduce the existence, flourishing, arrival, or birth of a
person; for example, see Antiquities 17.14 and the similar phrase in Antiquities 1.213. For usages of the
phrase without a predicate and without reference to humans, see Antiquities 3.134.
19 Antiquities 2.4, 3.134, 20.51, 20.230; War 1.189, 1.499.
20 Antiquities 1.213.
21 Antiquities 3.134.
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 67

though not exact, phrase ‘Now Malichos was worried, as he was in Tyre’ (Μάλιχος
δὲ ὑποπτεύσας, ὡς ἐν Τύρῳ γίνεται).22
Furthermore, the Gospel of Matthew describes the near riot at Jesus’ trial as
an ‘uproar’ (θόρυβος),23 so it is difficult to see why a Christian scribe would have
omitted the same term from the TF. Besides, not all of the five stories adjacent to
the TF use θόρυβος,24 and the TF’s description of Jesus ‘bringing over’ (or even
‘misleading’) many Jews and Greeks before his execution has all the hallmarks of
an ‘uproar’ even if such vocabulary is not specifically deployed.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον
‘in this time’

This phrase of course has no suspicious content, but it does contain notable styl-
istic counterparts with other passages in Josephus. For example, one unnoted
parallel deploys the same prepositional phrase (κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον) with
γίνομαι, just as the TF does, ‘For in this time there had not been any high priest’
(καὶ γὰρ οὐδὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον ἀρχιερεύς τις ἐγεγόνει).25 It has likewise
gone unnoticed by scholars that Josephus uses the exact phrase κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν
χρόνον four total times, all of which cluster around books 13–20 of the Antiquities
and two of which occur shortly before and after the TF.26

Ἰησοῦς [τις]:
‘[a certain] Jesus’

Moving along, another possibly negative statement is encountered, ‘a certain Jesus’

(Ἰησοῦς [τις]). This very well could be interpreted in a belittling fashion, and ac-
cording to LSJ, the indefinite adjective τις may carry ‘a sense of contempt’ when
used with proper names,27 as it is used here. Josephus in fact deployed the same
exact phrase for the head of a band of robbers also named Jesus, whom Josephus
calls ‘a certain Jesus’ (Ἰησοῦς τις).28 He also uses the same term to introduce a false

22 War 1.231.
23 Matthew 27:24. See also Matthew 26:5; Mark 14:2.
24 Antiquities 18.81–4 does not use θόρυβος or its derivatives. It also does not use στάσις. If one were
to claim that the use of θορυβέω in Antiquities 18.65 applies to the story in Antiquities 18.81–4, then,
from context, it must not apply to the story in Antiquities 18.66–80. Either way, one of the five stories
does not contain the word θόρυβος or its derivatives.
25 Antiquities 13.46.
26 Antiquities 13.46, 17.19, 18.39, 18.80. For this statistic I ran a search in Accordance for the exact
form of the phrase κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον. For very similar, though not exact, phrases, see Antiquities
13.171, 13.351.
27 LSJ, Τις, A II 6 p. 1796–8. For example, Sophocles writes about ‘a certain Thersites’ (Θερσίτης τις),
whom he presents as an uncontrolled babbler; see Sophocles, Philoctetes 442 (=​TLG 0011.016).
28 War 3.450.
68 Josephus and Jesus

messiah as ‘a certain Menahem’ (Μανάημός τις)29 and Tacitus, a younger contem-

porary of Josephus, refers to another messianic claimant with the Latin equivalent,
Simo quidam, or ‘a certain Simon’.30 According to Justin, Trypho the Jew used it
of Jesus himself, ‘a certain Jesus, a Galilean deceiver, whom we crucified’ (Ἰησοῦ
τινος Γαλιλαίου πλάνου ὃν σταυρωσάντων ἡμῶν);31 as does even Satan in the
Gospel of Nicodemus, who talks of ‘a certain Jesus’ (τις Ἰησοῦς).32 Finally, the proc-
urator Festus refers to Jesus with the same phrase ‘a certain Jesus’ (τινος Ἰησοῦ) in
Acts 25:19. Moreover, the phrase is thoroughly Josephan since on twenty-six other
occasions Josephus deploys a proper noun and modifies it immediately afterward
with τις in the singular, masculine, nominative form.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

It is little wonder then that Christian scribes omitted the word from all Greek
manuscripts of Josephus’ Antiquities,33 and that the only reason we are aware
of its existence is because it is preserved by Eusebius via manuscript A of the
Ecclesiastical History34 and in its ancient Syriac (‫)ܚܕ‬35 and Armenian (մի) trans-
lations.36 Michael the Syrian’s version of the TF, which I argue in Chapter 2 was
derived from Jacob of Edessa (c.708 ce), also preserves ‘a certain wise man, whose
name was Jesus’ (‫)ܓܒܪܐ ܚܕ ܚܟܝܡܐ ܕܫܡܗ ܝܫܘܥ‬.37 And according to Bermejo-Rubio,
the Slavonic recension of Josephus’ work contains vestiges of this word with the
phrase muži nĕkij, which may be ‘retroverted into Greek’ as ἀνήρ τις.38

29 War 2.433. See also Antiquities 4.14 (Korah), 5.33 (Achan); War 2.57 (Simon), 4.503 (another
Simon). For further references, see Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 358 n. 152.
30 Tacitus, Histories 5.9. Latin from Bermejo-Rubio, 358 n. 153; Eisler, The Messiah Jesus, 47.
31 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 108.2 (ed. Marcovich, Iustini Martyris: Dialogus cum Tryphone, 255
lines 9–10 =​ TLG 0645.003 line 5). On Justin’s knowledge of Jewish Christianity, see Paget, ‘Jewish
Christianity’, 756–7.
32 Gospel of Nicodemus 20.1 line 6 (=​TLG 2976.001).
33 The existence of the indefinite article τις caused Eisler to conclude that it must not have been
added by a Christian, Eisler, ‘Jésus d’après la version slave de Flavius Josèphe’, 2.
34 MS Paris Grec 1430 (tenth century) f. 26b line 3. See Image 6. Further pictures may be found
at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722779g/f32.item.zoom. This manuscript is discussed in
Schwartz and Mommsen, Eusebius Werke 2.1–3: Die Kirchengeschichte, GCS 9.3 p. xxiii.
35 MS British Library Add. 14639 (sixth century) f. 14b left col, line 29; MS Russian National Library
Siriyskaya novaya seria 1 #24 (462 ce) f. 16a right col, line 26; BL.Add.12154, f. 151r line 20 (eighth/​
ninth century). See Images 9, 10, and 11. The first two manuscripts are discussed in Wright, Maclean,
and Merx, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius in Syriac, v–xii.
36 MS HMML 7640 (Codex Mechitaristarum Vindobonensis 49 (70C)) f. 15a line 22. See Image
13. For text and discussion, see Preuschen, ‘Eusebius Kirchengeschichte Buch VI und VII aus dem
Armenischen übersetzt’; Wright, Maclean, and Merx, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius in Syriac,
xiii–xvii; Carean, Patmut’iwn Eketec’woy Eusebiosi Kesrac’woy.
37 Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 5.10 [91] found in MS Edessa-Aleppo Codex 50r left col, line
17. For pictures of the manuscript, see Image 12 and n. 93 in Chapter 2.
38 Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 358. I thank Viacheslav Lytvynenko for confirming this
Slavonic reading for me, though he cautions ‘The phrase muži nĕkij is indeed a retroverted transla-
tion of the Greek ἀνήρ τις, although a more precise rendering of ἀνήρ is muž (singular) rather than
muži (plural)’ (personal correspondence January 2024). Peter Williams also cautioned me that there
are many instances in Syriac translation where ḥad (‫ )ܚܕ‬is added when it does not correspond with a
Greek word, so it is possible that the Syriac translation of the TF does not actually witness to the Greek
term. See Williams, Early Syriac Translation Technique, 133–41.
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 69

But it must be said that one is not required to read the τις negatively, for it
does not always imply disparagement and indeed Josephus will use it for people
whom he esteems, like Naboth39 and Manoah.40 One could also interpret τις as
modifying ‘a wise man’ to make the introduction of the TF read ‘in this time there
was Jesus, a certain wise man . . .’. Given these things, τις is therefore ambiguous
and could plausibly be read negatively or neutrally. Josephus, for example, may
have been inspired to speak of Jesus with τις due to traditions he shared with the
Jewish-Christian account of Jesus known as the Gospel of the Ebionites. Quotations
from this Gospel introduce Jesus like this: ‘And there was a certain man by the
name of Jesus’ (ἐγένετό τις ἀνὴρ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦς).41 Notable here is that this

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

phrase introduces Jesus with the same two words—γίνομαι and τις—that the TF
also uses to introduce Jesus ‘there was in that time a certain Jesus’ (Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ
τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς τις). In this case however the Gospel’s use of τις cannot
be seen as derogatory because it does not modify the proper name of Jesus; but
even so, the TF may not necessarily be derogatory either. All that to say, it is pos-
sible that this shared wording is not mere coincidence and that the TF and the
Gospel of the Ebionites were drawing from the same Jewish tradition about Jesus.
So then, with just a handful of words, we have already noted striking parallels
with Josephan phrasing, found reasons for interpreting the TF as possibly negative
or at least ambiguous, and highlighted intriguing correspondence between the TF
and early Jewish traditions about Jesus. And there is more of the same to come.

σοϕὸς ἀνήρ:
‘a wise man’

The next phrase in the TF appears to praise Jesus as a wise man by calling him a
σοϕὸς ἀνήρ. This accords with the style of Josephus, who uses, in the Antiquities no
less, the same locution for Solomon (ἀνδρὶ σοϕῷ)42 and Daniel (σοϕὸς ἀνήρ).43
The phrase also follows at least roughly the general pattern of how Josephus treated
the messianic claimant Menahem, mentioned above, ‘who was called the Galilean,
a most ruthless sophist’ (τοῦ καλουμένου Γαλιλαίου, σοϕιστὴς δεινότατος).44
Though Josephus here uses a negative term σοϕιστής when speaking of Menahem’s
wisdom, he elsewhere has Pharaoh call his magicians ‘wise’ (σοϕῶν). Immediately

39 Antiquities 8.355.
40 Antiquities 5.276. Bermejo-Rubio says that Josephus uses τις to refer to Abraham; see
Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 358. I have been unable to find this passage, however.
41 Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.2 (=​TLG 2021.002, 1.349 line 4).
42 Antiquities 8.53.
43 Antiquities 10.237.
44 War 2.433.
70 Josephus and Jesus

afterwards Josephus puts the positive term σοϕίας in the mouth of Moses to have
him admit that the magicians of Pharaoh did indeed possess ‘wisdom’ (σοϕίας).45
Similarly, the TF’s apparent praise for Jesus’ wisdom is not out of order when
compared with other non-Christian sources and hence may well have been un-
remarkable for a first-century Jew, like Josephus, to have said. The evidently
non-Christian Mara bar Serapion (first–third century), a Syriac philosopher,
calls Jesus ‘wise’ (‫)ܚܟܝܡܐ‬.46 The virulently anti-Christian writer Porphyry ap-
proves of an oracle that classifies Jesus as among the ‘wise men of the Hebrews’
(sapientes Hebraeorum).47 Lactantius quotes a similar statement by the Milesian
Apollo, which deploys the same vocabulary as the TF to state that Jesus was a

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

‘wise man’ (σοϕός).48 Consequently, calling Jesus ‘wise’ does not necessarily
signal that the TF was written by a Christian, or even that the TF was a positive
portrayal of Jesus.
Adding to this point is the fact that the New Testament authors never call
Jesus a ‘wise man’ (σοϕός) and Luke alone directly states that Jesus had ‘wisdom’,
but he only applies this to the boy Jesus.49 A crowd once or twice declares that
Jesus possessed great ‘wisdom’,50 but again this does not seem to be a typical way
early Christians spoke about Jesus. The apostle Paul even condemns ‘wise men’
(σοϕοί),51 and Jesus too critiqued them.52 This tendency continued in other early
Christian writings with Ignatius of Antioch, Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, and
Clement of Alexandria all doing the same,53 likely because the term ‘wise man’
was so often associated with pagan philosophy. Of course, in a sense, all Christians
would have confessed that Jesus was profoundly wise—and certainly some early
Christians would have called Jesus ‘a wise man’—but nevertheless there was clearly
suspicion over the term. Yet, as seen above, non-Christians had no such qualms
and would often label Jesus ‘a wise man’.

45 Antiquities 2.285–6.
46 Letter of Mara bar Serapion found in Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum, 46 (Syriac pagination) line
19. On the various debates over the date of Mara bar Serapion (some of which push him into the fourth
or fifth centuries) and whether he was a Christian or not, see the essays in Merz and Tieleman, The
Letter of Mara Bar Serapion.
47 Ab his sapientes Hebraeorum (quorum unus iste etiam Iesus fuit, sicut audisti diuina Apollinis, quae
superius dicta sunt). Augustine, City of God 19.23 (693, 115–17), Latin from the Corpus Augustinianum
Gissense, https://cag3.net/. For discussion, see Cook, The Interpretation of the New Testament in
Greco-Roman Paganism, 112.
48 Lactantius, Institutes 4.13.11, found in Brandt and Laubmann, L. Caeli Firmiani Lactanti: Opera
omnia, 319 line 7. For discussion, see Cook, The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman
Paganism, 108. Lucian, another critic of Christianity, comes close to this when he contemptu-
ously speaks of ‘that crucified sophist’ (ἀνεσκολοπισμένον ἐκεῖνον σοϕιστήν); see Lucian, Death of
Peregrinus 13 line 17 (=​TLG 0062.042).
49 Luke 2:40, 52.
50 Matthew 13:54; Mark 6:2.
51 1 Corinthians 1:18–25.
52 Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21.
53 For example, Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians 18; Justin, Dialogue 32.5; Irenaeus,
Against Heresies 1.20.3; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 5.1.8.
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 71

So, once more, calling Jesus a ‘wise man’ seems more appropriate coming from a
non-Christian than an early Christian. Beyond all this though, how one interprets
Jesus’ wisdom in the TF hinges on how one interprets the very next clause.54

εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή:

‘if indeed one ought to call him a man’

This phrase is quite Josephan, for instance ‘if one ought to have said [it occurred] by
chance’ (εἴτε ὑπὸ τύχης χρὴ λέγειν)55 and ‘if one ought to call it strength of opinion’

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

(εἴτε τῆς γνώμης ἰσχὺν χρὴ λέγειν)56 and ‘there, one must speak true things’ (ἔνθα
χρὴ τἀληθῆ λέγειν).57 The word εἴγε is used twenty-one times outside of the TF in
Josephus, and five of these times it is deployed nearby the TF in Antiquities 17.181,
17.311, 18.9, 18.128, and 20.41.58 The lexeme χρή complemented by λέγω is used
five other times by Josephus,59 and on one other occasion Josephus matches the TF
by using λέγω and the pronoun αὐτός to designate calling someone a certain term,
as with ‘calling him an Alexandrian’ (λέγων αὑτὸν Ἀ λεξανδρέα).60
It is often claimed, however, that the phrase at hand is suspicious because it
goes beyond simply complementing the wisdom of Jesus and seems instead to
be denying his humanity in order to promote his divinity.61 In this one must re-
member that Christian authors like Origen, Eusebius, and practically all others
ardently felt that Jesus was in fact human.62 They consequently would have viewed
any denials of his humanity as heretical. Therefore, most Christians—authors and
scribes—would likely not have interpolated such a statement into the TF. And,
more pointedly, one could always interpret the above statement as sarcastically
implying that Jesus was less than human.63 Evidence of this is that Josephus does

54 Additionally, the weakly positive ‘wise’ falls far below Christian estimations of Jesus. It there-
fore seems unlikely for a Christian forger to insert; see Bardet, Le Testimonium Flavianum, 98–9;
Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 357 n. 148.
55 War 3.391.
56 War 7.417.
57 War 1.16. Other instances exist as well (such as War 5.97). Mealand seems not have accounted
for these in his research, for he says that the phrase εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή is not particularly
Josephan; see Mealand, ‘On Finding Fresh Evidence’, 84 n. 12.
58 In this count I am including εἴγε and the synonymous εἴ γε, as the only difference between the two
is whether an editor has decided to insert a space, but in ancient Greek speaking and writing, the spa-
cing would often be irrelevant.
59 War 1.16, 2.366, 3.391, 5.461, 7.417.
60 Apion 2.41. Josephus may also use the same locution in Apion 1.82, but this seems more likely to be
the quoted words of Manetho.
61 Pines, An Arabic Version, 19–20; Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 234.
62 See, for example, Origen’s definition of apostolic doctrine affirming Jesus’ humanity; see Origen,
First Principles 1.pref.4; or Eusebius’ creedal like statements in Ecclesiastical Theology 1.6.1–1.7.3.
63 While it is unconvincing that the entire TF could be interpreted ironically or sarcastically, Vicent
Cernuda makes a strong case that at least this phrase of the TF could be interpreted in such a way; see
Cernuda, ‘El testimonio flaviano’, 359–65. See also Bammel, ‘Zum Testimonium Flavianum’, 18.
72 Josephus and Jesus

elsewhere enjoy using sarcastic barbs in his work. For example, in Against Apion,
he sarcastically calls Apion ‘the wonderful Apion’ (ὁ δὲ θαυμαστὸς Ἀπίων).64 And
he does the same with Justus of Tiberias, his hated enemy, whom he names ‘the
most skillful of writers’ (δεινότατε συγγραϕέων).65 If one interprets the TF’s state-
ment about Jesus’ humanity as sarcasm, such would then cast negative light on
the previous statement that Jesus was ‘wise’ in as much as it too would become
sarcastic. The statement may thus hearken back to how in the Gospels Jesus was ac-
cused of not only being in league with demons, but also of being a demon himself.66
Either way though, it was not out of line for an ancient non-Christian to sug-
gest that Jesus was something more than human. For instance, as great a critic

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

of Christianity as Porphyry was willing to admit that certain gods declared that
‘Christ was most faithful and has been made immortal’. He then goes on to cite an
oracle in support of this.67 Porphyry himself seems to have classified Jesus as an
‘undefiled soul’ and hence one of the three kinds of ‘superior beings’ that accom-
pany the gods.68
Such sentiments would also not have appeared to be atypical of Josephus since he
employs the epithet ‘divine’ (θεῖος) to describe Jewish figures like Moses, Solomon,
and Isaiah.69 He even affirms that Moses’ ‘power was beyond human’ (τῆς ὑπὲρ
ἄνθρωπόν ἐστι δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ)70 and that Moses’ legislation ‘made the man to be
considered greater than his nature’ (τῆς αὐτοῦ ϕύσεως κρείττονα νομίζεσθαι).71 It
may also have been that Josephus considered Jesus to be on par with the magicians
of Pharaoh who, according to Moses, did have ‘wisdom’ (σοϕίας) and could per-
form a miraculous sign (παράδοξον), but their power was not divine (εἰς θεόν),
only human (τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων) and wrought by magic (μαγείας).72 Such is espe-
cially probable given how many statements in the TF overlap with Josephus’ ac-
count of Moses and the sorcerers of Egypt, as I will show further on in this chapter.
Whatever the case, the TF does not present Josephus as actually calling Jesus divine
anyway, but only presents this as a potential possibility—as long as one does not in-
terpret the statement more negatively.

64 Apion 2.25.
65 Life 340.
66 Matthew 10:25.
67 τὸν γὰρ Χριστὸν οἱ θεοὶ εὐσεβέστατον ἀπεϕήναντο καὶ ἀθάνατον γεγονότα. Eusebius,
Demonstration 3.7.1 (134b) lines 2–3 (=​ TLG 2018.005). See also Augustine, City of God 19.23 (691,
48–51). For discussion, see Cook, The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism, 109.
68 Ibid., 111.
69 For example, Antiquities 3.180 (Moses), 8.34 (Solomon), and 10.35 (Isaiah). Carl Holladay, fol-
lowed by Paul Spilsbury, has argued that in these instances Josephus is not claiming that these people
actually were divine, but rather that they were holy or otherwise exemplary figures; see Holladay,
Theios Aner in Hellenistic-Judaism, 47–102, especially 78–9; Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew in Flavius
Josephus’ Paraphrase of the Bible, 107–10. Similarly, Philo also considered calling the mind of Moses
‘divine’; see Philo, De Vita Mosis 1.27.
70 Antiquities 3.318.
71 Antiquities 3.320.
72 Antiquities 2.285–6.
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 73

All of this combines to explain why so many Christian writers may have found
this particular aspect of the TF to be ambiguous and hence not especially useful.
In considering this, I am inclined to think that the phrase should be interpreted
straightforwardly as Josephus expressing diffidence, uncertainty, or ambiguity re-
garding his personal estimation of Jesus, or on the other hand, he might instead
have used the phrase as a way of acknowledging that Jesus was a polarizing figure
among his readers, whatever Josephus’ own opinions may have been.
We, after all, have little reason to assume that a late first-century Jew like Josephus
must have shared the same opinion about Jesus as his readers, or even had a con-
crete opinion at all. This is evidenced by the fact that early Jewish sources had a

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

multitude of shifting, overlapping, and contradictory expectations regarding the
Messiah. Rabbinic sources, for example, mention various kinds of personages who
would presage the Messiah, such as Melchizedek, Elijah, a prophet like Moses, or
another kind of Messiah (making multiple messiahs). Some Jewish sources even
state that the Messiah had already arrived and been killed.73 It could well have
been that Josephus thought Jesus to be one of these kinds of figures, or at least con-
sidered it a possibility.74

ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής:

‘for he was a doer of miraculous deeds’

The phrase ‘he was’ (ἦν γάρ) is used by Josephus in this exact form forty-two other
times in his works. The overall statement, however, seems suspicious to modern
Western sensibilities which find it unlikely that someone could believe in the au-
thenticity of a miracle worker and not also be counted as that person’s devotee.75

73 Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98a.17 (will Messiah come today or not?); Sanhedrin 98a.13 (Messiah
will be glorious versus Messiah will be lowly), Sanhedrin 98b.12,15, 99a3 (Messiah is dead), Sukkah 52a.2–3
(Messiah son of Joseph has already been killed, but the Messiah son of David is still to come), Sukkah 52b.11
(multiple Messiahs). See also Midrash Rabbah, Song of Songs 2.13.4 (Elijah, Melchizedek, a war Messiah
and the actual Messiah); Gospel of John 1:21–5 (the prophet). Scholars acknowledge this point. Bardet,
for example, successfully shows that what a Jew thought about Jesus in this time may not be so obvious; see
Bardet, Le Testimonium Flavianum, 227–32. And Bermijo-Rubio point outs that we should not be ‘preju-
diced and anachronistic’ in our assumptions about what a first-century Jew would think about Jesus; see
Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 348–9. According to Feldman, Rabbi Akiva thought Simon bar
Kochba was the Messiah, yet he remained Jewish. On this, see Feldman, ‘Flavius Josephus revisited’, 829.
In this regard, the ‘Jew of Celsus’ reports that many Jews were followers of Jesus (Origen, Against Celsus
2.1, 4), so it is possible that Josephus himself did also believe that Jesus was the Christ. However, if this is
so, it would raise the question of why Origen said that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ in
Against Celsus 1.47 and Commentary on Matthew 10.17, as I explain on pp. 13–4.
74 For several essays showing that ancient Judaism and Christianity were more intertwined than is
commonly thought, see Becker and Reed, The Ways That Never Parted.
75 Certain scholars have argued that because Eusebius uses the phrase παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής,
he must therefore be the one who interpolated the phrase into the TF. For further discussion on this, see
Appendix 1.
74 Josephus and Jesus

But things were quite different in the ancient world. In fact, Jewish sources other-
wise critical of Jesus repeatedly admit that he did work what we would call ‘miracles’.
We see this most strikingly in the ‘Jew of Celsus’ (c.150 ce) who says that Jesus did
perform παράδοξα, using the precise word deployed by the TF.76 Justin the Martyr
further says that Jews believed Jesus worked miracles by magic,77 and a similar
claim is time and again lodged against Jesus by Jewish authorities in the Gospels
themselves.78 The Babylonian Talmud also criticizes Jesus ‘because he practiced
sorcery’ (‫)שכישף‬.79 And the Jerusalem Talmud states that Jesus’ followers could
heal in his name, yet it still cautions faithful Jews not to be persuaded by them.80
The versions of the Jewish Toledot Yeshu (second–fifth centuries), an early ac-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

count of Jesus,81 are highly critical of him, yet records all sorts of miracles that Jesus
worked including even raising the dead.82 Likewise, a second- or third-century
Jewish-Christian document, perhaps called the Ascents of James, reports that
Jews would accuse Jesus of performing miracles like a sorcerer might do.83 Pagan
sources also spoke similarly, as with the Milesian Apollo, who acknowledged that
Jesus did ‘miraculous deeds’ (τερατώδεσιν ἔργοις)84 and the anti-Christian writer,
Porphyry, effectively agrees.85
More than this, the connotations of the word παράδοξος, though supernat-
ural, were morally questionable and open to negative interpretation. LSJ defines
the term as something ‘incredible’, ‘contrary to expectation’, or even ‘a paradox’.86
The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek further specifies other definitions like ‘sur-
prising’ and ‘strange’.87 So, Plato will say that something is ‘contradictory and false’
(παράδοξόν τε καὶ ψεῦδος),88 and the only time in the New Testament where Jesus

76 Origen, Against Celsus 1.6 (ed. Marcovich, Origenes, 10 line 22 =​ TLG 2042.001 line 18). See also
Origen, Against Celsus 1.28, 38, 2.48–53. For a discussion of Celsus and his use of Jewish documents, see
Niehoff, ‘A Jewish Critique of Christianity from Second-Century Alexandria’.
77 οἱ δὲ καὶ ταῦτα ὁρῶντες γινόμενα ϕαντασίαν μαγικὴν γίνεσθαι ἔλεγον. Justin, Dialogue 69.7 (ed.
Marcovich p. 191 lines 39–40 =​TLG 0645.003 lines 1–2).
78 See, for example, Matthew 9:34, 10:25, 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15.
79 Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a.20; see also 107b.14. For discussion, see Schäfer, Jesus in the
Talmud, 63–74. See also Commodian, Song of the Two Peoples lines 386–396.
80 Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 14.4.12 [14.4.1.3EE of ed. Neusner]; see also Tosefta, Hullin 2.22,
Midrash Rabbah, Ecclesiastes 1.8.3–4. For discussion, see Schäfer, 52–62.
81 For a brief discussion of the dating of the traditions within the Toledot Yeshu, see Chapter 4 n. 42
82 For a listing of Jesus’ miracles in the various versions of the Toledot Yeshu, see Meerson and Schäfer,
Toledot Yeshu, vol. 1 p. 75.
83 Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions 1.58.1, 1.70.2. For the dating of this document and further discus-
sion, see Paget, ‘Jewish Christianity’, 762–3; Jones, An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of
Christianity, 163–4; Broadhead, Jewish Ways of Following Jesus, 202, 267–73.
84 Lactantius, Institutes 4.13.11 (ed. Brandt and Laubmann, L. Caeli Firmiani Lactanti: Opera
omnia, 319 line 7). For discussion, see Cook, The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman
Paganism, 108.
85 Porphyry admits that the apostles did miracles (Jerome, Tractatus de Psalmo 81; found in Morin
vol. 3.2 p. 80 lines 21–2). Similarly, Arnobius engages with an opponent who alleges that Jesus worked
miracles through the knowledge of secret, magical arts or because he was a kind of demigod of old; see
respectively Arnobius, Against the Nations 1.43, 53, and 1.48–9.
86 LSJ, παράδοξος, I.
87 Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, παράδοξος.
88 Plato, Statesman, 281a line 13 (=​TLG 0059.008).
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 75

is ever said to perform παράδοξα is when a crowd says so in Luke 5:26, a statement
that may not be entirely complimentary.89 The New Testament writings instead
prefer to designate miracles with other Greek words like ‘signs and wonders and
mighty works’ (σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασιν καὶ δυνάμεσιν).90
The negative connotations of παράδοξα are most explicitly pointed out by
Eusebius, who, in his discussion of the TF, says there are those who ‘admit that
Jesus performed incredible deeds (τὰ παράδοξα), but that he did so with decep-
tive magic directed at the onlookers, such as by a conjurer or sorcerer, to dazzle
those who stood by’.91 In a passage mentioned above, Josephus closely follows
this understanding when he makes Pharaoh say that the ‘wise’ (σοϕῶν) magi-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

cians of Egypt employed their dark arts (μαγείας) to perform a παράδοξον before
Moses by turning their staffs into snakes, so as to show that they too had some-
thing regarding the divinity (εἰς θεόν). Moses then even acknowledges that the
Egyptians had ‘wisdom’ (σοϕίας), but that their power was really only human
(τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων).92 This passage remarkably pairs with the TF’s similar usages of
παράδοξος, σοϕός, ἀνήρ, and θεῖος93—and all in the context of magic and sorcery.
This, combined with the fact that it does not seem likely that a Christian would
have inserted such a term as παράδοξος into the TF, makes it quite probable that
the TF came from the hand of Josephus. Possible ways of translating παράδοξα
therefore range from anything between the positive ‘miraculous deeds’, to the am-
biguous ‘incredible deeds’ or ‘crazy deeds’,94 to the more negative ‘magical deeds’.
Importantly, the TF’s larger phrase παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής also coheres
well with Josephan style as παραδόξων ἔργων in different forms is used by
Josephus in Antiquities 9.182 and 12.63. Ποιητής is used elsewhere by Josephus
nine times, but only in the sense of ‘poet’, not the sense which the TF gives it of
‘doer’.95 Yet as Meier points out,96 Josephus uses cognates of ποιητής in a similar
way, especially ποίησις for ‘an action’ or ‘a deed’. In fact, by my reckoning Josephus
uses the lexeme ποίησις with a genitive eight total times, seven of which cluster
around Antiquities 17–19, exactly where the TF uses ποιητής with the genitive
‘miraculous deeds’ (παραδόξων ἔργων).97 And on three other occasions Josephus

89 For example, in this passage the NRSV and NKJV versions translate παράδοξα in Luke 5:26 as
‘strange things’, and many other English versions do the same.
90 2 Corinthians 12:12. See also Acts 2:22.
91 Eusebius, Demonstration 3.5.110 (125a–b) (ed. Heikel GCS 23 p. 131 lines 24–6 =​TLG 2018.005
lines 3–5).
92 Antiquities 2.285–6.
93 Josephus’ discussions of the magicians of Egypt does not contain the word ἀνήρ, but it does con-
tain the rough synonym ἀνθρώπινος. For a discussion on the TF’s use of θεῖος with regards to prophets,
see p. 101.
94 I thank Peter Montoro who first suggested to me this possible English phrase.
95 Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 231.
96 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 81 n. 41.
97 For example, ‘the making of siege engines’ (ποίησιν μηχανημάτων), Antiquities 4.299; ‘the doing
of children’ (τῶν παίδων τῆς ποιήσεως), Antiquities 17.94; ‘the making of sacrifices’ (ἱερῶν ποιήσεως),
Antiquities 18:15. See also 18.21, 18.22, 18.55, 18.314, 19.71. To find these I ran a search in Accordance
for the lexeme ποίησις within three words of a genitive.
76 Josephus and Jesus

deploys the term ποίησις not as ‘an action’ but simply as ‘a poem’.98 Why then
should we be surprised if he would alternate between using ποιητής to mean
poet and doer? As the great Josephan scholar Thackeray noted, the style of book
18 of the Antiquities shows a predilection for ‘periphrasis’ and ‘strange words’.99
Hence, for Thackeray it made perfect sense that we would find ποιητής (‘doer’)
written in the TF instead of the simpler verb form ποιεῖν (‘to do’),100 just as κριτής
(a ‘judge’ or perhaps to preserve the awkwardness a ‘judger’) is used instead of
κρίνειν (‘to judge’) shortly thereafter in Antiquities 19.217. Given these parallels
with Josephan style and the possible negative implications of παράδοξα, it seems
far more plausible that Josephus was responsible for this phrase than it being the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

result of Christian interpolation.

διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων:

‘a teacher of men who receive truisms with pleasure’

This phrase is thoroughly Josephan. Διδάσκαλος (teacher) is used sixteen other

times by Josephus, often quite negatively.101 In these instances though, he uses it
with a genitive to indicate the content of teaching, as in ‘a teacher of good things’
(διδάσκαλός τε ἀγαθῶν),102 ‘a teacher of evil’ (κακίας διδάσκαλον),103 ‘teachers of
wisdom’ (διδασκάλους σοϕίας),104 and ‘a teacher of flattery and fear’ (κολακείας
δὲ καὶ ϕόβου διδάσκαλοι).105 Only once does he parallel the TF by using it with
the genitive to indicate the person taught (as opposed to the subject matter), as
with ‘he was a teacher of lies to the Sicarii’ (διδάσκαλος ἦν τῶν σικαρίων τῆς
ψευδολογίας).106 Given this usage pattern, it is possible to instead translate the
passage in the TF as ‘one who taught about men who receive truisms with pleasure’,
but it need not be understood this way, especially given evidence I will present in
the next section.
In any case, the phrase ἡδονῇ . . . δεχομένων is markedly Josephan as well and
is used with the dative ἡδονή eight total times by Josephus, all of which remark-
ably cluster around Antiquities 17–19, most of them in book 18, precisely where

98 Apion 1.12 (two occasions), 2.155.

99 Thackeray, Josephus, 132. Thackeray attributed changes in style within the works of Josephus to
various secretaries, but other scholars have disagreed; see nn. 6 and 7. In either case, whoever was re-
sponsible for the style of the latter books of the Antiquities clearly did have a fondness for periphrastic
constructions.
100 Thackeray, Josephus, 144.
101 For further discussion on the negative aspects of διδάσκαλος in Josephus, see Bermejo-Rubio,
‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 354.
102 Antiquities 13.115.
103 Antiquities 17.325.
104 Antiquities 18.16.
105 Antiquities 19.172.
106 War 7.444.
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 77

the TF uses the same wording.107 Once Josephus deploys the phrase in the same
form as the TF: ‘which the counselors received with pleasure’ (τῶν βουλευτῶν
ἡδονῇ δεχομένων).108 Similarly, Josephus four times uses ἄνθρωπος alongside
δέχομαι, all of which occur in the latter part of the Antiquities.109 Τἀληθῆ is also
Josephan and is used by him thirty-nine times in its crasis form, eight of which
occur in the same case and number as in the TF. Of these eight, five appear in the
Antiquities.110
Despite these parallels, the phrase as a whole often strikes contemporary readers
as suspicious because it presents a positive estimation of Jesus insofar as he ap-
parently taught those who ‘receive truths’. But this phrase may still be interpreted

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

as fairly derogatory given that the word for ‘pleasure’ (ἡδονή) was often a nega-
tive term among ancient Christian writers. Thus, Eusebius dedicates two chap-
ters of his Preparation of the Gospel toward refuting ‘those who define ἡδονή as
the chief end’111 and in Josephus it functions similarly, especially when partnered
with δέχομαι. This can be observed in the very same book where the TF occurs.
For example, ‘the men received the hearing of what they said with pleasure’ (καὶ
ἡδονῇ γὰρ τὴν ἀκρόασιν ὧν λέγοιεν ἐδέχοντο οἱ ἄνθρωποι), which, as Josephus
explains, caused evil to fill the nation;112 or, when a man ‘received the request with
pleasure’ (καὶ δεχομένου τὴν ἱκετείαν ἡδονῇ)113 in order to lead a woman astray.114
As I said, both of these occur in the very same book of the Antiquities where the TF
is located, and both of them are markedly negative. Such suggests that Josephus
intended the phrase ‘receive with pleasure’ to denote an overly excitable or all too
zealous reception of Jesus’ teachings.
This understanding is further supported by the fact that Josephus subtly con-
trasts τἀληθῆ with ἡδονή on 2 other occasions. Once, Pharaoh asks Joseph not
to flatter him when interpreting his dream ‘for the sake of pleasure, even if the
truth be quite gloomy’ (πρὸς ἡδονήν, ἂν τἀληθὲς σκυθρωπότερον ᾖ).115 Secondly,
Josephus declares that while he intends to write with beautiful style so that his
readers ‘may receive the experience with pleasure (ἡδονῆς), what historians should
aim at above all is accuracy and to speak the facts (τἀληθῆ)’.116 These two examples

107 Antiquities 17.329, 18.6, 18.59, 18.70, 18.236, 18.333, 19.127, 19.185. For this number
I used Accordance to perform a search for the lexeme δέχομαι with a dative form of ἡδονή within the
same verse.
108 Antiquities 19.185.
109 Antiquities 14.130, 15.341, 17.329, 18.6.
110 Antiquities 3.74, 3.308, 4.219, 8.23, 14.3; War 1.16, 3.438; Life 262. For this number I used
Accordance to perform a search for the exact form of τἀληθῆ.
111 Πρὸς τοὺς κατ’ ἐπίκουρον ἡδονὴν τέλος ὁριζομένους. Eusebius, Preparation of the Gospel 14.21.1
lines t1–2 (=​TLG 2018.001).
112 Antiquities 18.6.
113 Antiquities 18.70.
114 For further discussion on the negative aspects of ἡδονή and δέχομαι, see Bermejo-Rubio,
‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 354; Thackeray, Josephus, 144–5; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 76 n. 19.
115 Antiquities 2.80.
116 ἡδονῆς τὴν ἐμπειρίαν παραλαμβάνοιεν πάντων δὲ μᾶλλον τῆς ἀκριβείας τοὺς συγγραϕεῖς
στοχάζεσθαι μηδὲν τοῦ τἀληθῆ λέγειν . . . προτιμῶντας. Antiquities 14.3.
78 Josephus and Jesus

put the TF’s phrase ‘receive truisms with pleasure’ in a kind of ambiguous tension
since ‘truths’ (τἀληθῆ) and ‘pleasure’ (ἡδονή) are not particularly complementary
to one another, even if they are not inherently contradictory.
This is not to say that Josephus and even Christian writers could not use ἡδονή
in a positive sense,117 but it certainly had many negative connotations. And we
find proof of such worries in the manuscript tradition of Eusebius’ Demonstration,
where a later scribe has changed the TF’s phrase from ‘a teacher of men who receive
truisms with pleasure’ (τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων) to ‘a teacher of men who
revere truisms’ (διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τἀληθές σεβομένων)—thereby omitting
any mention of ἡδονή.118 Jerome and Rufinus likewise chose less ambiguous Latin

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

phrases when translating the TF, and one Syriac translator did the same.119
Turning to the word ‘truths’ (τἀληθῆ), it appears at first to signal a posi-
tive meaning,120 but when examined in the context of Josephus’ usage pattern a
more neutral implication of τἀληθῆ can be sensed. Of the thirty-nine times that
Josephus makes use of the term in the crasis form, as it occurs in the TF, he never
once appears to refer to some deep, sublime reality or mystical truth.121 Instead, in
all cases he seems rather to be speaking of various ‘facts’, the ‘present situation’, ‘the
way things are’ or ‘truisms’.122 This is in contrast to how Josephus uses the more
profound and abstract ‘truth’ (ἀλήθεια), which he deploys 109 times.123 It would
also be strange for a Christian to interpolate τἀληθῆ, given that it never once ap-
pears in the Septuagint or the New Testament,124 though the more sublime ‘truth’
(ἀλήθεια) occurs frequently.
Accordingly, the term τἀληθῆ in the TF should probably be understood with
little if any profound valence and likely should be taken to be fairly general or
run-of-the-mill truths, as with the English terms ‘facts at hand’, ‘maxims’, ‘pithy say-
ings’, or especially ‘truisms’. Notably this might denote a style of teaching very like

117 For example, Antiquities 18.59 where Jews are willing ‘to receive death with pleasure’ (ἡδονῇ
δέξασθαι τὸν θάνατον) in order to honor their laws. Josephus uses the word ἡδονή positively also in
Apion 2.189. On this passage, see Bardet, Le Testimonium Flavianum, 95–6. For an overview of positive
usages of ἡδονή in both Josephus and Eusebius, see Olson, ‘A Eusebian Reading’, 104–5.
118 For discussion, see Appendix 1 p. 218.
119 See pp. 38, 41–2, 46–7.
120 Some have even suggested emending the term; see Thackeray, Josephus, 145.
121 Antiquities 8.23 is the one possible exception, but here Solomon is praying for wisdom so that he
might judge the people fairly, or as he says ‘I might, by accepting truths and just things, judge the people’
(ἂν τὸν λαὸν τἀληθῆ καὶ τὰ δίκαια λαβὼν κρίνοιμι). Thus, this statement seems best interpreted as an
appeal for sound judgment in regard to the facts, not any kind of profound mystical reality.
122 Antiquities 3.74, 3.308, 4.219, 14.3; Life 262; War 1.16, 3.438.
123 For this number I ran a search in Accordance for the lexeme ἀλήθεια.
124 I confirmed this by a TLG search for the crasis form of τἀληθῆ in the New Testament and the
Septuagint. For similar thoughts, see also Thackeray, Josephus, 145. Several scholars have also sug-
gested that τἀληθῆ could simply be a corruption of τὰ ἄλλα ἔθη, ‘other customs’, on the grounds that
epsilon and eta are often used interchangeably in Greek manuscripts. This would then place the sen-
tence in a completely negative light. On this, see Bardet, Le Testimonium Flavianum, 100; Dubarle, ‘Le
témoignage de Josèphe’, 52. Thackeray and Eisler wonder if the original was instead ‘unusual’ (τὰ ἀήθη)
and argue that a similar scribal mistake was made in War 6.403; see Thackeray, Josephus, 145; Eisler, The
Messiah Jesus, 53.
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 79

the simple kind of sayings and parables attributed to Jesus throughout the Gospels.
And this is indeed how some writers appear to have understood the phrase, such
as Pseudo-Hegesippus who translates τἀληθῆ as ‘moral commands’ (praeceptis
moralibus);125 and also Eusebius, who says that the TF describes Jesus’ teachings
as ξενιζούσῃ . . . διδασκαλίᾳ, which can be rendered neutrally as ‘new teaching’ or
even more negatively as ‘strange teaching’.126
In summary, this section of the TF contains remarkably Josephan vocabu-
lary with its usage of ‘teacher’ (διδάσκαλος), ‘receive with pleasure’ (τῶν
ἡδονῇ . . . δεχομένων), and ‘truisms’ (τἀληθῆ), all of which are strongly or
at least plausibly Josephan. Most importantly though is that these terms do

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

not indicate a positive estimation of Jesus, for ‘teacher’ (διδάσκαλος) is often
used by Josephus negatively, ‘receive with pleasure’ (τῶν ἡδονῇ . . . δεχομένων)
is often negative, and ‘truisms’ (τἀληθῆ) is again fairly mundane in Josephus’
writings. It is quite plausible then that Christian writers would have thought
of the noted phrase as deprecating, or at least ambiguous, and therefore would
not have wanted to promote it. The next passage, I believe, will further confirm
such worries.

καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο:

‘and he brought over many of the Jews and many also of the Greeks’

The phrase πολὺς μὲν . . . πολὺς δέ is typically Josephan. For example, ‘he procured
many horses in quite a short period and many chariots (πολλοὺς μὲν ἵππους ἐν
ὀλίγῳ πάνυ χρόνῳ πολλὰ δ’ ἅρματα ἐκέκτητο);127 and ‘many of Vitellius’ soldiers
and many of the people’ (πολλοὺς μὲν τῶν Οὐιτελλίου στρατιωτῶν πολλοὺς δὲ
τῶν δημοτικῶν);128 and ‘many of the Macedonians and many more of the Greeks’
(πολλοὶ μὲν Μακεδόνων, πλεῖστοι δὲ Ἕλληνες).129 An abundance of other similar,
or even exact, parallels can be found, some of which occur in the same book where
the TF is located.130
Josephus also uses the exact phrase καὶ πολλοὺς μέν on seven occasions131 and
the exact phrase πολλοὺς δὲ καί on five occasions.132 Furthermore, he frequently

125 Pseudo-Hegesippus, On the Ruin of the City of Jerusalem 2.12.1 (ed. Ussani p. 163 lines 12–13).
See also Whealey, ‘Josephus on Jesus: Evidence from the First Millennium’, 299.
126 Eusebius, Demonstration 3.5.108 (124d) line 3 (=​ TLG 2018.005). For discussion, see Whealey,
‘Josephus on Jesus: Evidence from the First Millennium’, 299.
127 Antiquities 7.194.
128 War 4.654.
129 Antiquities 18.372.
130 See Antiquities 8.294, 9.85, 12.401, 15.61, 15.296, 16.234, 18.353, 20.177. See also Antiquities
18.372, quoted above. I count forty-four parallels in all. For these parallels I searched Accordance for
the lexeme πολύς occurring in the same verse with both μέν and δέ.
131 Antiquities 12.287, 12.373, 16.18, 20.177; War 1.5, 1.86, 3.113.
132 Antiquities 11.322; War 4.542, 5.455; Life 42; Apion 2:269.
80 Josephus and Jesus

matches ἐπάγομαι with πολύς as the phrase in the TF does.133 Paget, though,
points out that the TF uses the singular adjective Ἑλληνικός awkwardly insofar as
the adjective does not modify a noun as it usually does in Josephus.134 But Paget
does acknowledge one instance where Josephus uses such a turn of phrase ‘but
the Greek [party] was superior due to assistance from [their] soldiers (προεῖχον
. . . τὸ δὲ Ἑλληνικὸν τῇ παρὰ τῶν στρατιωτῶν ἀμύνῃ),135 and I note that this ex-
ample compares Jewish and Greek parties, just as the TF does. I also find another
instance where Josephus similarly uses Ἑλληνικός ‘so that they would not by ne-
cessity transgress [their laws] by using Greek [oil]’ (μὴ δι’ ἀνάγκην Ἑλληνικῷ
χρώμενοι τὰ νόμιμα παραβαίνωσιν).136 All this in my mind makes the phrase

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

plausibly Josephan.
As far as the content of the phrase goes, however, the TF appears to claim that
Jesus led many Jews and Greeks. But this would be an odd statement for a Christian
to interpolate since the New Testament is quite clear that Jesus ‘came only for the
lost sheep of the house of Israel’137 and that the Gospel was preached ‘first to the
Jews’, and only thereafter to the nations.138 One might object that Jesus is said to
have attracted some non-Jewish followers during his ministry—a centurion or
two,139 the demoniac from Gadarene,140 a woman from Tyre,141 and some Greeks
with whom Jesus does not seem to actually have met142—but these are limited to
small groups on the periphery, and certainly were not the focus of his ministry ac-
cording to the canonical Gospels. Notably, the only exception to this comes from
the mouth of Jewish leadership when the Pharisees exclaim to one another, ‘Look!
The world (κόσμος) has gone after him’.143 Given the hostility of the Pharisees
though, it seems best to read such an assertion as an exaggeration by Jesus’ en-
emies. Similarly, versions of the Toledot Yeshu (second–fifth centuries), an early
and quite hostile Jewish account of Jesus’ life, also state that during Jesus’ ministry
‘he misled the world by his sorcery’ (‫)התעה את העולם בכישופו‬.144
What these exceptions reveal is that the idea of Jesus having many non-Jewish
followers seems to come from early Jewish sources, not Christian ones. It

133 For example, Antiquities 5.96, 8.254, 11.29, 13.101, 14.361, 20.7, 20.78; War 7.164.
134 Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 574.
135 War 2.268.
136 Life 74.
137 Matthew 10:6, 15:24.
138 Acts 13:46; Romans 1:16, 2:9.
139 Matthew 8:5–13, 27:54; Mark 15:39; Luke 7:1–10, 23:47.
140 Mark 5:1–20; Luke 8:26–39.
141 Matthew 15:21–8; Mark 7:24–30.
142 John 12:20–2. Other possible passages are Matthew 4:25; Mark 3:8; Luke 6:17 where great crowds
drawn from largely Gentile areas follow him. However, the ethnicity of the crowds is not specified in the
passages.
143 John 12:19.
144 Toledot Yeshu, Group 1: Early Yemenite §67 (Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, vol. 1 p. 149
(English) vol. 2 p. 67 (Hebrew)). See also similar statements in other versions presented in vol. 1 p. 128,
137, 149, 159, 242, 244.
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 81

accordingly seems better to place the authorship of the phrase in the hands of a
Jewish writer like Josephus, not a Christian scribe.
It may also be possible to infer when this phrase was written since the likeliest
time would have been when many of both Jews and Greeks were calling them-
selves followers of Jesus, thus allowing for contemporary anachronism to creep
in. And this kind of situation was occurring only toward the end of the first and
beginning of the second century, exactly when Josephus wrote, but not later on
when Christians would have had opportunity to make changes to the text.145 This
is by no means a conclusive observation, since clearly the Toledot Yeshu contains
a similar tradition though it was written well after Josephus, but it is at least sug-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

gestive that the TF was written sometime within the first and third centuries, with
an earlier time being preferable. Josephus would hence be a good candidate for its
author.
Apart from this, the TF’s phrase about Jesus having many Greek and Jewish dis-
ciples may also carry a far more ambiguous or possibly negative valence than the
one implied by how scholars have traditionally translated it. This revolves around
the meaning of the Greek word ἐπάγομαι, which can mean ‘to lead’ someone in
a neutral sense,146 or, according to LSJ and the Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek,
it may have the negative connotations of ‘induce’ or otherwise mislead.147 Thus,
Cassiodorus translated the same term elsewhere in the Antiquities as ‘he per-
suaded’ (persuasio facta est)148 and as ‘feigning’ (simulans).149 And this seems to
be an accurate understanding of how Josephus uses the phrasing at times, for ex-
ample, ‘lest on account of its strength he induce the multitude to rebellion’ (μὴ
διὰ τὴν ὀχυρότητα πολλοὺς εἰς ἀποστασίαν ἐπαγάγηται)150 or when Abraham
deceivingly ‘led Sarah in the guise of [his] sister’ (ἐν ἀδελϕῆς ἐπαγόμενος σχήματι
τὴν Σάρραν).151

145 Feldman, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum: The State of the Question’, 189; Meier, A Marginal Jew,
64; Meier, ‘Jesus in Josephus’, 93–4; Thackeray, Josephus, 146; Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea,
and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 85–8. Olson, however, thinks this argument is insufficient because we
do not know what ancient Christian writers would have believed about Jesus’ earthly ministry; Olson,
‘A Eusebian Reading’, 105–7. The problem with Olson’s argument is that it is an argument from silence,
since he provides no early Christian references which claim that Jesus had many Greek followers except
for dubious examples in Eusebius’ writings. For further discussion, see Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of
Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 85–8.
146 For this neutral meaning, see Antiquities 1.263, 2.173.
147 LSJ, ἐπάγω, II 6; Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, ἐπάγω. So, Thucydides relates how the Argives
‘induced the Spartans to agree’ (ἐπηγάγοντο τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους ξυγχωρῆσαι) to a treaty even
though it seemed quite foolish; Thucydides, Peloponnesian War 5.41.2 line 8 (=​ TLG 0003.001). On
this interpretation of ἐπάγομαι, see also Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 354–5; Cernuda, ‘El
testimonio flaviano’, 373–4.
148 Cassiodorus, Josephus’s Antiquities 17.327 (ed. Pollard).
149 Cassiodorus, Josephus’s Antiquities 1.207 (ed. Pollard). Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary,
simulo II.
150 War 7.164.
151 Antiquities 1.207.
82 Josephus and Jesus

In fact, in another passage, much underappreciated by scholars, Josephus

uses the very same wording to describe how a certain imposter pretended to
be Alexander, the son of Herod, and ‘convinced as many of the Jews that came
to meet him to believe [that he was Alexander]’ (Ἰουδαίων ὁπόσοις εἰς ὁμιλίαν
ἀϕίκετο ἐπηγάγετο εἰς πίστιν),152 Josephus then says that ‘the cause [of this] was
that men received [his] words with pleasure’ (αἴτιον δὲ ἦν τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὸ
ἡδονῇ δεχόμενον τοὺς λόγους).153 Taken together, Josephus claims that the false
Alexander ‘convinced’ or even ‘led astray’ (ἐπηγάγετο) certain men (ἀνθρώπων)
because they ‘received’ (δεχόμενον) his words ‘with pleasure’ (ἡδονῇ). Hence, this
‘pleasure’, which the men had in ‘receiving’ the words of the pretender, seems there-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

fore to indicate an overeager, overzealous, or all too credulous belief—not some-
thing particularly positive.
Most striking, however, is that the above passage closely parallels the TF which
also describes Jesus ‘leading’ or ‘misleading’ (ἐπηγάγετο) ‘men who receive tru-
isms with pleasure’ (ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων). Such a close lin-
guistic correspondence inescapably points toward Josephus as the responsible
party for at least this portion of the TF and further supports my contention that the
TF’s phrase διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων should be rendered ‘a teacher of men’ because
such an understanding better explains, at least slightly, the ensuing sentence that
speaks of Jesus ‘leading’ or ‘misleading’ many people—though later readers may of
course have instead read the passage as meaning ‘a teacher about men’.
Either way, claiming that Jesus misled others is just what one would expect
of a Jewish writer since other Jewish traditions similarly speak of Jesus, as the
Babylonian Talmud does when, as I mentioned previously, it accuses Jesus of
‘inciting all Israel and leading them astray’ (‫)והסית והדיח את ישראל כל‬.154 And so
too does the ‘Jew of Celsus’ (c.150 ce), who repeatedly accuses Jesus of deceiving
other Jews,155 as also do Jewish leaders in the Gospels: ‘He stirs up the people by
teaching throughout the whole of Judaea’.156 Finally, versions of the Toledot Yeshu
(second–fifth centuries) agree that Jesus ‘misled’ many people.157
But this is not to say that the TF’s use of ἐπάγομαι must be interpreted nega-
tively or that it was even meant to be negative, for in the sixty-five times Josephus
uses ἐπάγομαι the vast majority of instances are purely neutral.158 However one

152 Antiquities 17.327. Several scholars note this parallel, but do not notice how it is partnered with
other vocabulary from the TF too; see Thackeray, Josephus, 146; Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’,
354; Cernuda, ‘El testimonio flaviano’, 374 n. 84; Bammel, ‘Zum Testimonium Flavianum’, 13. Eisler
might make the connection, but does not point it out explicitly; see Eisler, The Messiah Jesus, 53–4.
153 Antiquities 17.329.
154 Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a.20, 107b.14 (see also 43a.21). For discussion, see Schäfer,
Jesus in the Talmud, 63–74.
155 Origen, Against Celsus 2.1, 4. See also 1.62, 68.
156 Luke 23:5. See also Matthew 27:63; Luke 23:2; John 7:12, 47.
157 See n. 144.
158 For this number I searched Accordance for all forms of ἐπάγω in the middle voice, excluding
the TF. For an in-depth discussion arguing that the meaning of ἐπάγω is largely neutral, see Schwartz,
‘Reinach and Stephanus, Philo and Josephus. A Note on the Testimonium Flavianum’.
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 83

chooses to take it though, the evidence demonstrates that such phrasing could well
have been interpreted neutrally, ambiguously, or negatively by one who was so in-
clined. And in this regard, it is understandable that so many Christian writers did
not view it as complimentary to Jesus and hence avoided calling attention to it.

ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν:

‘he was the Christ’

At first glance this phrase appears to call Jesus the Messiah, something impos-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

sible for the non-Christian (and very Jewish) Josephus to say. But certain scholars
have suggested that the TF’s phrase ‘he was the Christ’ might instead indicate an
alternative name for Jesus, not a religious title or a position.159 English speakers
do something similar when they speak of the ‘Prophet Mohammed’, ‘His Holiness
the Dalai Lama’, or, for that matter, ‘Jesus Christ’ even though they may not al-
ways profess any kind of faith in these individuals.160 It seems especially plausible
that the TF may be doing such a thing with χριστός because it goes on to explain
that ‘Christians’ are ‘named from him’ (ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον), implying that
χριστός was simply a kind of sobriquet or moniker. This is why non-Christian
writers like Suetonius, Pliny, Tacitus, and Porphyry all call Jesus ‘Christ’, but only
as an alternative designation, not in any kind of confession of Jesus as Messiah.161
Such a manner of speaking is understandable since in ancient times the term
‘Christ’ did not have specific religious connotations in most parts of the Greek
world.162 And this is not to mention a long list of ancient names which etymologic-
ally mean one thing, but which in actual use mean nothing of the sort and only
designate the person to whom the name belongs.
If the TF is using ‘Christ’ likewise, it should then be read not as claiming that
Jesus was the Christ (i.e. the anointed one), but as only that Jesus was called by
that name. Further support of this can be found in the fact that Josephus uses the
word χριστός without reference to Jesus,163 where the word mundanely refers to an

159 Nodet, ‘Jésus et Jean-Baptiste selon Josèphe [pt. 1]’, 333–4, 337–8; Nodet, Baptême et
résurrrection, 67–8.
160 For similar argument, see Bardet, Le Testimonium Flavianum, 103–7.
161 Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Claudius 25.4; Pliny the Younger, Letter 10.96.7; Tacitus, The
Annals, 15.44; Porphyry, Philosophy from Oracles as quoted in Eusebius, Demonstration 3.7.1 (134b),
and in Augustine City of God 19.23; Porphyry, Against the Christians as quoted in Augustine, Epistle
102.8 (Fragment 76 of Becker, Porphyrios, ‘Contra Christianos’, 406–7.) We see a similar phenomenon
in Clement of Alexandria when he speaks about the Buddha, and uses the title as a name; see Clement
of Alexandria, Stromata 1.15.
162 Kittel, Friedrich, and Bromiley, ‘Χρίω’, sec. A.
163 This contradicts the contentions of scholars that Josephus never uses the word χριστός except to
refer to Jesus; see Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 228; Olson, ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium
Flavianum’, 315; Feldman, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum: The State of the Question’, 191; Feldman,
Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–1980), 690.
84 Josephus and Jesus

area of a building that was smeared or anointed with a kind of material, probably
plaster: ‘another area, up to the roof, was anointed [or smeared]’ (τὸ δὲ ἄλλο μέχρι
τῆς στέγης χριστὸν ἦν).164 This passage notably contains a formulation similar to
the TF (χριστὸν ἦν), showing that Josephus may not have considered that χριστός
inherently designated anything messianic. An alternative translation of the TF’s
phrase that highlights such ambiguity would be ‘He was Christ’, making the term
sound, perhaps, more like a name.165
On the other hand, as far as I can tell,166 Josephus never once uses the phrase
οὗτος ἦν to identify an alternative name for someone; rather he only seems to use it
for titles, positions, and descriptions.167 So, ‘David . . . he was the father of Solomon’

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

(Δαυίδου . . . πατὴρ Σολομῶνος ἦν οὗτος);168 or Herod, ‘He was the Tetrarch of
Galilee’ (τετράρχης δὲ οὗτος ἦν Γαλιλαίας).169 Josephus even uses this phrase for
another Jesus, ‘And Jesus, for he was the brother of Onias (Ἰησοῦς δέ, οὗτος γὰρ
ἦν ὁ τοῦ Ὀνίου ἀδελϕός).170 Josephus also occasionally uses the phrase to give
further clarifying remarks.171 The one possible exception to the above is when
Josephus says, ‘he was Simon the son of Gioras’ (Σίμων οὗτος ἦν ὁ Γιώρα).172 This
is a close match with the TF, but one difference is that in this instance Josephus is
supplying the actual name of the person and is not giving an alternative name as
would need to be the case with the TF.
Instead, when giving an alternative name, Josephus generally deploys words like
καλούμενος or ἐπικαλούμενος or ἐπιλεγόμενος as in, ‘a certain Menahem, son of
Judah, who was called the Galilean’ (Μανάημός τις, υἱὸς Ἰούδα τοῦ καλουμένου
Γαλιλαίου);173 or ‘John, who was called the Baptist’ (Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἐπικαλουμένου
βαπτιστοῦ);174 or ‘A lexander, who was called Balas’ (Ἀ λέξανδρος ὁ Βάλας
ἐπιλεγόμενος).175 He also frequently uses λεγόμενος, as with, ‘the Rephaim, who
are called Pamphlogonians’ (Ῥιϕαθαίους τοὺς Παϕλαγόνας λεγομένους).176
And this is the exact word used by Josephus in his other reference to ‘Jesus, who
was called Christ’ (Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ).177 What is more, it would

164 Antiquities 8.137.

165 For further discussion, see n. 161.
166 For this I used Accordance to perform a search for verses that included a proper name and the
exact word forms of οὗτος and ἦν. I attempted to be as thorough as possible, but it may be that some
terms in the search were split by verses and hence were not revealed in the results.
167 Antiquities 1.79, 2.229, 5.126, 8.200, 9.138, 12.171, 13.271, 18.3, 20.81, 20.132, 20.145, 20.179,
20.183, 20.208; War 1.248, 2.450, 2.556, 4.416, 4.460, 5.137, 5.527, 7.216; Life 177, 373. See also
Thackeray, Josephus, 146. Josephus deploys οὗτος ἦν in the exact form nineteen times, some of which
are included in the verses enumerated in this footnote.
168 War 5.137.
169 Antiquities 18.240.
170 Antiquities 12.238.
171 Life 191.
172 War 7.153–4.
173 War 2.433. See also Antiquities 4.84, 4.327, 12.266, 13.367, 19.257.
174 Antiquities 18.116.
175 Antiquities 13.119. See also Antiquities 13.120, 13.268, 13.285.
176 Antiquities 1.126. See also Antiquities 1.133.
177 Antiquities 20.200.
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 85

be strange for Josephus to follow his consistent pattern of referring to alterna-

tive names when he says ‘Jesus, who was called Christ’ (Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου
Χριστοῦ) in Antiquities 20.200, but to dispense with this practice only in the TF in
Antiquities 18.63–4 by saying that Jesus ‘was the Christ’ (ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν), espe-
cially when the term χριστός could so easily have misled his audience into thinking
of a religious confession.

Two Reconstructions Using

λεγόμενος

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

On balance then, all this suggests that if Josephus wrote the phrase as it stands in
Greek manuscripts of the Antiquities, then he probably would have meant to say
that Jesus actually was the Christ, and this does not seem at all likely, especially
given that Origen (c.248 ce), our earliest witness to book 18 of the Antiquities,
twice states that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ.178 And even
if Josephus felt that Jesus was some kind of lesser messianic figure presaging the
coming of the actual Messiah (for certain ancient Jews did believe in pre-messianic
figures) one would still think that Josephus would have spent more time talking
about him.179 Consequently, this is the only part of the TF where the entire Greek
tradition may have lost something,180 perhaps a term like ‘was called’ (λεγόμενος),
which Josephus uses elsewhere for Jesus.
If this is so, then the original wording would have been something like ‘He
was the one called Christ’ (ὁ λεγόμενος χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν). Such a phrase is quite
similar to what Josephus used in his Life for identifying an alternative name for one
of his own family members ‘of these Matthias was the one called Ephaeus’ (τούτων
ἐστὶν Ματθίας ὁ Ἠϕαίου λεγόμενος).181
Another synonymous possibility keeps the same words, but rearranges them,
as ‘He was called the Christ’ (ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος λεγόμενος ἦν). In grammatical
terms, this reconstruction would partner the extant Greek verb ‘was’ (ἦν) with
the passive participle ‘being called’ (λεγόμενος) resulting in a paraphrastic par-
ticiple that can be translated in English with the finite passive verb ‘was called’.
Josephus uses similar syntax elsewhere in the second half of the Antiquities. For
example, when referring to the name ‘Pentecost’, he writes ‘our ancestral Festival is
called this’ (ἑορτὴ δὲ ἡμῶν ἐστιν πάτριος τοῦτο κεκλημένη).182 Intriguingly, just

178 Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17; Against Celsus 1.47. For a discussion of this, see pp. 13–4.
179 For discussions on the various early Jewish views of the Messiah, including the idea of multiple
messiahs, see p. 73. For how Josephus may have thought of Jesus, see pp. 201–3, 205.
180 Though all manuscripts of the Antiquities omit τις in the TF, it is preserved in a Greek manuscript
of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History and in its ancient Syriac and Armenian translations. See p. 68.
181 Life 4.
182 Antiquities 17.254.
86 Josephus and Jesus

twenty-eight verses after the TF, Josephus deploys a phrase very like what the TF
may originally have contained when he says ‘it is thusly called a fortress’ (ϕρούριον
δ’ ἐστὶν οὕτως λεγόμενον).183
The advantages of using λεγόμενος to reconstruct the TF is that it requires
only one word to be dropped by a later scribe, it closely matches the vocabulary
Josephus deploys elsewhere for Jesus, it matches the grammatical syntax and vo-
cabulary Josephus uses for presenting names or designations, and Josephus de-
ploys such syntax and vocabulary near to the TF.
There is also support for these reconstructions outside of the TF’s Greek
textual tradition. Thus, Jerome’s (c.393 ce) Latin translation of the TF instead

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

states that Jesus ‘was believed to be the Christ’ (Christus credebatur esse) and
Pseudo-Hegesippus (c.370 ce) implies the same reading in his Latin paraphrase
of the TF ‘they believed in him’ (crediderunt in eum). Michael the Syrian (c.1099
ce), following Jacob of Edessa (c.708 ce),184 supports this with his Syriac version
of the TF that says ‘it was thought that he was the Christ’ (‫ܡܣܬܒܪܐ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬
‫)ܗܘܐ‬.185 For our purposes, both Latin and Syriac translations present roughly syn-
onymous meanings and, given the geographic and linguistic distance between the
Latin and Syriac translators, it is hardly credible that one would have been copying
from the other. Both therefore seem to be translating the same Greek phrase, per-
haps something like one of the reconstructions offered above which supply the
word λεγόμενος.
Not only this, the Syriac phrase mestabrā . . . hwa (‫ ܗܘܐ‬. . . ‫ )ܡܣܬܒܪܐ‬is a par-
ticularly intriguing candidate for reconstructing the original Greek because it
can also be understood as meaning ‘was proclaimed’.186 This corresponds with

183 Antiquities 18.91. See also Antiquities 12.6, where Josephus quotes from another writer.
184 See Chapter 2 pp. 37–8, 51–2, 55–8 for discussions on Pseudo-Hegesippus, Jerome, and Jacob of
Edessa. Note that the same phrase, Christus credebatur esse, is also present in two early manuscripts
of Rufinus’ Latin translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, but this phrase is likely not original to
Rufinus and seems to have been inserted from Jerome’s translation by later scribes; see Levenson and
Martin, ‘The Latin Translations of Josephus on Jesus’, 20, 25–6, 59.
185 Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 5.10 [91] found in MS Edessa-Aleppo Codex 47r left col.,
lines 20–1. The Armenian translation of Michael’s work witnesses to a similar reading, ‘it seemed clear
that he might be the Christ’ (յայտնի երեւէր թէ նա իցէ Քրիստոսն), found in MS Nor Djoulfa 525,
Amenap’rkič (before 1302 ce), f. 51v/​1–51v/​2. Another Armenian translation of Michael reads ‘it was
clear that he was the Christ’ (յայտնի էր թէ նա է Քրիստոսն), found in MS Jerusaelm 32 (1273 ce),
f. 50v/​2–51r/​1. I thank Andrea Schmidt who sent me her transcriptions and citations of these passages.
For further information on the dates of the above manuscripts and other related matters regarding the
Armenian versions of Michael’s Record of Times, see respectively Schmidt, ‘Manuscrits’, 186; Schmidt,
‘The Armenian Versions I and II of Michael the Syrian’.
186 For this definition, see Smith, ‘‫’ܣܒܪ‬, sec. ethpe. and ethpa., p. 359. In the Syriac Peshitta, Luke
16:16 uses mestabrā with the meaning of ‘was proclaimed’. The only remaining Syriac translation of
Josephus’ work is the sixth book of his War. In the Greek of this book, λεγόμενος is only used at War
6.132 and the Syriac translates it with etamar (MS f. 323v right column line 15). For pictures of the
manuscript, see https://archive.org/details/CerianiTranslatioSyraPescittoVeterisTestamentiExCodi​
ceAm​bros​iano​_​201​312/​page/​n30/​mode/​1up. Once the Syriac of the War is digitized by Simtho, it will
be illuminating to see if the translator ever translated any instance of the Greek λέγω with the Syriac
mestabrā.
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 87

the Greek λεγόμενος, which can on occasion be translated with the very similar,
‘was declared’.187 These are not the most obvious ways to translate mestabrā
and λεγόμενος, but they are allowable and it is possible that a Syriac Christian
translator would have made such a decision.188 Increasing the probability that
λεγόμενος was originally present in the TF is that, as I noted above, it is the very
word Josephus uses of Jesus elsewhere in Antiquities 20.200 when he says ‘Jesus
who was called Christ’ (Ἰ ησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ). The word is also used in
a similar way by Josephus twenty-eight verses after the TF in Antiquities 18.91 to
state that something was ‘called’ a fortress.
Furthermore, there are reasons for believing that Jacob’s Syriac translation fol-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

lows the Greek more precisely than Jerome’s Latin translation, and therefore that
the Syriac can likely be trusted to reconstruct the original wording of the Greek.
This is because the Latin omits the Greek words ‘was’ (ἦν) and ‘he’ (οὗτος), which
are present in the current text of the Greek TF. The Syriac, by contrast, witnesses
to both.
Firstly, in the Syriac translation, the verbal participle mestabrā (‫)ܡܣܬܒܪܐ‬,
‘being thought’ is complemented by the Syriac word hwa (‫ )ܗܘܐ‬or ‘was’.189 This
matches precisely the Greek word ‘was’ (ἦν), which is already present in the Greek
TF, though missing in the Latin. The two Syriac verbs (mestabrā and hwa), placed
together like this, have the result of combining to create a kind of paraphrastic par-
ticiple that has the meaning of a finite verb, either ‘was thought’ or less likely ‘was
proclaimed’190 depending on how one wants to interpret the Syriac word mestabrā.
Such is a close match with the reconstruction offered above, ‘he was called the
Christ’ or even ‘he was declared the Christ’ (ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος λεγόμενος ἦν).
Secondly, though in its current form the Syriac translation is missing a word pre-
cisely corresponding to the Greek demonstrative pronoun οὗτος (which the Latin
is missing as well), there are clues in the Syriac’s transmission history indicating
that it originally contained such a pronoun. Our knowledge of the Syriac transla-
tion, likely made by Jacob of Edessa (c.708 ce), comes only through Michael the
Syrian who wrote in 1199 ce. But Michael’s work is itself only preserved in a single
Syriac manuscript dating to 1598 ce.191 Yet this work of Michael’s was translated
into Armenian on two earlier occasions, being witnessed by manuscripts dating
to 1273 and 1302 ce. It is unclear if these translations represent different revisions

187 LSJ, ‘λέγω’, sec. III 1; Diggle, The Cambridge Greek Lexicon, λέγω §10, 862.
188 In context, if mestabrā means ‘was proclaimed’, then the Syriac TF would seem to imply that it was
the ‘many Jews and Greeks’ who had proclaimed Jesus the Christ.
189 Grammatically speaking, mestabrā is in the singular feminine, meaning that it should be
translated as an impersonal passive verb, as in ‘it was thought that he was the Christ’. See Nöldeke,
Compendious Syriac Grammar, sec. 254. I thank Johan Lundberg and Jack Tannous for pointing this
out to me.
190 This grammatical construction is sometimes called a ‘compound tense’; see Muraoka, Classical
Syriac, §85.
191 On this manuscript, see and n. 93 in Chapter 2 and Image 12.
88 Josephus and Jesus

of the same translator, but at least one (if not both) of the versions made use of the
actual autograph manuscript of Michael’s work.192 Interestingly, both Armenian
versions insert the Armenian demonstrative pronoun na (նա) in the noted phrase.
This is a redundancy not necessary in Armenian grammar.193 Such suggests that
the Syriac translation of the TF likely contained a demonstrative pronoun corres-
ponding with the Greek pronoun οὗτος present in the TF. This means that almost
all of the words in the extant Greek version of the TF correspond to almost all
of the words in the Syriac-Armenian tradition and vice versa, with the significant
exception being the Syriac word mestabrā. But, as described above, mestabrā is
roughly synonymous to the word λεγόμενος which is used elsewhere by Josephus

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

in reference to Jesus. All this implies that a Greek word like λεγόμενος has fallen
out of the TF as it is currently preserved in Greek.

Other Reconstructions Using εἶναι with Various Participles

But this picture is not as tidy as it first seems. One issue is that the Syriac should
technically be translated impersonally as ‘it was thought that he was the Christ’
whereas the Greek and Latin use the personal construction ‘he was’ (οὗτος ἦν)
and ‘he was believed to be’ (credebatur esse). If the syntax of the Greek TF was
originally impersonal, then it would be expected that the nominative words al-
ready present in the Greek TF (χριστός and οὗτος) would need to be changed
into the accusative case. Another grammatical issue is that the Syriac hwa (‫)ܗܘܐ‬
or ‘was’ can instead be fairly interpreted as complementing it (‫)ܐܝܬ‬, not mestabrā
(‫)ܡܣܬܒܪܐ‬. This would demand that the Syriac be translated with a present tense
main verb as ‘it is thought that he was the Christ’, not the past tense ‘it was thought
that he was the Christ’. Though this does not alter the fundamental sense of the
phrase, it would mean that the Syriac does not witness to a paraphrastic participle
in Greek, as I have suggested above.
But, these grammatical issues aside, if the Syriac is actually presenting a literal
word-for-word translation, then it would indicate that there is yet another word,
aside from a participle like λεγόμενος, which was originally part of the Greek but
no longer present. Hence this word has also been dropped from the Greek TF. The
reason for this is that the Syriac supplies the word it (‫)ܐܝܬ‬, which may in context be
translated with the English ‘was’ as in ‘it was thought that he was (‫ )ܐܝܬ‬the Christ’.
The Latin also contains the equivalent word esse or ‘to be’. Given that the Syriac and
the Latin agree on this missing word, it is probable that some form of the Greek
word ‘to be’ (εἶναι) has been omitted from the Greek witnesses of the TF.

192 Schmidt, ‘The Armenian Versions I and II of Michael the Syrian’, 95.
193 For similar grammatical structure, see the classical Armenian translation in John 9:17, and also
Matthew 24:26, 26:66; Mark 12:27; Luke 22:59; John 10:13 (ed. Zōhrapean).
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 89

With the above observations in mind, it is not possible to take the Syriac and
the Latin and then literally back-translate them into the Greek from which they
were derived since the Latin appears to be missing words present in the remaining
Greek, and the Syriac appears to have a different grammar than that present in
the remaining Greek. The best one can do is to follow both the Latin and Syriac as
closely as possible by incorporating the Syriac vocabulary on the one hand and the
Latin grammar on the other. This done, a plausible Greek reconstruction would
be: ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος εἶναι λεγόμενος ἦν, which can be translated as ‘he was said
to be the Christ’ or ‘he was declared to be the Christ’. One could also interpret the
Syriac mestabrā differently and reconstruct the phrase as ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος εἶναι

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

νομιζόμενος ἦν or ‘he was thought to be the Christ’. If instead one wanted to match
the meaning of the Latin more closely, it would be possible to reconstruct the
phrase as ‘he was believed to be the Christ’ (ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος εἶναι πιστευόμενος
ἦν). Compared to the extant text of the Greek TF, these reconstructed readings of
course contain two additional words: the infinitive ‘to be’ (εἶναι) and a participle.
The advantage of the above reconstructions is that they mirror the Syriac vo-
cabulary closely while following the Latin grammar closely too. They are also
feasible since Jacob and Jerome, if faced with originals corresponding to these re-
constructions, could have credibly produced the Syriac and Latin texts to which
they both witness. Importantly, Josephus was capable of writing such Greek syntax
since he uses phraseology similar to the above reconstructions when he deploys
a participle with the Greek word ‘to be’. For example, in the Antiquities Josephus
describes how Antipater was falsely ‘believed to be a lover of [your] father’
(ϕιλοπάτωρ εἶναι πεπιστευμένος).194 Elsewhere in the Antiquities he also says
‘thinking him to be strong enough’ (νομίσας ἀξιόμαχος εἶναι).195 And again in the
Antiquities, he says ‘the pine trees are comparable to those said to be [pine] now’
(τὰ τῆς πεύκης ξύλα τοῖς νῦν εἶναι λεγομένοις).196 Though neither of these ex-
amples contain a paraphrastic participle as with the reconstructions offered above,
Josephus uses paraphrastic participles on other occasions.197

The Original Wording

Gathering all of the above data, one cannot be certain what Greek word or words
have been omitted from the TF at this point. The most obvious candidate is the
word λεγόμενος, which has much to recommend it. Josephus uses this word
elsewhere for Jesus and he also uses the same word nearby the TF in the same

194 Antiquities 17.110; see also similar usages in Antiquities 7.212, 14.455.
195 Antiquities 9.246; see also Antiquities 11.337, 13.177, 14.166.
196 Antiquities 8.177.
197 Antiquities 2.186, 15.419.
90 Josephus and Jesus

grammatical construction. Further, in the Syriac TF the word mestabrā (‘thought’

or less likely ‘proclaimed’) can also be interpreted as reflecting the meaning of
λεγόμενος (‘said’ or ‘declared’) somewhat closely, while the Latin credebatur (‘be-
lieved’) follows the meaning too, but more loosely. If it is only λεγόμενος that has
been omitted from the TF, then the original phrase was likely ‘He was called the
Christ’ (ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος λεγόμενος ἦν). Another possibility that rearranges the
same words is ‘He was the one called Christ’ (ὁ λεγόμενος χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν), but
this does not have as many grammatical parallels in Josephus.
On the other hand, one cannot rule out a different phrasing that also follows
the Syriac, like νομιζόμενος meaning ‘was thought’. This matches the Syriac more

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

closely than λεγόμενος. One might also suggest a different Greek word that follows
the Latin, like πιστευόμενος meaning ‘was believed’. It is also unclear if the original
Greek contained the word ‘to be’ (εἶναι); both the Syriac and the Latin agree on
this word being present, and there are comparable constructions to be found in
Josephus’ work too, but those examples do not involve a paraphrastic participle
as would be required if εἶναι was used in the TF. It is hence possible that both the
Syriac and Latin translators supplied the word ‘to be’ independently of one another
for the sake of euphony or grammatical style.
But whether or not one of the above reconstructions represents the original
wording of the Greek TF, the fact that the Latin and Syriac effectively correspond
in meaning indicates that a different form of the TF, one which claimed that Jesus
was only considered to be the Christ, is in all probability the original reading of
the TF. Other witnesses in support of such a reading can be found with the Arabic
historian Agapius (c.941/​2 ce), who seems to have used Jacob’s Syriac translation of
the TF. He gives a summary of the TF stating that ‘perhaps he was the Christ’ (‫فلعله‬
‫)هو المسيح‬.198 Further indirect support comes from Pseudo-Hegesippus (c.370 ce),
who likely had a similar reading before him given that he paraphrased the TF as
saying ‘they believed in him’ (crediderunt in eum).199 In his comments on the TF he
also never claims that Josephus thought Jesus was the Christ, despite interpreting
all of the other claims in the TF in a stridently pro-Christian manner.200 Finally,
such a reading also accords with how Josephus describes Jesus elsewhere as one
who was merely ‘called’ the Christ.201
That Josephus originally said that Jesus ‘was thought to be’ or otherwise con-
sidered to be ‘the Christ’ is further supported by the nature of the extant Greek
TF, which oddly uses the past tense to say that Jesus ‘was the Christ’, whereas if a

198 MS Laurenziana Or. 323 f. 7r line 1 (1288 ce), corresponding to Image 14; al-Makīn also quotes
the passage, but does so by citing Agapius; see MS Paris, BnF Arabe 294 f. 163r lines 10–11 (fourteenth
century). The reader should know that it is also possible to translate the Arabic phrase ‘perhaps he
was the Christ’ with the present tense. For further discussion on Agapius and Michael, see Chapter 2
pp. 48–55. On al-Makīn, see Diez, ‘Les antiquités gréco-romaines’, 134–5.
199 Pseudo-Hegesippus, On the Ruin of the City of Jerusalem 2.12.1 (ed. Ussani p. 163 line 12).
200 Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 31–3.
201 Antiquities 20.200.
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 91

Christian had fabricated the phrase wholesale, one would expect that the present
tense ‘is’ would have been used, just as Christians traditionally proclaimed.202 This
suggests that Josephus’ original phrasing, whatever it was, included the past tense.
Moreover, such a reading that Jesus ‘was’ somehow ‘considered to be’ or ‘called’
the Christ implies a disagreement between what people thought of Jesus and what
the author of the TF himself believed. For example, the Syriac Peshitta uses the
same phrase as the Syriac TF when it says that Jesus ‘was thought to be’ (‫)ܡܣܬܒܪܐ‬
the son of Joseph in Luke 3:23, though biologically speaking Luke did not believe
that Jesus was the son of Joseph.203 Or in Mark 10:42 certain Gentile rulers are
‘considered’ (‫ )ܡܤܬܒܪܝܢ‬to rule over others.204 This well explains why Origen would

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

have twice insisted that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, since
his version of the TF likely reflected the Syriac and Latin, and thus clearly implied
that Jesus was not the Christ.205 One final note about this reconstruction of the TF
is that it suggests that Josephus did not think it necessary to explain to his audi-
ence the meaning of the technical term χριστός since he leaves it undefined in the
TF. But this is to be expected since he uses χριστός elsewhere in Antiquities 8.137,
where he also assumes that his audience would have known that the term refers to
something or someone that was ‘anointed’, and hence does not otherwise explain
χριστός for his readership.
Yet, to reiterate, it is quite possible that later Christians would have inter-
preted the altered phrase ‘He was the Christ’ as simply identifying another name
for Jesus,206 notwithstanding the fact that given Josephus’ personal stylistic ten-
dencies he would not have meant the altered phrase to be read in such a way. But
later Christian readers would likely not have realized this about Josephus, espe-
cially because other non-Christians did use ‘Christ’ as a name, not a title.207 So
Suetonius, Pliny, Tacitus, and Porphyry all seem to use the term ‘Christ’ as a name,
and by it they did not mean that Jesus actually was the anointed one, but were
merely identifying him by means of an alternative name.208 A great advantage of

202 For example, John 20:31; Acts 9:22, 17:3; 1 John 2:22, 5:1. On this point, see Whealey, ‘Josephus
on Jesus: Evidence from the First Millennium’, 304. Charles Hill suggested to me the idea that the phrase
originally read ‘He was not the Christ’, but was altered by dropping the οὐχ between χριστός and
οὗτος due to a scribe’s eye skipping from one ΟΥ to another. This would turn ‘He was not the Christ’
(ΟΧΡΙΣΤΟΣΟΥΧΟΥΤΟΣΗΝ) into ‘He was the Christ’. (ΟΧΡΙΣΤΟΣΟΥΤΟΣΗΝ). This is quite plaus-
ible, but I think it best to follow readings witnessed in manuscripts or in quotations, unless more evi-
dence comes to light.
203 Gwilliam, Pinkerton, and Tritton, The New Testament in Syriac. On the same point, see Whealey,
‘The Testimonium Flavianum’, 352; Whealey, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic’, 581.
204 1 Corinthians 12:22; 2 Corinthians 10:9; Galatians 2:6, 9.
205 Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17; Against Celsus 1.47.
206 Paget wonders whether Simeon Magister Logothete and George Cedrenus may hint at a more
neutral version of the TF which omitted the phrase ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν, but as Paget acknowledges,
such writers were dependent on Eusebius who does witness to the phrase ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν; see Paget,
‘Some Observations’, 568. All this suggests to me that these writers likely thought the phrase ‘he was
Christ’ designated an alternative name for Jesus and not a title; see Chapter 1 pp. 23–4.
207 For similar considerations, see Paget, 548; Victor, ‘Das Testimonium Flavianum’, 78–80.
208 See n. 161.
92 Josephus and Jesus

this interpretation is that it explains how some Christians could interpret the al-
tered TF as promoting Jesus as the Christ, while others could regard the very same
passage as unremarkable.

καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ

ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου:
‘and when Pilate condemned him to the cross at the accusation
of the first men among us’

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

This phrasing contains numerous parallels with Josephus’ style, particularly with
passages in and around book 18 of the Antiquities, where the TF is located. For ex-
ample, ἐνδειξίς is only used two other times by Josephus, but both instances are in
the latter half of the Antiquities.209 Likewise, ἐπιτιμάω is used thirteen other times
by Josephus, with books 16–19 of the Antiquities accounting for eight of these.210
Notably, Josephus employs the very word just four verses after the TF, when he
says that a man, ‘thought it good to condemn himself to death’ (θάνατον ἐπιτιμᾶν
αὑτῷ καλῶς ἔχειν ἐνόμισεν).211 Josephus also deploys καὶ αὐτόν in that exact form
thirty-four other times. Several of these even begin sentences, like they do in the
TF.212 The name Pilate (Πιλάτου) is similarly used by Josephus in the genitive ab-
solute on two other occasions,213 just as it is used in the TF.
Josephus further uses πρῶτος and ἀνήρ with matching grammatical cases
eleven other times in his works214 and it is striking that nine of these occur in the
Antiquities, with seven instances in books 17 and 18. There are also three times
where Josephus deploys the phrase τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν in the exact form as the
TF, and one of these is found shortly after the TF. Here ‘first men’ are described
hatching a plot, ‘Artabanus realized that the plot was unavoidable because it was

209 Antiquities 13.306, 19.113. For this, I searched Accordance for the lexeme ἐνδειξίς.
210 Antiquities 16.262, 16.355, 18.68, 18.107, 18.183, 18.255, 18.351, 19.202. For this, I searched
Accordance for the lexeme ἐπιτιμάω.
211 Antiquities 18.68. Paget points out that Josephus typically used ἐπιτιμάω with the accusative to
indicate the punishment and the dative to indicate the rebuked or condemned person, whereas the
TF does the reverse; Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 574. But elsewhere Josephus seems to follow the
TF’s grammar as in Antiquities 5.105, ‘Phineas, having stood up, said that they [accusative] sinned too
greatly to be condemned by words [dative]’ (στὰς Φινεέσης μείζω μὲν αὐτοὺς ἁμαρτεῖν ἔλεγεν, ἢ ὥστε
λόγοις ἐπιτιμηθέντας). He may also do the same in Antiquities 16.355, 18.351 and War 2.183, where the
rebuked person is also in the accusative, though in the latter two instances the rebuked person is gov-
erned by πρός from a previous clause. Josephus also once uses the genitive to indicate the condemned as
in, Apion 2.239. Hence, Josephus was not always consistent in his usage of ἐπιτιμάω.
212 Antiquities 5.252, 10.14, 17.221; War 1.487, 6.89.
213 War 2.171, 2.175.
214 Antiquities 4.140, 6.211, 17.7, 17.81, 18.7, 18.99, 18.121, 18.353, 18.376; Life 169, 266. See also
other parallels in Antiquities 4.21, 17.342. For these references I used Accordance to search for all in-
stances of the lexeme πρῶτος occurring within five words of the lexeme ἀνήρ and then only counted
those with matching cases.
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 93

laid by many first men (αἰσθόμενος δὲ τὴν ἐπιβουλὴν ὁ Ἀρτάβανος ἄϕυκτον

οὖσαν διὰ τὸ ὑπὸ πολλῶν καὶ τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν συντεθεῖσαν).215
The locution ‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν) is deployed by Josephus fifty-one times
elsewhere in his works.216 Despite this, some have claimed that the TF is still sus-
picious because παρ’ ἡμῖν is not inserted between the definite article and its noun,
as it often is in Josephus’ work. However, Josephus uses παρ’ ἡμῖν in other ways
on several occasions, as he does in the TF.217 Goldberg is instead suspicious of
the phrase because he claims that the use of the first-person plural unnecessarily
inserts Josephus into the narrative. But, Josephus will speak similarly elsewhere
in the Antiquities when he mentions that the ‘Essenes’ and certain ‘High Priests’

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

were ‘among us’.218 He also frequently deploys the phrase to indicate events or
people whom he himself witnessed, such as ‘and until now this cure has remained
in force among us, for I have observed . . . (καὶ αὕτη μέχρι νῦν παρ’ ἡμῖν ἡ θεραπεία
πλεῖστον ἰσχύει· ἱστόρησα γάρ . . .).219 And, as I show in Chapter 5, Josephus likely
knew some of those ‘first men’ who accused Jesus, so it is quite probable that he
could have written the phrase ‘among us’.
Some have also objected that a Jew like Josephus would not call attention to
Jewish culpability in the death of Jesus, as this phrase does.220 But against this are
other Jewish sources which often loudly boast of Jewish responsibility. So Trypho
the Jew is portrayed as bragging about ‘a certain Jesus, a Galilean deceiver, whom
we crucified’ (Ἰησοῦ τινος Γαλιλαίου πλάνου ὃν σταυρωσάντων ἡμῶν);221 the
‘Jew of Celsus’ agrees, ‘having examined him and having condemned him we
found him worthy to be punished’ (ἡμεῖς ἐλέγξαντες αὐτὸν καὶ καταγνόντες
ἠξιοῦμεν κολάζεσθαι);222 and the Babylonian Talmud and the Toledot Yeshu speak
of how Jesus was executed by a Jewish court on the eve of Passover. Both sources
also talk of how his disciples were executed.223
In this regard, it is noteworthy that early Christian writings try to exculpate
Pilate by showing that he was not the one who had the primary responsibility of
executing Jesus, thus laying the direct blame on Jewish leaders.224 The TF, however,

215 Antiquities 18.99.

216 For this total I searched for the exact phrase ‘παρ’ ἡμῖν’ in Accordance. Technically παρὰ ἡμῖν is
used forty-nine times, but there are two other instances of the synonymous παρὰ μὲν ἡμῖν that are used
as well. For further discussion, see Chapter 5 pp. 151–8.
217 See, for example Antiquities 3.248, 8.46, 8.113, 13.167; Life 1; Apion 1.109. See also Winter,
‘Josephus on Jesus’, 434.
218 Antiquities 15.371, 20.198. Goldberg, ‘Coincidences’, 70–1.
219 Antiquities 8.46. See Chapter 5 pp. 151–8 for several other examples.
220 Pines, An Arabic Version, 19–20; Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 234. Pines though does
not think this to be a serious objection.
221 Justin, Dialogue 108.2 lines 9–10 (=​TLG 0645.003 line 5).
222 Origen, Against Celsus 2.9 lines 3–4 (=​TLG 2042.001).
223 Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a.20, 22–6. For similar accounts in the versions of the Toledot
Yeshu, see Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, 176, 316 (Passover execution of Jesus); 143, 201–2 (exe-
cution of disciples).
224 Mark 15:1–15; Matthew 27:11–26; Luke 23:1–25; John 19:12–16; Acts 3:13; see also Justin
Martyr, First Apology 35.6; Dialogue 85.2; Tertullian, Apology 21.18, 24; Against the Jews 8.18; Melito
94 Josephus and Jesus

credits Jewish instigation in the form of lodging an accusation, but gives Pilate the
responsibility for the actual deed.225 Certain traditions in the Jewish Toledot Yeshu
also portray Jewish leaders as coordinating with the Romans to execute Jesus.226
The non-Christian Tacitus, a younger contemporary of Josephus, follows a similar
pattern by putting the focus of Jesus’ death on Pilate.227 All this combines to place
the creation of this passage more credibly in the hands of a non-Christian than a
Christian, with Josephus the most likely party given the stylistic parallels pointed
out above.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες:
‘those who loved him at first did not cease [doing so]’

The phrase ‘those who first’ (οἱ τὸ πρῶτον) is common in Josephus with five other
instances of τὸ πρῶτον used immediately after a definite article and two of these
instances are quite close to the TF.228 Another word, ‘cease’ or ‘leave off ’ (παύω), is
used with an implied direct object and some have claimed that such syntax contra-
dicts Josephus’ usage, which is said to always provide an explicit direct object.229
There are, however, several examples of Josephus using παύω without a direct ob-
ject, as when rain230 and war231 ‘cease’, but these are not exact parallels and they do
not necessarily suggest an implied direct object anyway. Better parallels are when
seditions and uprisings ‘cease’ as in ‘the sedition of the Hebrews . . . ceased’ (ἡ δὲ
τῶν Ἑβραίων στάσις . . . ἐπαύθη),232 or just a few verses before the TF another
Jewish uprising is described, ‘and thus the sedition ended’ (καὶ οὕτω παύεται ἡ
στάσις).233 Another close grammatical parallel comes in a passage that also hap-
pens to use the same exact verb form, ‘Where the writers of these things cease
[recording events]’ (ὅπου δ’ οἵ τε τούτων συγγραϕεῖς ἐπαύσαντο).234 A further

of Sardis On the Passover, 96. In the New Testament, only Acts 4:27 does not try to exonerate Pilate,
but this broadly accusatory statement makes Herod, Jews, and Gentiles culpable as well. Other early
Christian statements which blame Pilate generally follow the same pattern of broadly making many
people, or even all people, culpable for the death of Jesus and hence do not lay primary fault on Pilate;
see for example Tertullian, Against Praxeas 28.2; On the Resurrection of the Flesh 20.2.

225 For a similar argument, see Winter, ‘Josephus on Jesus’, 433.

226 This is most clearly expressed throughout the version of the Toledot Yeshu known as Group 1; see
Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, 127–66.
227 Tacitus, Annals 15.44.
228 Antiquities 8.370, 14.125, 15.265, 18.278, 18.333.
229 Mason, for example, claims that such a usage can be found nowhere else in Josephus; see
Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 231. See also Eisler, The Messiah Jesus, 55; Paget, ‘Some
Observations’, 574.
230 Antiquities 1.90.
231 Antiquities 5.174.
232 Antiquities 4.66.
233 Antiquities 18.62.
234 War 1.18.
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 95

related usage is when Josephus also uses πρῶτος, a negative particle, and the same
exact form of ἐπαύσαντο, ‘they did not cease earlier’ (οὐ πρότερον ἐπαύσαντο).235
All these demonstrate that the TF’s use of παύω is not only quite Josephan,
but also often associated with disturbances among the Jewish people, much in
line with other vocabulary we have already seen in the TF. Furthermore, early
Christian tradition repeatedly emphasizes that the disciples abandoned Jesus be-
fore his death,236 denied him before others,237 and then did not even believe that he
was resurrected.238 This description glaringly contrasts with how the TF portrays
the disciples as persisting in their belief despite Jesus’ death. This matches similar
portrayals in traditions within the Jewish Toledot Yeshu, which describe the dis-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

ciples as being faithful to Jesus immediately after his execution.239 As such, it seems
far more likely that the TF’s wording came from a Jew like Josephus than a later
Christian scribe.
In this phrase, another term, ‘love’ (ἀγαπάω), is sometimes thought to be sus-
picious because it is assumed to imply a deep or sublime love, as it frequently does
in the New Testament; hence it strikes one as being more likely to come from a
Christian interpolator than Josephus.240 But Josephus deploys ἀγαπάω more than
seventy times and with it he usually refers to far more mundane actions such as ‘to
like’ or ‘to be pleased’ or ‘to be devoted’. This is how Josephus uses the word just
a few verses before the TF when he says, ‘but they did not like the things which
were done to the water’ (οἱ δ’ οὐκ ἠγάπων τοῖς ἀμϕὶ τὸ ὕδωρ δρωμένοις);241 or
later on in the same book, ‘but he enjoyed the safety of being made a captive by
Jewish men’ (ἀγαπῶν δὲ τὴν σωτηρίαν μετὰ αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἀνδρῶν
γενομένην).242
But most remarkably, as Bermejo-Rubio and Eisler point out,243 Josephus also
uses the term ἀγαπάω to claim that the Jewish insurrectionist ‘Aristobulus be-
came a source of disturbances . . . who again gathered together many Jews who
desired a change and who had long been devoted to him’ (ἀρχὴ γίνεται θορύβων
Ἀριστόβουλος . . . ὃς αὖθις πολλοὺς Ἰουδαίων ἐπισυνίστη, τοὺς μὲν ἐπιθυμοῦντας
μεταβολῆς, τοὺς δὲ ἀγαπῶντας αὐτὸν πάλαι).244 This passage strikingly par-
allels the TF in that Josephus here uses γίνεται to introduce Aristobulus, just as

235 Antiquities 9.266.

236 Matthew 26:31, 56; Mark 14:27, 50; John 16:32.
237 Matthew 26:69–75; Mark 14:67–72; Luke 22:56–62; John 18:17, 25–7.
238 Matthew 28:17; Mark 16:11, 13–14; Luke 24:11, 25, 41; John 20:24–9.
239 For example, see Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, 133, 153, 200. Note, though, that one ver-
sion does imply that the disciples doubted his resurrection at first because it says that they mourned
greatly at his death; see Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, 300.
240 Bammel, ‘Zum Testimonium Flavianum’, 11.
241 Antiquities 18.60.
242 Antiquities 18.361.
243 Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 355–6; Eisler, The Messiah Jesus, 55. See also Thackeray,
Josephus, 147.
244 War 1.171.
96 Josephus and Jesus

the TF does for Jesus. Josephus then deploys a time marker to describe those who
‘had long been devoted to [Aristobulus]’, thus matching the TF’s phrase ‘who had
first been devoted to him’ (οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες).245 Josephus goes on to
describe Aristobulus as ‘gathering many Jews’ (πολλοὺς Ἰουδαίων ἐπισυνίστη)
which nicely parallels the TF’s phrase ‘he brought over many from among the Jews’
(πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους . . . ἐπηγάγετο). The use of the word ἀγαπάω in the TF
should thus not only be read in a neutral light, but, more importantly, its applica-
tion to the followers of Jesus renders it wholly Josephan given the close parallels it
shares with Josephus’ description of the followers of the rebel Aristobulus.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

ἐϕάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς . . . ζῶν:
‘For he appeared to them alive’

Moving on, we once again have a statement that on first glance strains credulity.
The phrase ‘for to them’ (γὰρ αὐτοῖς) is perfectly Josephan and he uses it forty-two
times in that exact form, including twice shortly after the TF.246 Yet it is the meaning
of the larger phrase that strikes many as too incredible to believe, for it presents
Josephus as, apparently, confessing that Jesus did in fact appear alive to his dis-
ciples on the third day. But here I make a very simple observation. I suggest that the
phrase ought to be translated not that ‘he appeared to them alive’, but rather, ‘he ap-
peared to them to be alive’, or even ‘it seemed to them that he was alive’.247 In other
words, I maintain that ϕαίνω parallels the English usage for the word ‘appear’ in
that it can ambiguously refer to either (1) an event of actual appearing, or (2) an
event appearing or seeming to be so (perhaps falsely). Thus, the TF may not state
that Jesus actually appeared to the disciples, but only that it seemed that way to
the disciples. This meaning of ‘seeming’ for ϕαίνω is well expressed by Plato, who
wrote, ‘Certain things may seem so, but indeed may not be so in truth’ (ϕαινόμενα,
οὐ μέντοι ὄντα γέ που τῇ ἀληθείᾳ).248 And Origen, writing some six hundred years
later, quite agrees, ‘nothing that seems (ϕαινόμενον) is good inasmuch as it exists
in appearance and not in truth and expresses the image of illusions not accurately
or truly’.249

245 For other examples of ἀγαπάω being used with a time marker, see also Antiquities 12.173; War
1.171, 2.141.
246 Antiquities 18.90, 18.121.
247 Some scholars have suggested that ϕαίνω with αὐτοῖς implies subjectivity, but they have not
elaborated on their assertions; see Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium
Flavianum’, 95; Whealey, ‘Josephus on Jesus: Evidence from the First Millennium’, 304; Victor, ‘Das
Testimonium Flavianum’, 77; Bardet, Le Testimonium Flavianum, 51.
248 Plato, Republic 596e line 4 (=​TLG 0059.042).
249 οὐδὲν ϕαινόμενον καλόν ἐστιν, οἱονεὶ δοκήσει ὂν καὶ οὐκ ἀληθῶς καὶ τὴν ϕαντασίαν πλανῶν
ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀκριβῶς καὶ ἀληθῶς ἐκτυποῦν. Origen, On Prayer 20.2 (my trans. from ed. Koetschau,
Origenes Werke II, GCS 3 p. 344 lines 9–11 =​TLG 2042.008).
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 97

This is an important point and it is worth a detailed examination to see if such

an interpretation is legitimate. The TF uses ϕαίνω with the participle ‘alive’ (ζῶν),
and Greek lexicons and grammars give somewhat contradictory guidance for
interpreting ϕαίνω when supplemented by a participle. LSJ, Smyth, and Goodwin,
all which focus on classical literature, indicate that a supplementary participle is
used with ϕαίνω to designate an act of real or actual appearance, and that an infini-
tival verb is used when ϕαίνω instead designates that something merely appears so
or seems so. This would mean that the TF’s phrasing should refer to an actual ap-
pearance, as in ‘he appeared to them alive’.250 But, Smyth, with Goodwin agreeing,
cautions that ‘the above distinction, however, is not always followed’251 and Smyth

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

gives some counterexamples.252 BDAG, which focuses on literature closer in time
to Josephus, is even more ambivalent and provides several examples showing that
ϕαίνω with either the infinitive or the participle can indicate something seeming
or appearing to be so (but which may not actually be so).253
And indeed, a survey of literature from around the first century ce shows that
many writers used ϕαίνω with the participle to specify appearing to be so or
seeming to be so. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, for example, writes, ‘For it seems that
many things appear beautiful and wonderful when compared with themselves, but
when compared to other better things [they appear] to be less glorious’ (πολλὰ
γὰρ τῶν καθ’ αὑτὰ ϕαινομένων καλῶν καὶ θαυμαστῶν ἑτέροις ἀντιπαρατεθέντα
κρείττοσιν ἐλάττω τῆς δόξης ἐϕάνη).254 Plutarch similarly writes, ‘For that ma-
lignant power which once was called monarchy and tyranny, then seemed to be a
saving defense of the city’ (ἡ δ’ ἐπίϕθονος ἰσχὺς ἐκείνη, μοναρχία λεγομένη καὶ
τυραννὶς πρότερον, ἐϕάνη τότε σωτήριον ἔρυμα τῆς πολιτείας γενομένη).255
Jewish and Christian writers of the first and second centuries ce follow the same
pattern. Philo states, ‘[God] appears to be speaking to certain persons as if they
were his coworkers’ (ϕαίνεται γὰρ διαλεγόμενός τισιν ὡς ἂν συνεργοῖς αὐτοῦ),256
and then discusses whether God was actually doing so, before concluding that he
was.257 The Gospel of Matthew also deploys ϕαίνω likewise, as in ‘so that you do
not appear to men to be fasting [though you actually are]’ (ὅπως μὴ ϕανῇς τοῖς
ἀνθρώποις νηστεύων).258 And the Shepherd of Hermas says too, ‘nothing seems

250 LSJ, ϕαίνω, B II; Smyth and Messing, Greek Grammar, sec. 2143; Goodwin, A Greek Grammar,
sec. 1592.
251 Smyth and Messing, Greek Grammar, sec. 2143; Goodwin, A Greek Grammar, sec. 1592.
252 Smyth gives the counter examples of Demosthenes, In Midiam 21.39 (Smyth §1965) ‘It will ap-
pear that he did not consider the laws on your behalf nor was even angry’ (οὐχ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν οὐδὲ τῶν
νόμων ϕροντίσας οὐδ’ ἀγανακτήσας ϕανήσεται) (=​TLG 0014.021 lines 3–4); and Plato, Phaedo 114d
(Smyth §2106) ‘It appears that the soul is immortal’ (ἀθάνατόν γε ἡ ψυχὴ ϕαίνεται οὖσα) (=​ TLG
0059.004 line 4).
253 Bauer et al., BDAG, ϕαίνω 2b, 5.
254 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Epistula ad Pompeium Geminum 1.7 lines 6–8 (=​TLG 0081.015).
255 Plutarch, Pericles 39.4 lines 1–3 (=​TLG 0007.012).
256 Philo, De Confusione Linguarum 168 (=​TLG 0018.013 lines 4–5).
257 Philo, De Confusione Linguarum 169–82.
258 Matthew 6:18 (ed. Aland et al., The Greek New Testament).
98 Josephus and Jesus

to have been cut off from it [though something indeed was]’ (οὐδὲν ϕαίνεται
ἐκομμένον ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ).259
Clearly, then, in literature contemporary to Josephus, ϕαίνω with a participle
can designate seeming or appearing to be so, with no implication of the truth of the
matter. But how did Josephus use ϕαίνω? He deploys the word 126 times,260 and if
we work through every instance we find that the vast majority either do not apply
to the case at hand or are too ambiguous to make any determination one way or
the other. But several are quite illuminating. For example, with ϕαίνω and a parti-
ciple Josephus suggests that Ahab might have been deceived, ‘And so Ahab appears
to have been deceived by this in regard to [his] understanding’ (ϕαίνεται οὖν καὶ

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Ἄχαβος ὑπὸ τούτου τὴν διάνοιαν ἀπατηθείς).261 Or, in another instance, Josephus
describes King Herod’s relationship with Agrippa, saying ‘[Herod] appeared glad
[to see Agrippa]’ (ἄσμενος δὲ ἐϕάνη).262 Josephus implies that merely appearing
glad was not a guarantee of actually being glad, for he explains immediately after-
ward that on account of this Agrippa ‘supposed’ (δοκοῦντος) that he and the king
were friends—and in this case it turns out they were. Or again Josephus says that
Herodotus ‘appears to mention [our nation] in a certain way (τρόπῳ τινὶ ϕαίνεται
μεμνημένος)263 and then follows with a debatable citation that does not explicitly
mention Jews.264
In another instance, Antipater goes to Caesar to accuse Archelaus of being ‘on
a stage faking tears during the day’ (ἐπὶ σκηνῆς δακρύειν μὲν προσποιούμενον
τὰς ἡμέρας) over his father’s death, but at night living it up.265 And so, Antipater
reasons, that ‘if granted the kingdom, Archelaus will appear to be the same to-
ward Caesar as he was toward his father’ (ϕανεῖσθαί τε καὶ περὶ τὸν Καίσαρα
τοιόνδε ὄντα Ἀρχέλαον συγχωροῦντα τὴν βασιλείαν, ὁποῖος γένοιτο καὶ περὶ
τὸν πατέρα).266 Here, Josephus, through the mouth of Antipater, is explaining that
Archelaus will appear to be one thing, but really be quite another—and uses ϕαίνω
with a participle to do so (ϕανεῖσθα . . . ὄντα).
While some might quibble with certain of the above instances, the following
example is not only the closest syntactical parallel to the TF, but also the clearest
example of using ϕαίνω as ‘to seem so’ or ‘to appear so’. With this, Josephus de-
scribes how the brothers of Joseph put blood on Joseph’s clothes in order to de-
ceive their father Jacob, ‘so that he [Joseph] might appear to him [Jacob] to have

259 Shepherd of Hermas, parable 8.3 (69.1) (ed. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, 602 =​ TLG 1419.001
line 3).
260 I derived this number from a TLG search for the lexeme ϕαίνω; curiously Accordance gives only
119 instances.
261 Antiquities 8.420. Cassiodorus’ Latin translation also understands ϕαίνεται in this passage as
‘seem’: Hoc ergo modo uidetur etiam achab deceptus (Pollard et al., Flavius Josephus: Antiquities).
262 Antiquities 16.21.
263 Apion 1.168.
264 Apion 1.169–70. For other less clear examples, see Antiquities 3.38, 4.48; Apion 1.12.
265 Antiquities 17.234.
266 Antiquities 17.235.
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 99

been killed by beasts’ (ὡς ἂν ὑπὸ θηρίων αὐτῷ ϕανείη διεϕθαρμένος),267 when,
of course, Joseph had not been killed at all. In this latter instance we have ϕαίνω
employed in the passive to describe how Joseph ‘appeared’ or ‘seemed’, then a da-
tive pronoun to indicate to whom Joseph ‘appeared’ or ‘seemed’, and the participle
to indicate what ‘appeared’ or ‘seemed’ to be the case.268 And in this instance, we
know that Joseph was not actually killed, but that it only falsely appeared so to
Jacob. Notably, when this passage was translated into Latin by Cassiodorus and
his team they also understood it as meaning ‘seem’ and so rendered it as ‘so that it
might seem to him as though he had been devoured by beasts’ (ut ei uideretur quasi
a bestiis deuoratus).269 The remarkable thing about this passage is the close parallel

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

it shares with the TF, which likewise uses ϕαίνω in the passive with a dative pro-
noun and a participle to indicate that ‘he appeared to them to be alive’ or even the
impersonal ‘it seemed to them that he was alive’.270
These examples show that the TF can legitimately be interpreted as merely
claiming that it seemed to the disciples that Jesus was alive again, not that Jesus
actually was alive. And this interpretation is backed by contemporary Greek usage
as well as by Josephus’ own stylistic tendencies. In fact, I can find no clear example
of Josephus using a participle with ϕαίνω to indicate actual appearance; rather he
instead prefers to use such syntax to indicate what appears to be so or seems to
be so.271
Such then I propose is not only what is meant by the passage, but how most
ancient and medieval Christians read the passage. A great benefit of this interpret-
ation is that it shows how the TF’s ambiguity would allow some readers to take it as
giving a mere report, but others to take it as giving a statement of fact—a scenario

267 Antiquities 2.35.

268 Even if one were to insist that ϕαίνω in this instance means ‘to actually appear’ or even ‘to be
obvious’ the phrase would still portray the term in a subjective perspective from the point of view of
the author: ‘so that [Joseph] might actually appear to him [Jacob] to have been killed by beasts’ or ‘so
it might be obvious to him [Jacob] that he [Joseph] was killed by beasts’. In both instances the ‘obvious’
or ‘factual’ nature of the appearance is only so from the perspective of Jacob, not the author. In this
sense the passage in the TF contains two subjective elements, the first is ϕαίνω meaning ‘to seem’ the
second is the dative pronoun ‘to them’. The result is that even if only one element was present in the TF,
the other could still by itself portray the resurrection of Jesus as a subjective report and not as a factual
occurrence.
269 Cassiodorus, Josephus’s Antiquities 2.35 (Pollard et al., Flavius Josephus: Antiquities).
270 Though an impersonal rendering ‘it seemed’ for ἐϕάνη would require a change of subject to prop-
erly translate the nominative supplementary participle ‘he was alive’ (ζῶν), such a switch in subject is
grammatically permissible; see Smyth and Messing, Greek Grammar, sec. 1965.
271 The only possible exception to this is when Josephus quotes the words of another writer to tell of
an appearance of an Egyptian deity, ‘he says that Isis appeared to Amenhotep in his sleep blaming him’
(ϕησὶν ὅτι κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους ἡ Ἶσις ἐϕάνη τῷ Ἀμενώϕει μεμϕομένη αὐτόν) (Apion 1.289). But here the
syntax is not Josephus’, but the quoted writer’s. And even if it is Josephus’ own words, he clearly believes
the appearance never happened because he ridicules it (Apion 1.287, 293), and so we might just as well
render the phrase ‘and Isis seemed to Amenhotep to be blaming him in his dream’. In any case, if a clear
example is found of Josephus employing the participle with ϕαίνω to indicate actual appearance, the
examples I have given above show that he did not always do so. Certain other ambiguous instances of
using the participle with ϕαίνω include Antiquities 6.200, 14.154.
100 Josephus and Jesus

that well explains the great diversity in how Christians handled the TF. All this also
points toward Josephus as the author of this phrase inasmuch as it matches his
style, and because it also seems unlikely to have come from a Christian since the
New Testament almost exclusively deploys ὁράω for discussing the resurrection
appearances of Jesus, not ϕαίνω.272

τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν:

‘on the third day again’

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

The literal rendering of this phrase awkwardly reads ‘having the third day again’,
but such is typical of Greek writers for indicating a timeframe and Josephus uses
the phrasing numerous times throughout his work.273 A more colloquial transla-
tion would be ‘on the third day again’ (τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν). Remarkably,
Josephus uses ἔχω, ἡμέρα, and πάλιν together on two separate occasions, just as
they are used in the TF. Thus ‘she went out again on the following days’ (ἐξῄει
πάλιν ταῖς ἐχομέναις ἡμέραις),274 and ‘on the next [day] he came again and used
the same words, and for forty days he did not cease’ (τῇ δ’ ἐχομένῃ πάλιν ἐλθὼν
τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐποιήσατο λόγους, καὶ μέχρι τεσσαράκοντα ἡμερῶν οὐ διέλειπε).275
Most relevant for our purposes is that Christians do not seem to have used the
turn of phrase ‘having the third day’ (τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν) when speaking about
how Jesus was raised ‘on the third day’. In fact, a TLG search for the lexemes ἔχω,
ἡμέρα, and τρίτος within seven words of one another reveals no references to Jesus’
resurrection before the fifth century.276 Christians instead preferred the simple da-
tive τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ277 or the simple accusative, or various prepositions like ἕως,
μέτα, διά, or ἐν.278 It thus seems likelier that a non-Christian such as Josephus
would employ the TF’s phraseology, rather than a Christian interpolator.

272 Matthew 28:7, 10; Luke 24:34; Acts 13:31, 26:16; 1 Corinthians 15:5–8. Only the long ending of
Mark uses ϕαίνω, Mark 16:9, 12, 14. Note that unlike with the TF, in these three latter instances, ϕαίνω
does not have a subordinate participle. This indicates that it does not mean ‘appear to be’ or ‘seem to be’,
but that Jesus ‘actually appeared’.
273 For example, the following use ἔχω and ἡμέρα: Antiquities 1.193, 2.72, 3.290, 5.327, 6.287,
7.1, 19.291. Of these 1.193, 3.290, 7.1, and 19.291 modify ἡμέρα with a number, just as the TF does.
Goldberg claims that there is not a precise parallel in the Antiquities, but this is not the case. For ex-
ample, in Antiquities 7.1 it is used to denote time after which, and in Antiquities 5.327 it denotes time in
which. See Goldberg, ‘Coincidences’, 68.
274 Antiquities 5.327.
275 Antiquities 6.174.
276 The closest reference comes from the apocryphal Acts of John 72 lines 2–3 (=​ TLG 0317.001),
which speaks of a certain Drusianas, who would be raised from the dead after three days (εἰς τὸ μνῆμα,
τρίτην ἡμέραν ἐχούσης τῆς Δρουσιανῆς), but the text does not speak of Jesus that way.
277 Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:19; Luke 9:22, 18:33, 24:7, 24:46; Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:4. For
early Christian references, see Justin Martyr, Dialogue 97.1 line 4, 100.1 line 3 (ed. Marcovich p. 236,
241 =​TLG 0645.003); Epiphanius, Ancoratus 118.10 (=​TLG 2021.001 lines 9–10); and many others.
278 τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν (Luke 24:21). See also other similar locutions like ἕως τῆς τρίτης ἡμέρας
(Matthew 27:64); μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας (Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34); διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν (Matthew 26:61;
Mark 14:58); ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις (Matthew 27:40; Mark 15:29; John 2:19–20).
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 101

τῶν θείων προϕητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ

αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων:
‘given that the divine prophets spoke these and ten thousand
other wonders concerning him’

This phrase is marked by the genitive absolute construction with ‘the divine
prophets’ (τῶν θείων προϕητῶν) being the subject of the participle ‘having
spoken’ (εἰρηκότων). The phrase as a whole is typically Josephan. For example,
ταῦτά τε καί is used by Josephus in the same exact form in Antiquities 19.141, and
in a slightly different form in War 1.157.279 The exaggerated phrase ‘ten thousand

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

other things’ (ἄλλα μυρία) is normal hyperbole for Josephus,280 and he uses the
same phrasing twice elsewhere.281 The locution ‘concerning him’ (περὶ αὐτοῦ) is
used twenty-nine times282 and he enjoys partnering the phrase with λέγω, as he
does in the TF. For example, ‘speaking as follows concerning them’ (περὶ αὐτῶν
λέγων οὕτως).283
The same can be said for ‘divine’ (θεῖος), which Josephus deploys to refer to
revered figures in Jewish tradition, as I mentioned above.284 He twice even uses
θεῖος in conjunction with prophets: ‘as he was undeniably a divine prophet’ (ὢν
δ’ οὗτος ὁ προϕήτης θεῖος ὁμολογουμένως)285 and ‘truly a divine and excellent
prophet’ (θεῖον ἀληθῶς καὶ προϕήτην ἄριστον).286 The word θαυμάσιος is de-
ployed twenty-seven times by Josephus and once, like with the TF, he partners it
with λέγω, ‘yet I will speak of what is more wonderful than this’ (ὃ δ’ ἐστὶ τούτου
θαυμασιώτερον ἐρῶ).287
Josephus was also keenly interested in all things related to prophecy, including
the fulfillment of biblical prophecy,288 the activities of post-biblical prophets,289
and the phenomenon of false prophets.290 So it makes sense that he would note
prophecies involving Jesus. But the phrase still falls under suspicion for some be-
cause it seems to present Josephus as affirming that the Hebrew prophets actually

279 To identify these locations, I ran an Accordance search for the lexeme οὗτος within two words of
the phrase τε καί.
280 Thackeray, Josephus, 147.
281 Antiquities 13.382; War 2.361. Olson is incorrect when he says that Josephus never uses the
phrase, Olson, ‘A Eusebian Reading’, 109. To identify these locations, I ran an Accordance search for the
lexemes ἄλλος and μυρίος within the same verse. For some reason Mealand seems to have missed these
instances because he says that such phraseology is only partially witnessed in Josephus; see Mealand,
‘On Finding Fresh Evidence’, 84 n. 12.
282 For example, Antiquities 17.332, 18.202.
283 Antiquities 1.161. See also Antiquities 1.163; Apion 1.69, 1.171.
284 For further discussion, see p. 72.
285 Antiquities 10.35.
286 Antiquities 8.243.
287 Antiquities 3.216.
288 Antiquities 10.35, 208–10, 276; War 4.387, 6.109, 7.432.
289 War 1.68–9, 6.300–9; Antiquities 15.373–9. Josephus even considered himself to be a prophet; see
War 3:352.
290 Antiquities 20.97–9, 167–72; War 2.258–63.
102 Josephus and Jesus

foretold Jesus’ wondrous deeds. This is especially so given that the genitive abso-
lute construction is often believed to be grammatically disconnected from the rest
of the sentence,291 making the phrase to read as a statement of fact written from the
point of view of Josephus himself. In reply, I point out the work of Lois Fuller, who
shows that genitive absolute constructions in the time of Josephus can be gram-
matically connected to the larger sentence.292 If this is the case with the TF, then
the phrase could easily be interpreted as presenting the perspective of the disciples,
not Josephus.
In fact, Fuller goes on to demonstrate that though a genitive absolute construc-
tion usually appears at the beginning of a sentence, it may occasionally appear after

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

the main verb, as it does in the TF. In these instances, Fuller maintains that it then
can ‘nuance the significance of the main action’.293 Josephus does this near the TF
in Antiquities 18.119 when he writes ‘there was an opinion among the Jews that
the destruction of the army was a punishment for him, since God wanted to af-
flict Herod’ (τοῖς δὲ Ἰ ουδαίοις δόξαν ἐπὶ τιμωρίᾳ τῇ ἐκείνου τὸν ὄλεθρον ἐπὶ τῷ
στρατεύματι γενέσθαι τοῦ θεοῦ κακῶσαι Ἡρώδην θέλοντος). Josephus uses the
genitive absolute in the same way a few verses later in Antiquities 18.122 in order
to explain why Herod went up to Jerusalem ‘since an ancestral feast of the Jews
was approaching’ (ἑορτῆς πατρίου τοῖς Ἰ ουδαίοις ἐνεστηκυίας). In both cases the
genitive absolute concludes a sentence in order to explain a cause or motive for
the ‘opinion of the Jews’ on the one hand, and Herod going up to Jerusalem on the
other.294
By applying such an understanding to the TF, one could very well interpret the
TF’s genitive absolute as explaining the cause for why ‘it appeared to them’ that
Jesus was alive, thus putting the rationale in the mind of the disciples. This would
make the phrase quite neutral. Rendered in English, the phrase would read some-
thing like, ‘It seemed to them, given that the divine prophets had spoken such
things and many other marvels about him, that he was alive on the third day’.
But of course, the phrase is ambiguous and could be interpreted in a variety
of other ways, some of which would affirm the truthfulness of prophecies about
Jesus.295 And this ambiguity hinges on both how the main verb (ϕαίνω) should be
understood and what role the genitive absolute construction plays in the sentence.
A more ambiguous rendering than the neutral version I have given above would
be something like, ‘He appeared to them to be alive on the third day given that the
divine prophets had spoken such things and many other marvels about him’. Here
it is unclear if the second half of the sentence is presented from the perspective

291 Fuller, ‘The Genitive Absolute’, 42.

292 Ibid., 143–6.
293 Ibid., 154 (modified).
294 See also Antiquities 19.133.
295 For a thorough discussion on various ways to translate genitive absolute constructions, see Fuller,
‘The Genitive Absolute’, 153–64.
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 103

of the disciples or from that of the writer. All that to say, the TF is not necessarily
making any kind of definitive statement about what the Hebrew prophets said
about Jesus, but may instead be placing such sentiments into the minds of the
disciples—yet its ambiguous syntax leaves open the possibility that later readers
might interpret the TF as affirming Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecies, as several later
Christians would do.296

εἰς [ἔτι] τε νῦν:

‘until now’

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Josephus nowhere uses this four-word combination,297 though he does deploy
smaller units of the phrase. Thus, he uses τε νῦν on ten other occasions, all of
which occur in the Antiquities, and nowhere else. One occurrence is even placed
quite near the TF in book 18 of the Antiquities.298 He deploys the reverse phrase
νῦν τε three times, two of which occur in the Antiquities.299 He makes use of εἰς νῦν
(without a noun or pronoun object of εἰς) on only two other occasions, but both
of them are in book 18 of the Antiquities where the TF is placed.300 He also uses
ἔτι with νῦν, typically in two different ways,301 yet notably he uses both words in a
unique series of particles on seven occasions,302 all of which are in the Antiquities.
Other variant phrases with ἔτι are scattered about like τε ἔτι (one time),303 ἔτι τε
καί (two times),304 and the shorter ἔτι τε (seven or nine times depending on textual
variation).305
Alice Whealey however points out that the Greek textual witnesses of
the TF’s phrase εἰς [ἔτι] τε νῦν are divergent and contain different though

296 For example, Pseudo-Hegesippus, On the Ruin of the City of Jerusalem 2.12.1 lines 26–8 (ed.
Usanni p. 163); Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.1.5 lines 8–9 (ed. Hansen p. 7).
297 Josephus does come close to the phrase when he says ‘until now it is called Succoth’ (εἰς τὰς ἔτι
νῦν Σκηνὰς λεγομένας) in Antiquities 1.337. Despite this, several scholars have claimed that the TF’s
phrasing εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν is more distinctive of Eusebius than Josephus and then argue that Eusebius inter-
polated the TF into manuscripts of the Antiquities; see Appendix 1.
298 Antiquities 2.104, 2.129, 2.161, 2.175, 4.137, 4.180, 7.383, 12.143, 17.47, 18.304.
299 Antiquities 13.49, 15.37; War 1.17.
300 Antiquities 18.266, 18.345. To identify these locations, I ran an Accordance search for εἰς followed
by νῦν within three words of one another. I excluded instances where a definite article intervenes be-
tween the two words, because such gives an entirely different syntax to the phrase.
301 ἔτι νῦν (Antiquities 1.92, 6.20, 8.154, 8.174); ἔτι καὶ νῦν (Antiquities 1.35, 1.125, 1.131, 1.160,
1.204, 1.212, 8.281, 9.290, 10.267, 12.119).
302 These include ἔτι γὰρ καὶ νῦν (Antiquities 1.203); ὅθεν νῦν ἔτι (Antiquities 2.313); ἔτι δὲ καὶ
νῦν (Antiquities 3.31); καὶ νῦν ἔτι (Antiquities 3.299); δὲ καὶ νῦν ἔτι (Antiquities 5.125); καὶ νῦν δ’ ἔτι
(Antiquities 7.378); καὶ ἔτι νῦν (Antiquities 14.188). Also, εἰς τὰς ἔτι νῦν Σκηνὰς λεγομένας (Antiquities
1.337).
303 War 1.623.
304 Antiquities 2.323, 14.194.
305 Antiquities 3.304, 4.39, 10.27, 13.128, 20.71; War 1.22, 6.267. Textual variants also include
Antiquities 5.226, 8.145. For all of the preceding information on ἔτι . . . νῦν, I ran a search in Accordance
for ἔτι and νῦν within three words of one another.
104 Josephus and Jesus

effectively synonymous phrases. She suggests that the original probably omitted
ἔτι (hence becoming the simpler εἰς τε νῦν) because the two earliest manuscripts
of Antiquities book 18 and several important Greek writers (who make direct use
of the Antiquities) contain this variant reading.306 I discuss this in more detail in
Appendix 1, and I think that Whealey is right that the Greek textual tradition fa-
vors εἰς τε νῦν as the original reading. Though εἰς τε νῦν would still be unique in
the works of Josephus, it would not be unexpected, for Josephus also deploys νῦν
in a unique series of particles and prepositions on at least twelve occasions without
ἔτι, all of which occur in the Antiquities, and several of which cluster around where
the TF is located.307

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Excluding ἔτι also makes the phrase εἰς τε νῦν more Josephan in that it
more closely follows Josephus’ other two usages of εἰς νῦν found in book
18 of the Antiquities, around where the TF is placed.308 Whatever the case
though, it seems unwise to assume Josephus could not have written either εἰς
ἔτι τε νῦν or εἰς τε νῦν, given that in the Antiquities he deploys νῦν with ἔτι
in seven unique ways, and he also deploys νῦν without ἔτι in at least twelve
unique ways.309 It thus seems that Josephus delighted in using νῦν in singular
ways since he deploys it in no less than nineteen unique series of particles
and prepositions. Probability would reason that he could be doing the same
in the TF.
A further relevant observation is that, while this phrase εἰς [ἔτι] τε νῦν appears
to mark the present tense since it contains the word ‘now’ (νῦν), its subsequent
clause is actually in the past tense. This is an unusual grammatical construction,
but Josephus does the very same thing in the two other instances where he deploys
εἰς with νῦν, and both of these happen to occur shortly after the TF in book 18 of
the Antiquities, as I mentioned above.310 This, combined with the above observa-
tions, makes the phrase (whether εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν or εἰς τε νῦν) plausibly Josephan, if
not thoroughly so.

306 See Images 1 and 2 and pp. 126–7, 135, 223–4. Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the
Testimonium Flavianum’, 101–3.
307 μέντοι γε νῦν (Antiquities 5.112); δὴ νῦν (Antiquities 6.291); δὲ νῦν γε (Antiquities 10.124); δὲ
νῦν μέν (Antiquities 12.424); καὶ γὰρ δὴ καὶ νῦν (Antiquities 17.67); ὡς καὶ νῦν οὔτι (Antiquities 17.86);
δ’ ὅμως καὶ νῦν (Antiquities 18.11); δὲ πολλάκις καὶ μέχρι νῦν (Antiquities 18.44); ἀλλὰ νῦν γοῦν
(Antiquities 18.349); δὲ ἤδη καί (19.171); καὶ μέχρι νῦν ὡς (Antiquities 19.345); ἢ νῦν ὡς (Antiquities
20.126). I am probably undercounting the actual number of unique variations, as I did not search every
instance of νῦν in a series of particles but only made a selection and presented those that were unique.
308 Antiquities 18.266, 18.345; Whealey, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum’, 103.
309 For examples outside of the Antiquities, see ἀλλὰ μὴν τό γε νῦν (War 2:355); νῦν μὲν οὖν (War
1:392).
310 Antiquities 18.266, 18.345. For discussions related to how Josephus deploys νῦν with the past
tense, see Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 100–1. Paget
seems to incorrectly claim that Josephus does not use νῦν with the past tense; see Paget, ‘Some
Observations’, 575, 578.
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 105

τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ ϕῦλον:

‘The tribe of the Christians, who were named from him,
has not disappeared’

The phrase ἀπὸ τοῦδε is used one other time by Josephus311 and ἐπιλείπω with
a negative particle is used four times by Josephus, once in the exact form, ‘he did
not cease’ (οὐκ ἐπέλιπε).312 Josephus also five times deploys ὀνομάζω with ἀπό, as
with the phrase ‘having been named Magogites from him’ (ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ Μαγώγας
ὀνομασθέντας).313 He never though uses the term ‘Christian’ (χριστιανός) in any
other location. However, I show in Chapter 4 that this should not raise suspicions

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

since, among other reasons, Josephus deployed one unique lexeme on average about
once in every eighty-seven words. The TF is ninety words long, meaning that one
should expect it to contain a unique word, just as the TF actually does.314 And, for that
matter, when one is speaking of Jesus’ followers, what lexeme would be more likely
than ‘Christian’?
The lexeme ‘tribe’ (ϕῦλον) is used by Josephus eleven other times, and in seven
of these he partners the word with a group in the genitive case, like in the TF.315
But his usage pattern has been the subject of some controversy and misstatements.
Thackeray believed it was markedly negative,316 but this cannot be the case be-
cause Josephus does use it to describe Jews, even using the same locution as the TF
does for Christians, ‘the tribe of the Jews’ (τὸ Ἰουδαίων . . . ϕῦλον).317 In other cases
it is used by Josephus to refer to ‘others’—that is, to groups of people distinct from
Jews.318 So the word is probably a neutral one in Josephus, though it is understand-
able that readers might have taken it negatively. Mason claims that Josephus uses
the term to refer to ethnic groups, not religious groups,319 but Josephus deploys it
for groups of Jews, locusts,320 and women,321 suggesting that for Josephus it simply
meant a ‘group’ whatever kind it may be. But either way, first- and second-century
Christians did refer to themselves as a ‘race’ (γένος)322 and a ‘nation’

311 War 3.515.

312 Antiquities 15.2. See also Antiquities 3.29, 7.159; War 1.482.
313 Antiquities 1.123; War 1.407, 5.162, 5.166, 5.171.
314 See pp. 110, 117, 123.
315 Antiquities 2.306; War 2.366, 2.374, 2.397, 3.354, 7.327; Apion 2.127. Of these, War 2.366, 2.397,
3.354, and 7.327 all deploy ϕῦλον with the definite article, like the TF does.
316 Thackeray, Josephus, 148. One example of a derogatory usage is with Justin, Dialogue 119.4 where
Justin uses ϕῦλον to describe ‘a barbarian tribe’ as compared to Christians; see Marcovich, Iustini
Martyris: Dialogus cum Tryphone, 275 lines 23–4.
317 War 3.354. Also, in Antiquities 14.115 Strabo is quoted by Josephus referring to Jews as a ϕῦλον;
and in War 2.397, 7.327 Josephus refers to Jews as a ϕῦλον in the speeches of Agrippa and Eleazar
respectively.
318 War 2.366, 2.374, 2.379, 2.381; Apion 2.127.
319 Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 232.
320 Antiquities 2.306.
321 Antiquities 13.430.
322 See, for example, 1 Peter 2:9 and Epistle to Diognetus 1.1.
106 Josephus and Jesus

(ἔθνος),323 so Josephus may have picked up such ethnographic identification

from them.
Be that as it may, even though Christians would use ethnic terms to describe
themselves, they never seem to have used ϕῦλον to do so. A TLG search for the
lexemes ϕῦλον and Χριστιανός within seven words of one another reveals only
four references that can reliably predate the sixth century.324 Of these, two are
by Eusebius, but with the first he is quoting a summary of a letter of Emperor
Trajan derived from Tertullian,325 and with the second he again quotes the very
same summary.326 So these two instances cannot be attributed to Eusebius (or
Tertullian) since they are summaries of a non-Christian’s words. The third refer-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

ence is from the hagiographical Martyrdom of Ignatius, which appears to contain
the same exact quotation of Trajan.327 The fourth and final reference comes from
Sozomen, who says that the phrase τὸ Χριστιανῶν ϕῦλον was used by Emperor
Shapur of Persia when he threatened to eradicate ‘the tribe of the Christians’.328
Consequently no example of the term ϕῦλον referring to Christians can ever be
found in use among ancient Christians; rather it seems to have been of currency
among non-Christians.
One could skeptically posit however that such references only show Christians
dubiously claiming that non-Christians used the term Χριστιανῶν ϕῦλον, and
hence none of the above data gives us direct testimony that non-Christians actu-
ally deployed the term. This seems unlikely, for why would Christians consistently
claim that others use a vaguely derogatory word against them like ϕῦλον, when
the others never do? In any case, around the time of Josephus, the non-Christian
writer Suetonius uses the Latin ethnic term genus to describe Christians,329 and
genus is the Latin word Rufinus used to translate the term ϕῦλον in his translation
of the TF.330 And, conversely, the term ϕῦλον was used by a later Greek translator
to translate genus.331

323 1 Peter 2:9.

324 In this I exclude references to the TF. I also exclude the following spurious work attributed to
Athanasius, Sermo de descriptione deiparae vol. 28 p. 948 line 46 (=​ TLG 2035.088), which may well
date centuries after his time.
325 τὸ Χριστιανῶν ϕῦλον. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.33.2 (ed. Schwartz GCS 9.1 p. 272 line
8 =​TLG 2018.022 line 2).
326 τὸ τῶν Χριστιανῶν ϕῦλον. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.33.4 (ed. Schwartz GCS 9.1 p. 274
line 2 =​ TLG 2018.022 lines 13–14). Certain scholars have argued that Eusebius’ use of this phrase
points to him as the author of the TF; for further discussion see Appendix 1.
327 τὸ τῶν Χριστιανῶν ϕῦλον. Martyrdom of Ignatius 11.3 lines 3–4 (=​TLG 2657.002).
328 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 2.9.5 (ed. Hansen GCS NF 4 p. 62 line 22 =​TLG 2048.001 line 4).
329 afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae. Suetonius, Twelve
Caesars, Nero 6.16.2 (ed. Rolfe p. 110 lines 15–17).
330 See Rufinus’ Latin version of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 1.11.8 (ed. Schwartz GCS 9.1 p. 81
line 9). Rufinus, however, omits the term in his translation of Ecclesiastical History 3.33.2 and omits all
of Trajan’s reply in his translation of 3.33.3.
331 See Appendix 1 p. 225.
 Authorial commentary on the testimonium fl avianum 107

From this several things are clear. Firstly, Suetonius shows that the Latin
word genus was used by non-Christians to describe Christians in Josephus’ day.
Secondly, genus was seen as a good translation of ϕῦλον. Thirdly, ϕῦλον was seen as
a good translation of genus. And fourthly, several Christians quote non-Christians
as calling them a ϕῦλον. On balance then it is credible that non-Christians actually
did call Christians a ϕῦλον in Josephus’ time.332 The term ϕῦλον would also be
puzzling coming from a Christian interpolator, since it would require the Christian
to insert a possibly derogatory term into the TF. Given all of this, it makes the most
sense that the phrase ‘tribe of the Christians’ comes from the hand of Josephus and
not a later Christian interpolator.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

What is more, if we combine the clause at hand with the previous clause in the
TF, it reads ‘until now, the tribe of the Christians, who were named from him, has
not disappeared’ (εἰς [ἔτι] τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ
ἐπέλιπε τὸ ϕῦλον). Several scholars have argued that this phrase suggests surprise
that Christians have remained, or a hope that they soon will disappear, or a disap-
pointment in the fact that they have not yet done so.333 And such sentiment is not
likely to have come from a Christian interpolator. All told then, the phrase ‘tribe of
the Christians’ in the TF seems very like something Josephus would say and much
less like something a later Christian scribe would insert.

332 For further discussion on this matter, see Appendix 1 pp. 224–5.
333 Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 356; Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the
Testimonium Flavianum’, 101; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 66.
 4
Authenticity and Possible Translations
of the Testimonium Flavianum

Introduction

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

In view of the numerous parallels between the Testimonium Flavianum and Josephus
that the last chapter has uncovered, it scarcely needs to be said that the TF appears
authentically Josephan. The parallels are notable even beyond their great number,
for they remarkably correspond with practically every aspect of the TF, from small
particles to stock terms to multi-word phrases. Several parallels help to interpret the
TF by showing that some statements which might initially strike one as an endorse-
ment of Jesus are actually far more neutral, while others highlight how negative or
derogatory the TF could potentially be, and still others reflect early Jewish traditions
about Jesus. Some describe the life of Jesus in terms never used by Christians, and
others present facts that contradict Christian tradition. All this is likely why so many
Christian writers do not seem to have interpreted the TF as a positive portrayal of
Jesus. It is striking too that many of the parallels cluster around the latter books of the
Antiquities, demonstrating that the TF cohesively blends with its surrounding ‘styl-
istic idiolect’, as the field of forensic authorship attribution would put it.1
Such impressive parallels have convinced not a few scholars that the TF is
largely or wholly authentic, causing some to even change from suspicion to em-
brace. Meier writes, ‘in fact, most of the vocabulary turns out to be characteristic
of Josephus’.2 Thackeray states that, though once skeptical, he has ‘now been led
to abandon my belief that the whole [TF] is a Christian interpolation’, for the TF
‘bears the marks of the author’s style’.3 He adds that ‘practically the whole of the
language can be illustrated from Josephus. The criterion of style, to my mind,
turns the scale in favor of the authenticity of the passage considered as a whole, if
not in every detail’.4 Mealand conducts a broad stylometric analysis of Josephus’
corpus and surprises himself by concluding, ‘When I began to study the passage
about Jesus, I had initially thought that little if any of it would turn out to be in the
style of Josephus. But my results so far actually suggest that on the more extensive
tests, provisionally reported here, the bulk of the passage about Jesus in Josephus

1 See pp. 66, 67, 75, 76, 92, 103–4.

2 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 63.
3 Thackeray, Josephus, 137.
4 Ibid., 141–2.

Josephus and Jesus. T. C. Schmidt, Oxford University Press. © T. C. Schmidt 2025.

DOI: 10.1093/​9780191957697.003.0005
 AUTHENTICITY of the Testimonium Fl avianum 109

is genuine’.5 Bardet agrees, saying that the notion of such parallels coming from
someone other than Josephus would require ‘a talent of imitation which would
hardly have an equivalent in antiquity’.6 Even the skeptical Feldman acknowledges
that the fact that the TF has ‘a substratum of authentic material seems increasingly
confirmed by stylistic studies’.7 Mason too, though generally incredulous, believes
‘much’ of the passage is ‘perfectly normal’ Josephan style.8 It must be remembered
that these scholars came to their conclusions without knowing many of the stylistic
parallels presented in this book.
But questions may still remain in the mind of the reflective reader. Though
the TF shares many close parallels with the work of Josephus, some words and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

phrases in the TF are rare or even nonexistent elsewhere in Josephus’ work. Are
these markers of inauthenticity? And, for that matter, are the impressive number of
lexical parallels perhaps a little too impressive? That is, do they betray the hand of
a later forger or interpolator who set about to integrate Josephus’ most frequent vo-
cabulary into the TF? What also of the placement of the TF? Does the TF’s location
in the Antiquities cohere with its surrounding context or does its location rather
give the appearance of being inserted by another hand? What of its length in com-
parison to the adjacent stories around it? And what about the Greek text of the TF?
Is it entirely authentic, or do other witnesses, like the Latin and Syriac versions,
preserve a more authentic original? Finally, what are the possible ways in which
ancient and medieval readers might have understood the TF?
These are the questions to which this chapter will attend. The ensuing pages
first analyze the TF stylometrically and then discuss its placement within the
Antiquities before turning to describe its textual preservation. The chapter con-
cludes by presenting possible ways of translating the TF.

Stylometric Analysis

Lexemes

We begin with stylometric analysis.9 The TF is made up of ninety words,10 which

in turn are drawn from sixty-two lexemes. Lexemes are the lexical form of a word—
that is, the form of a word that is found in a dictionary.11 As Table 1 shows, all the

5 Mealand, ‘On Finding Fresh Evidence’, 84.

6 [U]n talent d’imitation qui n’aurait guère d’équivalent dans l’antiquité. Bardet, Le Testimonium
Flavianum, 229.
7 Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–1980), 684.
8 Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 233.
9 For discussion on this and related terms, see p. 64 n.2.
10 This word count includes τις, but not ἔτι. It further includes the definite article τά which appears
as part of the crasis τἀληθῆ; however it counts εἴγε as one word, not two words.
11 Sometimes ‘lexemes’ are also called ‘lemmas’ in linguistic literature.
110 Josephus and Jesus

lexemes in the TF are abundantly utilized throughout Josephus’ work; all, that is,
except for three. But there are good reasons for believing even these lexemes to be
completely Josephan.
The rarest lexeme is ‘Christian’ (χριστιανός), which is not used by Josephus
anywhere else. But of course, in the first century χριστιανός was a rare lexeme
even among Christians which is why it is only used three times in the entire New
Testament.12 And all three of these references can be interpreted as something
that non-Christians called the followers of Jesus, not what the earliest Christians
called themselves. So, since χριστιανός is a rare word in the first century, it would
be strange for Josephus to employ it frequently, but not at all strange for him as a

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

non-Christian to speak of ‘Christians’ when discussing a man called ‘Christ’. The
Roman historian Tacitus, a younger contemporary of Josephus, does the same
thing when he presents a paragraph about ‘Christ’ (Christus) and then mentions
how ‘Christians’ (Christianos) derived their name from him—Tacitus’ only use of
the Latin lexeme Christianus.13 Another contemporary historian, Suetonius, also
uses ‘Christian’ (Christianus) once only.14 Furthermore, the TF employs the lexeme
χριστιανός in the context of saying ‘the tribe of the Christians’ which was not a
phrase that early Christians used to refer to themselves, though it does seem to have
been used by non-Christians.15 Thus, it would not be unexpected that Josephus
would use the lexeme ‘Christian’ (χριστιανός), and the fact that he uses it nowhere
else should be of no concern since other contemporary historians use it similarly.
The same goes for the next rarest lexeme ‘Christ’ (χριστός), which is used by
Josephus twice elsewhere.16 But what other lexeme would be likelier for Josephus to
use when discussing Jesus? And, as above, Josephus’ younger contemporary, the his-
torian Tacitus, does likewise when discussing Jesus, for he also mentions the lexeme
‘Christ’ (Christus),17 but in this case Tacitus does not mention the lexeme again,
whereas Josephus does. Suetonius, another younger contemporary of Josephus, also
seems to only mention the lexeme ‘Christ’ (Chrestus) once.18 As such, though the
lexeme ‘Christ’ is particularly rare in Josephus’ work, it is perfectly probable that he
would use it when speaking about Jesus, just as Tacitus and possibly Suetonius also do.
The third lexeme that appears infrequently within Josephus’ work is ‘accusation’
(ἔνδειξις). This is deployed by Josephus two other times and both instances are
situated in the latter half of the Antiquities, where the TF is placed.19 The overall
usage pattern of ἔνδειξις therefore matches the habit of authors who may shift their

12 Acts 11:26, 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16.

13 Tacitus, The Annals, 15.44 (ed. Jackson and Moore vol. 322 p. 282 line 19). It is possible that Tacitus
originally spelled the lexeme Chrestianos; see Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 43–4. But either
spelling would be a unique lexeme and his meaning is the same with both.
14 Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars Nero 16.2 (ed. Rolfe, p. 110 line 16).
15 See pp. 105–7, 224–5.
16 Antiquities 8.137, 20.200. See pp. 83–4.
17 Tacitus, The Annals, 15.44 (ed. Jackson and Moore vol. 322 p. 282 line 20).
18 Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars Claudius 25.4 (ed. Rolfe p. 54 line 4). It is debated whether
or not Suetonius has in mind Jesus with his reference, but either way the lexeme is unique in his writing;
see Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 30–9.
19 Antiquities 13.306, 19.113.
 AUTHENTICITY of the Testimonium Fl avianum 111

stylistic preferences when writing under different circumstances.20 It is likely that

Josephus experienced different circumstances when composing his Antiquities,
since its great length means that he probably worked on it for years. For this reason,
ἔνδειξις seems plausibly Josephan. It is true that he uses the lexeme rarely, but he
seemed to have taken a liking to it when writing the latter half of the Antiquities.
All told then, just about the entire vocabulary of the TF is used elsewhere by
Josephus many times, with one lexeme ἔνδειξις, used two times elsewhere; an-
other, χριστός, also used twice, and only one, χριστιανός used nowhere else. As
explained above, there are good contextual grounds for believing that each one of
these lexemes could have been used by Josephus in the TF, but it so happens that

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

there are further statistical reasons for believing so too. This is because finding a
handful of rare lexemes is the statistical result one should expect from any chance
sampling of an author’s work. After all, from a stylostatistical point of view most
lexemes from a randomly selected passage within any corpus will be those that are
used frequently throughout the corpus, and then a smaller number will be used
infrequently, and still fewer will be used barely at all or even only once. Therefore,
in a given selection of text, one should on average find many lexemes that are fre-
quently used elsewhere and a few lexemes that are infrequently used. To put it dif-
ferently: regarding any blind sampling of an author’s text, one would expect that,
on average, the majority of lexemes would be abundantly attested in the author’s
corpus while a minority would be less attested—for it really could be no other way.
Otherwise, an author would on average use all their lexemes around the same
number of times in all of their passages, which is nonsensical.

Statistical Analysis
This frequency pattern is borne out by statistics derived from the Accordance
Josephus Greek database. This database reports that, excluding the TF, Josephus’
corpus is comprised of 467,209 words. These words are in turn derived from a vo-
cabulary of 14,253 lexemes, as Table 2 shows. Of these 14,253 lexemes more than
one-third, 5,365 lexemes, are used by Josephus only a single time (i.e. ‘one-count
lexemes’). Then a further 1,997 lexemes are used by Josephus twice (‘two-count
lexemes’), and 1,102 are used three times (‘three-count lexemes’), and so forth,21

20 Grant, The Idea of Progress, 22–3, 61–2. See further discussion on p. 64 n.5.
21 The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae contains slightly different statistics. It reports that there are
475,709 words in Josephus’ corpus drawn from 15,621 lexemes (both numbers including the TF).
Accordance made for a better model because the TLG seemed to have a higher incidence of incor-
rectly registering certain lexemes, which resulted in over- and occasionally under-counting. However,
I believe, based on provisional testing with the TLG, that the overall word frequency results regarding
the TF would not significantly differ if the TLG was used instead of the Accordance database. This
is because though the TLG counts more words in Josephus’ corpus than Accordance, the TLG also
counts more lexemes which seems to thus result in roughly the same frequency rate as present in the
Accordance database. Even so, Accordance still required some adjustments to make Table 1 column
1 consistent. First, Accordance did not include the thirty-nine instances of τἀληθῆ under the lexeme
ἀληθής, and so these were added to the numbers in Table 1 column 1. Accordance also did not consider
the definite article τά as being present within the thirty-nine instances of τἀληθῆ, so these instances
were also added to the total numbers of the definite article. Additionally, Accordance incorrectly div-
ided μυρία into two lexemes—μύριοι (ninety-two instances) and μυρίος (seventeen instances)—and so
these were combined together. Lastly, Accordance treated εἴγε (four instances) differently from the ef-
fectively synonymous εἴ +​γε (seventeen instances), and so these instances were added together as well.
112 Josephus and Jesus

Table 1 TF Lexemes

1 2 3 4
Lexeme # Forms of lexeme Number of instances in Number of
present in TF Josephus’ corpus instances in TF

τόν

τῶν

τά

τοῦ

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

ὁ

1 τῶν 71,244 11

οἱ

τό

τῶν

τῶν

τό

καί

καί
2 25,845 4
καί

καί

δέ
3 15,812 2
δέ

αὐτόν

αὐτόν
4 13,771 4
αὐτοῖς

αὐτοῦ

τοῦτον

5 οὗτος 5,995 3

ταῦτα
 AUTHENTICITY of the Testimonium Fl avianum 113

Table 1 Continued

1 2 3 4
Lexeme # Forms of lexeme Number of instances in Number of
present in TF Josephus’ corpus instances in TF

ἦν
6 5,682 2
ἦν

7 μέν 5,494 1

8 εἰς 4,617 1

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

τε
9 4,601 2
τε

γάρ
10 3,676 2
γάρ

11 κατά 3,183 1

οὐκ
12 3,117 2
οὐκ

πολλούς
13 2,637 2
πολλούς

14 Γίνεται 2,523 1

15 περί 2,393 1

16 τις 2,256 1

17 ἡμῖν 1,823 1

18 ἔχων 1,839 1

λέγειν
19 1,838 2
εἰρηκότων

20 παρ’ 1,736 1

21 Ἰουδαίους 1,189 1

22 ἄλλα 1,156 1

(continued)
114 Josephus and Jesus

Table 1 Continued

1 2 3 4
Lexeme # Forms of lexeme Number of instances in Number of
present in TF Josephus’ corpus instances in TF

23 ἀπό 1,025 1

24 ἡμέραν 754 1

ἀνήρ

25 ἄνδρα 665 3

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

ἀνδρῶν

πρώτων
26 675 2
πρῶτον

27 ἀνθρώπων 428 1

28 χρόνον 432 1

29 νῦν 401 1

30 ἔργων 388 1

31 πάλιν 381 1

32 ζῶν 293 1

33 προϕητῶν 286 1

34 θείων 228 1

35 δεχομένων 226 1

36 τοῦδε 185 1

37 ἐπαύσαντο 171 1

38 τρίτην 142 1

39 τἀληθῆ 130 1

40 ἡδονῇ 126 1

41 Ἰησοῦς 122 1

42 ἐϕάνη 119 1
 AUTHENTICITY of the Testimonium Fl avianum 115

Table 1 Continued

1 2 3 4
Lexeme # Forms of lexeme Number of instances in Number of
present in TF Josephus’ corpus instances in TF

43 ἐπηγάγετο 106 1

44 μυρία 109 1

45 χρή 85 1

46 ἀγαπήσαντες 74 1

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

47 ὠνομασμένον 63 1

48 ἐπέλιπε 39 1

49 παραδόξων 38 1

50 Ἑλληνικοῦ 31 1

51 θαυμάσια 28 1

52 σοϕός 22 1

53 εἴγε 21 1

54 Πιλάτου 19 1

55 διδάσκαλος 16 1

56 ἐπιτετιμηκότος 13 1

57 σταυρῷ 11 1

58 ϕῦλον 11 1

59 ποιητής 9 1

60 ἐνδείξει 2 1

61 χριστός 2 1

62 Χριστιανῶν 0 1
Note: In all tables, numbers derived from Josephus’ corpus exclude the lexemes/​words found in the TF
116 Josephus and Jesus

Table 2 Word and lexeme count in Josephus’ Corpus

1 2 3
Total number Total number of Total number of
of words in TF words In Josephus’ individual lexemes in
corpus Josephus’ corpus
Abbreviations =​ TF =​ TW =​ TL

90 467,209 14,253

Table 3 Rare Lexemes in Josephus’ Corpus

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

1 2 3 4 5
X-count Number of Total Expected Number of
lexemes different number of number of instances of
(lexemes X-count instances words per all X-count
used X lexemes in of all instance of lexemes that
times in corpus X-count X-count appear in
corpus) lexemes in lexeme in TF
corpus corpus
Abbreviations
=​ X =​ Y X * Y =​A =​TW /​A =​ Z
& formulas

1 5,365 5,365 87.08 1

2 1,997 3,994 116.98 0

3 1,102 3,306 141.32 2

4 717 2,868 162.90 0

5 534 2,670 174.98 0

6 380 2,280 204.92 0

7 317 2,219 210.55 0

8 267 2,136 218.73 0

9 231 2,079 224.73 0

10 196 1,960 238.37 1

11 158 1,738 268.82 0

12 150 1,800 259.56 2

13 136 1,768 264.26 0

14 117 1,638 285.23 1

15 119 1,785 261.74 0

 AUTHENTICITY of the Testimonium Fl avianum 117

all of which can be seen in Table 3 column 2’.22 To cast this in a different light, there
are 5,365 occasions in Josephus’ corpus where he deploys a lexeme that he uses no-
where else, or about once every 87.10 words (Table 3 column 4). Given that the TF
is ninety words, one should expect to find a unique lexeme present within it, and
we do find one: ‘Christian’ (χριστιανός).23
These statistics can be pressed even further, as shown in Table 4 columns 4 and
5. Given the frequency of rare lexemes in Josephus’ corpus, one can roughly esti-
mate how many rare lexemes would be expected to appear, on average, in a genuine
Josephan passage of ninety words. Thus, with an authentic Josephan passage of
ninety words, one would typically expect to find around 2.99 instances of lexemes

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

that occur between one and four times; and with the TF we find three instances—a
quite precise match. Or, in a ninety-word passage, one would expect to find 4.78
instances of lexemes that occur between one and eight times; and with the TF we
find three, still quite close to what is expected.24 Or again, we would expect to find
6.24 instances of lexemes that occur between one and twelve times; and with the
TF we find six, spot on. Finally, one would expect to find about 7.24 instances of
lexemes that occur between one and fifteen times; and with the TF we find seven
such instances, once more a very precise match. It is clear in Table 4 that however
one might choose to set the parameters of rare lexeme appearances (whether they
appear anywhere between one and fifteen instances), the frequency rate of the TF’s
rare lexemes compares very well with what we would typically find in an authentic
Josephan passage. No rare lexemes appear too frequently, nor do they appear too
infrequently.

22 That is, a lexeme that appears only once is labeled in Tables 3 and 4 as a ‘one-count lexeme’, a
lexeme that appears only twice is a ‘two-count lexeme’, and so on.
23 The rarity of χριστιανός and its expected frequency rate are variously indicated in Table 1 column
2, Table 3 column 5, and Table 4 column 5. It is important to note that in Table 3 column 5 and Table 4
column 5 a ‘one-count lexeme’ is considered to be a lexeme that appears once in the TF. A ‘two-count
lexeme’ is a lexeme that appears once in the TF and once in Josephus’ corpus. A ‘three-count lexeme’
appears once in the TF and twice in the corpus, and so on.
24 Regarding lexemes that occur between one and eight times, someone might claim that their ex-
pected 4.78 instances seem to be suspiciously greater than the actual sum of three instances. The same
could be said for the expected results of the seven- through eleven-count lexemes which are all a bit
higher than the actual sums (see Table 4 column 5). These results however are not statistically signifi-
cant enough to arouse suspicion regarding the authenticity of the TF since they are within Josephus’
rate of variability. For example, the two verses after the TF (Antiquities 18.65–6) include 101 words
yet have three unique lexemes, far more than the expected sum of 1.16 for a passage of 101 words.
Or again with the next passage, Antiquities 18.67–8, there are sixty-eight words yet there are ten in-
stances of one- to fifteen-count lexemes, which are far greater than the expected 5.48 instances for a
passage of sixty-eight words. One factor lowering the results for the TF’s actual sum of instances for
seven- through eleven-count lexemes is that I chose to combine the four instances of the lexeme εἴγε
with the seventeen synonymous lexemes εἴ +​γε (see n. 21 above). If εἴγε was treated on its own (as the
Accordance database does), then the four instances of εἴγε would combine with the one instance of it
in the TF and correspondingly increase the actual sum of instances of seven- through eleven-count lex-
emes in Table 4 column 5, thereby making the expected number of instances even more closely align
with the actual sum of instances in the TF.
 118 Josephus and Jesus

Table 4 Expected Frequency Rate for Rare Lexemes in Josephus’ Corpus (Lexemes Occurring
between One and Fifteen Times in Josephus’ Corpus)

1 2 3 4 5
1- to Cumulative Expected Expected Actual
X-count sum of all number of words number of number of
lexemes 1- to X-count per instance of instances of 1- to instances of
lexemes in 1- to X-count X-count lexemes 1- to X-count
corpus lexemes in in a 90-word lexemes in
corpus sample of corpus 90-word TF
Abbreviations
— =​ Σ(A) =​ TW/​Σ(A) =​ TF/​( TW/​Σ(A)) =​ Σ(Z)
& formulas

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

1 5,365 87.08 1.03 1

1 to 2 9,359 49.92 1.80 1

1 to 3 12,665 36.89 2.44 3

1 to 4 15,533 30.08 2.99 3

1 to 5 18,203 25.67 3.51 3

1 to 6 20,483 22.81 3.95 3

1 to 7 22,702 20.58 4.37 3

1 to 8 24,838 18.81 4.78 3

1 to 9 26,917 17.36 5.19 3

1 to 10 28,877 16.18 5.56 4

1 to 11 30,615 15.26 5.90 4

1 to 12 32,415 14.41 6.24 6

1 to 13 34,183 13.67 6.58 6

1 to 14 35,821 13.04 6.90 7

1 to 15 37,606 12.42 7.24 7

 AUTHENTICITY of the Testimonium Fl avianum 119

And the same can be said when a similar analysis is applied to Josephus’ fre-
quency rate of deploying common lexemes. Table 5 tabulates the number of
instances of the first through twenty-fifth most common lexemes in Josephus’
corpus and Table 6 calculates how many instances of these lexemes one would,
on average, expect to find in a random ninety-word sampling of Josephus’
writing. As Table 6 columns 3 and 4 show, one would expect to find about 25.56
instances of the first through fifth most common lexemes in Josephus’ corpus,
and in the TF we find twenty-four instances—a close match. Likewise, we would
expect to find 30.31 instances of first through tenth most common lexemes, and
in the TF we find thirty. Again, we would expect to find 33.93 instances of first

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

through fifteenth most frequent lexemes and with the TF we find thirty-three.
And so on.25
None of these results is what would be expected if a scribe had composed or sig-
nificantly altered the TF, for no scribe would possess Josephus’ own frequency rate
when it came to deploying rare or common lexemes. This is due to the fact that, as
the field of forensic authorship attribution maintains, all authors have a distinctive
idiolect—that is, they each have a unique pattern whereby they employ language.26
And this pattern can be observed by analyzing their writing. Yet the TF looks to
have the same frequency rate as the rest of Josephus’ corpus for both rare and
common lexemes. If this result does not conclusively prove that Josephus wrote the
TF, it certainly shows that there is nothing unusual regarding the vocabulary of the

25 Only in the categories of first most frequent, first to second most frequent, and first to third
most frequent, is there anything like a result conforming to slightly less than a precise match. But
this is easily explainable by the fact that it is normal for Josephus to deploy his most common lexeme,
‘the’ (ὁ), at widely variable rates throughout his corpus. So, though on average he deploys the lexeme
‘the’ (ὁ) once every 6.56 words (see Table 6 column 2), he will deviate greatly from this average when
random passages are selected. For example, the TF (Antiquities 18.63–4) is ninety words and contains
eleven instances of the lexeme ‘the’ (ὁ), for a rate of one instance per 8.18 words. This makes for a 1.62
difference from the average of 6.56 throughout his corpus. Yet the two verses immediately after the
TF (Antiquities 18.65–6) contain 101 words, but twenty-two instances of the lexeme ‘the’ (ὁ), making
one instance per 4.59 words, a difference greater than two instances from average, and far greater than
the TF’s difference from average. Then, the next two verses (Antiquities 18.67–8) are even more ex-
treme. These two verses have sixty-eight words yet only seven instances of the lexeme ‘the’ (ὁ), making
a rate of 9.71 words per instance of the lexeme, a difference greater than three instances from the
average. Thus, the TF’s difference from average is quite typical of Josephus when it comes to his most
frequently used lexeme, ‘the’ (ὁ). As a result, the TF’s lower than average numbers of the first most
frequent lexeme results in the effective lowering the TF’s numbers in the ensuing categories of first to
second most frequent, and first to third most frequent lexemes. It is not until the first to fourth and first
to fifth most frequent lexemes that the number of lexemes tabulated are enough to return the TF to a
precise Josephan average.
26 See pp. 64–5.
 120 Josephus and Jesus

Table 5 Most Common Lexemes in Josephus’ Corpus

1 2 3 4
Ranking of Common Number of Number of
common lexemes instances of lexeme instances of
lexemes in corpus lexeme in TF
Abbreviations
— — =​ NI =​ NT
& formulas

1 ὁ 71,244 11

2 καί 25,845 4

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

3 δέ 15,812 2

4 αὐτός 13,771 4

5 οὗτος 5,995 3

6 εἰμί 5,682 2

7 μέν 5,494 1

8 εἰς 4,617 1

9 τε 4,601 2

10 ὅς 4,305 0

11 πρός 4,266 0

12 ἐπί 4,216 0

13 γάρ 3,676 2

14 ἐν 3,436 0

15 κατά 3,183 1

16 οὐ 3,117 2

17 πολύς 2,637 2

18 πᾶς 2,596 0

19 ὡς 2,582 0

20 γίνομαι 2,523 1

21 περί 2,393 1

22 τις 2,256 1

23 βασιλεύς 2,235 0

24 διά 2,229 0

25 ἐκ 2,158 0
 AUTHENTICITY of the Testimonium Fl avianum 121

Table 6 Expected Frequency Rate for Most Common Lexemes in Josephus’ Corpus

1 2 3 4
1st–Xth Number of words Expected number Actual number
most per instance of of instances of of instances of
common 1st–Xth most 1st–Xth most 1st–Xth most
lexeme(s) common lexeme(s) common lexeme(s) common
in corpus in a 90-word sample lexeme(s) in
of corpus 90-word TF
Abbreviations
— TW/​Σ(NI) =​ NW =​ TF/​N W =​ Σ(NT)
& formulas

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

1st 6.56 13.72 11
1st–2nd 4.81 18.70 15
1st–3rd 4.14 21.75 17
1st–4th 3.69 24.40 21
1st–5th 3.52 25.56 24
1st–6th 3.38 26.65 26
1st–7th 3.25 27.71 27
1st–8th 3.15 28.60 28
1st–9th 3.05 29.48 30
1st–10th 2.97 30.31 30
1st–11th 2.89 31.14 30
1st–12th 2.82 31.95 30
1st–13th 2.76 32.66 32
1st–14th 2.70 33.32 32
1st–15th 2.65 33.93 33
1st–16th 2.61 34.53 35
1st–17th 2.57 35.04 37
1st–18th 2.53 35.54 37
1st–19th 2.50 36.04 37
1st–20th 2.46 36.52 38
1st–21st 2.43 36.98 39
1st–22nd 2.41 37.42 40
1st–23rd 2.38 37.85 40
1st–24th 2.35 38.28 40
1st–25th 2.33 38.69 40
122 Josephus and Jesus

passage, or its use of rare lexemes, or its use of common lexemes. It is also the very
result we would expect if Josephus had actually written the TF. From these results,
the conclusion unavoidably follows that the vocabulary of the TF cannot be used
to cast suspicion on the TF since all of it appears Josephan.

Relationships between Lexemes

A limiting feature in the above analysis is that it does not factor in the relationship
between lexemes, but instead assumes that lexemes appear at essentially random
intervals according to their frequency rate with no correlation to one another. Yet,
as all readers will know, certain words have a tendency to cluster together. So, for ex-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

ample, when examining a list of rare lexemes in Josephus’ corpus, it becomes clear
that rare lexemes have a tendency to be placed closer to other rare lexemes than
would otherwise be expected of a common lexeme. This is because many of the
one-count and two-count lexemes in Josephus’ corpus (lexemes that appear only
once or twice) are names for individuals, people groups, titles, and other related
nomenclature.
Consequently, when Josephus names a person or group of people, he will tend
to provide other names too, either because people often go by alternative names
and titles or because people are often associated with other people or groups which
context demands must be named as well. And it is probable that these names will
tend to be rarer lexemes because many of the rare lexemes in Josephus can be
classed as nomenclature. To give some examples, it is surely not random that the
rare lexemes ‘Phut’ (Φούδης), ‘Phutites’ (Φοῦτος), and ‘Phout’ (Φούτης) appear in
adjacent verses in Josephus’ work, for they are all related to one another and hence
by using one of the names Josephus was led to provide other names as well—and
these three happen to be unique lexemes (i.e. one-count lexemes).27 Furthermore,
in the very same verses Josephus also gives two unique lexemes (Μέρση and
Μερσαῖος) which Josephus provided because he was giving alternative names for,
respectively, Egypt and Egyptians. Likewise, it is not coincidental that the names
of ‘Moses’ (Μωϋσῆς) and ‘Joseph’ (Ἰ ώσηπος) appear in the very same verse where
the unique lexemes ‘Tisithen’ (Τισιθέν) and ‘Peteseph’ (Πετεσήϕ) also appear.
For these latter two are, respectively, the alternative Egyptian names of Moses and
Joseph, both of which Josephus presents to the reader—one name begetting an-
other name so to speak.28
What this means is that rare lexemes, especially names and other related no-
menclature, tend to be clumped together and are hence not distributed evenly
throughout Josephus’ corpus.29 And it turns out that Josephus’ practice of using
such lexemes in clumps can be observed in the TF since the rarest lexeme in the

27 Antiquities 1.132–3.
28 Apion 1.290.
29 I do not have the mathematical background to be able to confirm this observation in a rigorous
statistical method, and so I base this observation from reading through an exhaustive list of rare lex-
emes provided by the Accordance database.
 AUTHENTICITY of the Testimonium Fl avianum 123

TF is the name of the people group ‘Christians’ (χριστιανός), which is unique in

Josephus’ corpus. And it so happens that the next rarest lexeme is an alternative
designation for a person, ‘Christ’ (χριστός), a lexeme only used twice elsewhere. It
is obvious that these rare lexemes have been deployed together in the TF because
they are nomenclature associated with Jesus. By extension then, the TF seems to ex-
hibit the same practice of clumping together terminological vocabulary as we find
in the rest of Josephus’ corpus. All this once again suggests that the TF is genuine
insofar as it follows Josephus’ practice of deploying rare lexemes in close intervals
when discussing alternative names and designations.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Phrases

Similar marks of authenticity can also be observed when the larger phrases of the
TF are examined. Thus, two-, three-, and four-word phrases in the TF are fre-
quently deployed by Josephus elsewhere, as can be seen in Tables 7 and 8. It is
striking that almost every word of the TF is part of a larger phrase that can be
indexed back to a similar or identical phrase in Josephus’ work. It should be noted
that because phrases are composed of individual lexemes, each of which has its
own rate of frequency in Josephus’ corpus, then the law of probability demands
that any string of individual lexemes (a phrase) will tend to be much less frequent
than the rarest of its individual lexemes. Hence, if a two-word phrase is made up
of a lexeme that appears four times in the corpus and another that appears fifty
times in the corpus, then the most the phrase as a whole could possibly appear in
the corpus would be four times, but in general one would expect the number of
appearances to be less because the phrase’s two lexemes will sometimes be used
without one another. The upshot of this is that if we expect to find on average one
unique lexeme in a passage the size of the TF, then we will tend to find several
unique phrases and more phrases that are quite rare.30
And, as Tables 7 and 8 illustrate, this is the case with the TF. Almost all of the
ninety words making up the TF are embedded within phrases that are used by
Josephus in other areas of his work with only three phrases that have no parallels
elsewhere and several more phrases with only one or two parallels elsewhere. But
this is exactly the kind of frequency pattern which would be anticipated if Josephus
had written the TF. Not only this, all three of the unique phrases have further evi-
dence suggesting that they are Josephan. I examine each of these in turn below.

30 The parallels listed in Table 7 occasionally include parallels that are not tied to specific lexemes but
instead include a broader range of categories. For example, ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν in the TF has a parallel
with Apion 2.41 that also uses λέγω with αὐτός to designate calling someone a certain term. That cer-
tain term however is not ἄνδρα. As such, if one wanted to more narrowly define parallel phrases as only
pertaining to precise lexeme parallels, then there would be more unique phrases than the three listed in
Table 8 and discussed below. But again, one would expect there to be more unique phrases in the TF than
the number of unique words. In any case, the parallel in Apion 2.41, while not a precise lexeme parallel,
is indeed an extremely close parallel and supports the argument that the TF was authored by Josephus.
 124 Josephus and Jesus

Table 7 Phrases in the TF

1 2 3
Phrases in the TF Number of parallels Parallel type searched for
in Josephus’ corpus

γίνεται δέ Exact form. Nine additional cases when

18
γίνεται δ’ is included, making 27 total.
κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον 4 Exact form.
Proper name immediately preceding
Ἰησοῦς τις 26 τις with both lexemes in the singular,
masculine, and nominative.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

σοϕὸς ἀνήρ σοϕὸς and ἀνήρ modifying one another
2
within three words.

εἴγε . . . λέγειν χρή Conditional particle subordinating λέγω

3
and χρή. Minimum count.
λέγειν χρή 5 χρή modifying λέγω. Minimum count.

ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν λέγω with αὐτός to designate calling

1
someone a certain term [ἄνδρα].
ἦν γάρ 42 Exact form.
παραδόξων ἔργων 2 παράδοξος modifying ἔργον.

διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων διδάσκαλος with the genitive of the person

1
taught [ἀνθρώπων].
ἀνθρώπων . . . δεχομένων 4 ἄνθρωπος modifying δέχομαι.
ἡδονῇ . . . δεχομένων 8 ἡδονή with δέχομαι.
τῶν ἡδονῇ . . . δεχομένων 1 Exact form.
ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ 1 ἡδονή within two words of τἀληθές.
καὶ πολλοὺς μέν 7 Exact form.

πολλοὺς μὲν . . . πολλοὺς δέ πολὺς μέν followed by πολὺς δέ in any

44
declension or number.
πολλοὺς δὲ καί 5 Exact form.

πολλοὺς . . . ἐπηγάγετο ἐπάγομαι used with πολύς. Minimum

8
count.
ὁ Ἑλληνικός (an adjective with definite
Ἰουδαίους . . . τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ 1 article) modifying no noun but compared to
Ἰ ουδαῖος (noun).

ὁ χριστὸς . . . ἦν χριστός with the definite article and the

1
exact form of ἦν.
οὗτος ἦν 19 Exact form.
καὶ αὐτόν 34 Exact form.
καὶ αὐτόν 5 Exact form at the beginning of a sentence.
πρώτων ἀνδρῶν 11 πρῶτος modifying ἀνήρ.
τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν 3 Exact form.
 AUTHENTICITY of the Testimonium Fl avianum 125

Table 7 Continued

1 2 3
Phrases in the TF Number of parallels Parallel type searched for
in Josephus’ corpus

παρ’ ἡμῖν Exact form. Two additional cases when

49
παρὰ μὲν ἡμῖν is included, making 51 total.

αὐτὸν . . . σταυρῷ ἐπιτιμάω with the accusative to indicate the

ἐπιτετιμηκότος 1 accused person [αὐτόν] and the dative to
indicate the punishment [σταυρῷ].
Πιλάτου 2 Πιλάτου in a genitive absolute construction.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

ἐπαύσαντο 5 παύω without a direct object.

οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο Negative particle with the exact form of

1
ἐπαύσαντο.

οἱ τὸ πρῶτον Definite article immediately followed by the

5
exact form of τὸ πρῶτον.
πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες 4 ἀγαπάω with a time marker [πρῶτον].
γὰρ αὐτοῖς 42 Exact form.

ἐϕάνη . . . αὐτοῖς . . . ζῶν ϕαίνω with dative [αὐτοῖς] and with a

1
participle [ζῶν]. Minimum count.

τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν ἔχω with a number [τρίτην] modifying

4
ἡμέρα. Minimum count.
ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν 2 ἔχω with ἡμέρα and πάλιν.
τῶν θείων προϕητῶν 1 θεῖος modifying ὁ προϕήτης.
θείων προϕητῶν 2 θεῖος modifying προϕήτης.
ταῦτά τε καί 1 Exact form.
ἄλλα μυρία 2 ἄλλος and μυρίος.
περὶ αὐτοῦ 29 Exact form.
περὶ αὐτοῦ . . . εἰρηκότων 4 λέγω with περί modifying αὐτός.
θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων 1 θαυμάσιος as the object of λέγω.
εἰς… νῦν 2 εἰς followed by νῦν with past tense.
τε νῦν 10 Exact form.
ἀπὸ τοῦδε 1 Exact form.
ἀπὸ . . . ὠνομασμένον 5 ὀνομάζω with ἀπό.
οὐκ ἐπέλιπε 1 Exact form.

τῶν Χριστιανῶν . . . ϕῦλον ϕῦλον with a group in the genitive case

7
[Χριστιανῶν].
τὸ ϕῦλον with a group in the genitive case
τῶν Χριστιανῶν . . . τὸ ϕῦλον 4
[Χριστιανῶν].
Note: ‘Minimum count’ means there may exist more parallels, but due to the limitations of Accordance, an exhaustive
search was impossible. Parallels listed in the center column are cited in Chapter 3. Greek words in brackets indicate a
grammatical or semantic parallel rather than a precise lexeme parallel.
126 Josephus and Jesus

Table 8 Unique Phrases in the TF

Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς And in this time, there was Jesus, a certain
τις σοϕὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν wise man, if indeed one ought to call to call
χρή· ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, him a man, for he was a doer of miraculous
διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ deeds, a teacher of men who receive truths
τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν with pleasure. And he led many from
Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ among the Jews and many from among the
ἐπηγάγετο· ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. καὶ αὐτὸν Greeks. He was the Christ. And, when Pilate
ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν had condemned him to the cross at the
σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου οὐκ accusation of the first men among us, those
ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες· who at first loved him did not cease to do
ἐϕάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν so, for on the third day he appeared to them

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προϕητῶν ταῦτά alive again given that the divine prophets had
τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια spoken such things and thousands of other
εἰρηκότων. εἰς τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν wonderful things about him. And up till now
ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ the tribe of the Christians, who were named
ϕῦλον. from him, has not disappeared.
Note: All phrases in the TF have close or exact parallels elsewhere in Josephus’ corpus except for the
three phrases in bold. However, these three phrases are made up of smaller phrases that do have par-
allels. To indicate this, the words in the bolded phrases that are not part of these smaller phrases are
underlined. The English translation reflects the ‘positive’ interpretation of the TF on pp. 137–8.

ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν

‘at the accusation of the first men’

The phrase ‘at the accusation of the first men’ (ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν) has
no parallel in Josephus, but it does contain the smaller phrase ‘of the first men’
(τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν) that is used by Josephus elsewhere. Thus, the only reason
the larger phrase has no parallel is because the lexeme ἔνδειξις is particularly rare,
having only two other usages in Josephus’ corpus. Yet, as Table 4 demonstrated
above, Josephus would be expected to deploy several rare lexemes in a ninety-word
paragraph and it follows naturally that those rare lexemes would make up larger
phrases that have no other precise parallel.31 Adding to the authenticity of the
phrase is the fact that the two times Josephus uses ἔνδειξις are in the latter half of
the Antiquities, where the TF is placed, showing that he probably took a fancy to
ἔνδειξις and began using it as he was writing the TF.32

εἰς [ἔτι] τε νῦν

‘until now’

The two remaining unique phrases have provoked suspicion among certain
scholars since, it is said, Josephus never deploys them, but Eusebius of Caesarea

31 For further discussion on the authenticity of ἔνδειξις, see pp. 110–1.

32 See Chapter 3 p. 92.
 AUTHENTICITY of the Testimonium Fl avianum 127

does. This makes Eusebius a prime candidate for interpolating the phrases into
the TF. I discuss the case of Eusebian forgery in detail in Appendix 1. But here, it
suffices to say that when examined closely, there are good grounds for concluding
that the two phrases are authentically Josephan.
Firstly, it is true that the TF’s phrase ‘until now’ (εἰς [ἔτι] τε νῦν) is unique in
Josephus’ corpus whether or not it has the particle ἔτι.33 However, Josephus de-
ploys the smaller phrase τε νῦν on ten other occasions and the similar phrase εἰς
νῦν on two other occasions, both of which are in book 18 of the Antiquities, where
the TF is placed. In these latter two instances εἰς is used with the present tense ad-
verb ‘now’ (νῦν) and then curiously followed by a verb in the past tense, just as it is

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

in the TF.
Moreover, Josephus uses the word νῦν in many different ways throughout his
corpus, including in no less than in nineteen unique sequences of particles and
prepositions,34 so why should one be surprised if with the TF he were to deploy νῦν
in yet another unique series of particles? Thus, while there is no exact parallel to
the TF’s phrase, there certainly are similar ones and Josephus clearly enjoyed using
many singular varieties of similar phrases.35

παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής

‘doer of incredible deeds’

The phrase ‘doer of incredible deeds’ (παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής) has also earned
suspicion on the grounds that Josephus never deploys it elsewhere, while Eusebius
does.36 Yet the smaller ‘incredible deeds’ (παραδόξων ἔργων) is deployed by
Josephus two other times and he utilizes the term ποιητής nine times elsewhere.
In these nine instances, however, Josephus only uses ποιητής with the meaning of
‘poet’ not ‘doer’. But such as that may be, Josephus does use the abstract cognate
ποίησις several times with the meaning of ‘action’ or ‘deed’ and he matches these
usages with the genitive case, as he does in the TF. So, while there is no precise par-
allel, there are clearly comparable cases.
Furthermore, παράδοξος is an ambiguous term that can be taken quite preju-
dicially, which is why the anti-Christian critic, the ‘Jew of Celsus’, uses the word
to claim that Jesus performed his ‘miracles’ (παράδοξα) by magic. For the same
reason παράδοξος is only used once in the New Testament to describe Jesus’ mir-
acles, but in this instance a crowd uses the word in what may not have been an
entirely positive sense.37 Therefore the whole phrase παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής

33 For discussion on the authenticity of the particle ἔτι, see pp. 103–4, 135, 223–4.
34 See Chapter 3 pp. 103–4.
35 See Appendix 1 pp. 223–4 for discussion regarding whether Eusebius interpolated this phrase.
36 See Appendix 1 pp. 225–7 for discussion regarding whether Eusebius interpolated this phrase.
37 Luke 5:26. For discussion, see pp. 18–9, 73–6, 226.
128 Josephus and Jesus

does not come across as anything like a Christian would interpolate to characterize
the doings of Jesus, and rather sounds much more like what an early Jewish writer
would use, a writer exactly like Josephus.38
And, as I said, one would expect there to be on average at least a few unique
phrases in any ninety-word sampling of Josephus’ corpus, so having three unique
phrases in the TF is what should be anticipated if the TF were authentic and should
cause no suspicion. The genuineness of these three phrases is further fortified by
the fact that they all have smaller phrases embedded within them that are used by
Josephus elsewhere.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Conclusion

With the above evidence in view, it is clear that the stylistic parallels between the
TF and Josephus’ corpus all point in the one direction of authenticity. And this is
true for parallels on the smaller, more granular lexical level, and for parallels on the
larger phraseological level. To sum up, most of the TF’s lexemes are used frequently
in Josephus and a very small subset are rarely used with one lexeme not being used
by Josephus anywhere else. The same can be said for the larger phrases of the TF,
most of which are used frequently and a small minority of which have no precise
parallels. But these kinds of frequency patterns match the expected usage rate for
any authentic passage in Josephus’ work insofar as they follow his frequency rate of
utilizing certain lexemes and phrases quite a bit, and a few not all that much.

Placement and Length

Similar conclusions can be drawn from how the TF is placed within the narra-
tive of the Antiquities and how its length compares to the five stories adjacent to
it. First, its placement. In the Antiquities, the TF is situated amid five different
stories of uproar, all of which tell of murder, intrigue, blasphemy, and other wrong-
doing.39 Given the context, it is unlikely that a Christian scribe would have risked
associating Jesus with such themes by inserting the TF amid a litany of evildoers
and disturbances, as the author of the TF pointedly does. This is especially true
given that the TF can easily be read as Jesus ‘bringing over’ or possibly ‘inducing’
(ἐπηγάγετο) many Jews and Greeks in the mold of a false Messiah leading an in-
surrectionist uprising, who was then executed at the accusation of Jewish religious
leaders.

38 For discussions on the authenticity of the phrase παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής see pp. 73–6, 225–7.
39 For references, see p. 66 n.16.
 AUTHENTICITY of the Testimonium Fl avianum 129

What is particularly intriguing about this is that whoever chose the placement
of the TF seems to have followed the Jewish practice of connecting Jesus with
arousing trouble among Jews, or at least it can easily be interpreted that way. This
is how the ‘Jew of Celsus’ (c.150 ce) characterizes Jesus when he accuses him of
deluding Jews;40 and the Babylonian Talmud concurs when it describes Jesus as
‘inciting and leading Israel astray’ (‫)והסית והדיח את ישראל‬.41 So too do traditions
found in the Jewish Toledot Yeshu (second–fifth centuries),42 which also portray
Jesus as an insurrectionist who stirred up great trouble in Israel.43 Accordingly, the
thematic placement of the TF amid accounts of various uproars not only suggests
Jewish authorship, but can leave the reader of the Antiquities with an ambiguous,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

if not vaguely negative impression of Jesus ‘bringing over’ many Jews and Greeks
and then being crucified.
Another pertinent aspect of the TF’s placement in the Antiquities is that it is lo-
cated before the account of John the Baptist not afterward.44 Such implies that the
author of the TF considered Jesus to have preached before John, or at least that the
author did not consider it important to portray John as a forerunner to Jesus. This
is in great contrast to practically all Christian tradition which casts John as begin-
ning his ministry before Jesus, and dying before Jesus as well.45 This is not just a
chronological claim, but a theological one inasmuch as John is consistently por-
trayed as fulfilling biblical prophecy by preparing the way for the Christ to come.46
In fact, the only possible exception to this collective testimony can be found in an
ancient Jewish-Christian account of Jesus known as the Gospel of the Ebionites.
Quotations that remain of this Gospel can be read as also portraying Jesus’ min-
istry as beginning before John’s ministry,47 just as the TF does with its presentation
of Jesus before its presentation of John.

40 Origen, Against Celsus 2.1, 4. See also 1.62, 68.

41 Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 43a.20; see also 107b.14. For discussion, see Schäfer, Jesus in the
Talmud, 63–74.
42 Though the extant versions of the Toledot Yeshu were likely collected in full form in the ninth or
tenth centuries, the composition of the stories seems to have taken place, based on linguistic analysis,
around the year 500. However, several of the traditions which are spoken of in the Toledot Yeshu are
agreed to date back to the second century or earlier on account of the fact that certain of their details
match information given by the second- and third-century sources ‘the Jew of Celsus’, Tertullian, and
the Gospel of Judas; see Sokoloff, ‘Date and Provenance’; Piovanelli, ‘The Toledot Yeshu’, 95–7; Deutsch,
‘The Second Life’, 285–6.
43 For example, Toledot Yeshu Group 1: Early Yemenite §65 (Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, vol.
1 p. 148).
44 Jesus is discussed by Josephus in Antiquities 18.63–4; John the Baptist is discussed in Antiquities
18.116–19.
45 Matthew 3:1–17, 4:12–17, 14:1–13; Mark 1:1–14, 6:14–30; Luke 3:1–22, 4:14–15, 9:9; John 1:15,
30, 3:28; Acts 1:5, 22, 10:37, 11:16; 13:24–5.
46 Matthew 3:1–3; Mark 1:2–4; Luke 3:1–4.
47 When describing the Gospel of the Ebionites Epiphanius first presents an extract introducing Jesus
in Panarion 30.13.4 (=​TLG 2021.002, 1.350 line 2) and then later says that in their Gospel, the Ebionites
‘alter the written sequence’ (ἀκολουθίαν ἤλλαξαν τὸ ῥητόν), Panarion 30.22.4 =​ TLG 2021.002, 1.363
line 8. However, Epiphanius also quotes a passage from the ‘beginning’ of the Gospel which describes
John the Baptist, so one cannot be too sure that Jesus was introduced before John; see Epiphanius,
130 Josephus and Jesus

A further point of contact between the TF and the Gospel of Ebionites is that,
according to Epiphanius, the Gospel introduces Jesus with the Greek words
γίνομαι and τις: ‘And there was a certain man by the name of Jesus’ (ἐγένετό τις
ἀνὴρ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦς).48 This is very like the TF, which also introduces Jesus
with γίνομαι and τις when it says ‘there was in that time a certain Jesus’ (Γίνεται
δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς τις). The above parallels with the Gospel
of Ebionites would not be expected from the vast majority of Jesus followers in
the first few centuries of the Christian era and hence would not be expected of
a Christian interpolator,49 though it is unsurprising that the Jewish Josephus
would have relied on Jewish traditions shared with the Jewish-Christian

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Ebionites.
There really are only two objections to the authenticity of the TF as regards
its placement and its length. First is that the TF is far shorter than the other five
stories of uproar within which the TF is embedded in Antiquities 18.55–87.
Hence to account for its relative brevity, the skeptically minded reader could
argue that material appears to be missing from the TF. Yet, when comparing the
lengths of the five stories adjacent to the TF, it is clear that they are not all uni-
form in total word count. The first story (Antiquities 18.55–9) is 195 words, the
second (Antiquities 18.60–2) is 137 words, the third (Antiquities 18.65–80) is 680
words, the fourth (Antiquities 18.81–4) is 142 words, and the fifth (Antiquities
18.85–7) is 123 words. Though the TF being 90 words makes it slightly shorter
in proportion to all the rest, the story directly adjacent to the TF is out of pro-
portion to a far greater degree being more than three to five times longer than
any other story. So the fact that the TF is slightly shorter than average does not
mark it as suspicious. Considered in this light, the length of the TF provides no
grounds for suspicion.
Another objection to authenticity pertains to the TF’s placement and comes
from certain scholars who claim that it wrecks the coherence of the five stories
of discord and uproar presented before and after the TF in Antiquities 18.55–87.
Therefore, the logic goes, the TF must be a later interpolation. But the primary
reason given for this purported dislocation is that the TF does not explicitly

Panarion 30.13.6, 30.14.3 (=​TLG 2021.002, 1.350 line 8, 1.351 lines 12–14). Assembling in their proper
order Epiphanius’ quotations of the Gospel of the Ebionites is difficult, but no matter the choice, the
Gospel of the Ebionites appears to present events in a different sequence than the canonical Gospels.
Either Jesus appears to be introduced before John the Baptist, or Jesus appears to be introduced twice,
or Jesus appears to have a full complement of twelve disciples before ever being baptized by John the
Baptist, thus implying that he was ministering before or at least concurrently with John the Baptist.
Faced with such a tradition, it is understandable why a non-Christian like Josephus would introduce
Jesus before introducing John the Baptist. For one way of ordering the fragments of the Gospel of the
Ebionites (where Jesus appears to be introduced after already being introduced), see Schneemelcher,
New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1 pp. 169–70.

48 Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.2 (=​TLG 2021.002, 1.349 line 4).

49 On this, see also Meier, A Marginal Jew, 66.
 AUTHENTICITY of the Testimonium Fl avianum 131

include the word ‘disturbance’ (θόρυβος) in its description of Jesus.50 Yet, as ex-
plained in Chapter 3, not all of the five stories surrounding the TF explicitly men�-
tion the word ‘disturbance’ (θόρυβος), even though they all describe one. So why
should it be a problem for the TF to omit an explicit mention of a ‘disturbance’
(θόρυβος) even while it describes one?51
More crucially, the TF does indeed cohere quite well with its immediate con-
text. As already noted, it matches the surrounding five stories of unrest inasmuch
as it tells of many Jews and Greeks being led by a man who would be crucified at
the behest of Jewish and Roman authorities.52 Moreover, three of the other stories
adjacent to the TF have nothing whatever to do with Judaea, two have nothing

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

to do with Pontius Pilate, and one has nothing to do with Jews, meaning that the
TF makes much better contextual sense being placed where it is than some of the
other five stories. Not only this, the TF is sandwiched between two stories that
are striking for how they relate to Jewish accusations regarding Jesus. The story
which directly precedes the TF involves Pontius Pilate constructing an aqueduct
(καταγωγὴν ὑδάτων) in Jerusalem (War 2.175; Antiquities 18.60–2), and versions
of the Jewish Toledot Yeshu notably state that Jesus was buried near an aqueduct
(aquaeductum), causing his body to wash away and his disciples to claim that he
was resurrected.53 This belief that Jesus’ body somehow came to rest in a watery

50 Norden for example argues that the entire TF is an interpolation because it lacks any vocabulary
referring to a ‘disturbance’; see Norden, ‘Josephus und Tacitus’, 640–50. Mason argues similarly, though
is not as extreme; see Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 226–7. Mason makes the further ar-
gument that the TF does not even describe something that could be construed as a disturbance and
that immediately after the TF in Antiquities 18.65, Josephus says ‘a certain other calamity’ (ἕτερόν τι
δεινόν), suggesting that he had just spoken of a calamity in the TF, which Mason claims he did not. But
of course, as I said, one does not need an equivalent word for ‘disturbance’ or ‘calamity’ to understand
the TF as implying that the crucifixion of Jesus (or his leading of many Jews and Greeks) was a disturb-
ance. In support of this, the story at Antiquities 18.85 likewise begins ‘The Samaritan nation also did
not escape a disturbance’ (Οὐκ ἀπήλλακτο δὲ θορύβου καὶ τὸ Σαμαρέων ἔθνος), even though the pre-
vious story did not include the word θόρυβος within it, and rather only contained it out of sequence in
Antiquities 18.65. If this story can be governed by a reference to a kind of disturbance or calamity out of
sequence, then why not the TF? See further discussion in Chapter 3 nn. 16 and 24.
51 All this besides, Josephus has long been known for being an inveterate patchwork writer, stringing
together stories with little relation to one another. In fact, the portion of the Antiquities that precedes
the TF (Antiquities 18.55–62) is a revamped and expanded version of what Josephus had written twenty
years earlier in his War 2.169–77, so we know that in this particular passage Josephus was actually
inserting things into a narrative well after it had first been written. We should not therefore be sur-
prised if the organization of the passage suggests as much. And, in any case, the story immediately
following the TF in Antiquities 18.65–80 has nothing to do with Judaism or Judaea or political intrigue,
making the TF far more coherently placed in comparison. Due to many such examples in Josephus’
corpus, Feldman calls Josephus ‘unbelievably sloppy’ and other scholars note Josephus’ organizational
mishmash; see Feldman, ‘Flavius Josephus Revisited’, 862; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 86 n. 54; Thackeray,
Josephus, 140–1; Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 578–81; Eisler, The Messiah Jesus, 44. Given this, one
should not place too much on alleged thematic differences between the TF and nearby passages. For
discussion on Josephus’ silence of Jesus in his War, see Appendix 6.
52 Fittingly, after relating the TF, Josephus immediately says in Antiquities 18.65 that ‘a certain other
calamity’ (ἕτερόν τι δεινόν) occurred, implying that he found at least some aspect of the TF to be quite
terrible.
53 This story is reported by the ninth-century Bishop Agobard in De Judaicis superstitionibus (PL vol.
104 col. 87D). Schäfer gives a translation of Agobard’s account and finds the account to be an accurate
132 Josephus and Jesus

place is also testified by the third-century writer, Commodian, who quotes Jews as
saying that they had cast Jesus’ body into a ‘well’ (puteus).54
Perhaps even more notable than this though is that directly after the TF (in
Antiquities 18.65–80), Josephus relates a salacious story of a man, smitten by
a woman’s beauty, pretending to be a god in order to commit adultery with her
for one night. This is much like the hostile account of Jesus in the Toledot Yeshu,
which portrays a man, smitten by Mary’s beauty, pretending to be Joseph in order
to commit adultery with her for one night.55 Similar derogatory views of Jesus’
parentage are presented by the ‘Jew of Celsus’, who claims that Jesus’ mother con-
ceived Jesus through adultery, causing Jesus to pretend that God was his father.56

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

The Jewish critic then mocks Mary by wondering how beautiful she must have
been to attract the attentions of God himself.57 The Babylonian Talmud also ridi-
cules Mary and her birth of Jesus on similar grounds.58
Undoubtedly the above stories were put forth by early Jews to rebut the
claims that Jesus was born of a virgin, was the Son of God, and was resur-
rected. It is hard to imagine what Christian, of whatever persuasion, would
have wanted to risk associating Jesus with similar criticism by placing the TF
between stories with such themes. Rather, the TF’s placement seems far likelier
to come from a writer aware of Jewish criticisms of Jesus, someone very like
Josephus himself.
It would be however a misunderstanding to say that the TF’s location neces-
sarily communicates any such derogatory beliefs about Jesus. Instead, its position
suggests a placement by a non-Christian who, knowing Jewish accounts of Jesus,

portrayal of the Toledot Yeshu traditions; see Schäfer, ‘Agobard’s and Amulo’s Toledot Yeshu’, 32–4, 48.
For discussion of the story within the Toledot Yeshu traditions, see Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu,
vol. 1 pp. 101–3. Importantly, only the vaguer term ‘stream’ (τοῦ ῥεύματος) is used in the Antiquities
18.60 and the more specific term ‘aqueduct’ (καταγωγὴν ὑδάτων) is deployed in the parallel passage in
War 2.175. As such, it may be that the author of the Toledot Yeshu was not relying on the Antiquities for
his account, but instead was drawing from different, also ancient tradition.

54 Commodian, Song of the Two Peoples lines 440–3, 477 (ed. Martin pp. 89–90). I thank Charles
Augustine Rivera for pointing this out to me.
55 All three groupings of the versions of Toledot Yeshu contain claims (though some do not contain all
the claims) regarding how a man, lusting after Mary’s beauty, deceived her into thinking he was her hus-
band or her betrothed; see Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, vol. 1 pp. 155–6, 167–8, 185–6, 233–4,
273–4, 286–8, 305–6. For a similar observation, see Bell, ‘Josephus the Satirist’, 16–22. Bell goes on to
argue that Pseudo-Hegesippus, when recounting this salacious story from Josephus, is aware of details
similar to the birth story of Jesus, but not found in any known version of the TF (On the Ruin of the
City of Jerusalem 2.4.1). This suggests to Bell that the TF’s original form was markedly anti-Christian.
However, these supposed details are no more salacious than those already present in the Greek version
of the story and it is too speculative to think they must be derived from some other version of the TF.
56 Origen, Against Celsus 1.28, 32.
57 Origen, Against Celsus 1.39.
58 The Talmud criticizes Mary for her long perhaps braided hair, which was a marker of licentious-
ness. See Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 104b.5 and discussion (as well as related passages in Jewish lit-
erature) in Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 15–24.
 AUTHENTICITY of the Testimonium Fl avianum 133

felt that it made good sense to discuss Jesus somewhere amid stories of uproar,
and somewhere before John the Baptist, and somewhere directly adjacent to
stories of an aqueduct and a pretend god seducing a beautiful woman. Josephus
is obviously the most likely candidate. But whether he actually believed the im-
plication of such things in regard to Jesus is of course not clear. He, for example,
may have been aware that Jerusalem’s two major aqueducts entered the old city of
Jerusalem in the south or west, whereas Jesus was likely buried north of the old
city.59 Josephus might also have not revealed his opinion of Jesus within the TF
because he himself was unsure of what he thought, or perhaps his view (whether
negative or positive) differed from his readers, or any number of similar such

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

possibilities.60

Textual Preservation

All that to say, there is really only one phrase in the Greek TF that sounds like some-
thing only a Christian would have said and therefore not what Josephus would
have written. In what follows I discuss the textual preservation of this phrase as
well as two other phrases that have debatable textual evidence.

ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν
‘He was the Christ’

The most suspicious phrase in the Greek TF is, far and away, the statement that
reads ‘he was the Christ’ (ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν). Judging from grammatical and lex-
ical parallels in Josephus, examined in Chapter 3, this phrase appears to affirm

59 The earliest direct reference to the location of Jesus’ burial is by Eusebius, who says it was north
of Mount Zion, in Onomasticon 365. The two most likely specific locations for Jesus’ tomb—the cur-
rent Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Garden tomb (or Gordon’s Calvary)—are also north
of Mount Zion. For maps of Jerusalem’s aqueducts and discussions on possible locations of Jesus’
tomb, see Stern, New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 2 pp. 714,
718, 746–7, 769; Barkay, ‘The Garden Tomb: Was Jesus Buried Here?’; Kelley, The Church of the
Holy Sepulchre; Coüasnon, The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, 8–11; Yechezkel et al.,
‘The Shaft Tunnel of the Biar Aqueduct of Jerusalem’, 921–2; Mazar, ‘A Survey of the Aqueducts to
Jerusalem’. The specific aqueduct Pontius Pilate built is unclear, but the potential candidates likely
entered Jerusalem to the south, or did not even reach Jerusalem. The Upper Level Aqueduct comes
closest to the possible locations of Jesus’ burial, but it is still some distance away from the possible lo-
cations of the tomb and most scholars believe it was not yet built in the time of Jesus. On these aque-
ducts, see Yechezkel et al., ‘The Shaft Tunnel of the Biar Aqueduct of Jerusalem’, 918, 921–2; Mazar,
‘A Survey of the Aqueducts to Jerusalem’, 237–8. Some scholars suggest that the author of the Toledot
Yeshu was inspired centuries later to craft the story of Jesus’ burial near an aqueduct after the author
had viewed an aqueduct in Jerusalem that ran through graves; see Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot
Yeshu, 101–3.
60 See Conclusion pp. 203, 207.
134 Josephus and Jesus

that Jesus was actually the Messiah.61 But this one suspicious phrase in the Greek
textual tradition also happens to be the one phrase where the Latin and Syriac
translations are united in presenting a different, much more Josephan reading: ‘he
was believed to be the Christ’ (credebatur esse Christus) or ‘it was thought that he
was the Christ’ (‫)ܡܣܬܒܪܐ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ‬. The Syriac phrase can also tech-
nically be translated as ‘it was proclaimed that he was the Christ’, though this is not
the way the Syriac would typically be read in other contexts.62
As discussed in Chapter 2, these two translations were respectively carried out
by the illustrious translators Jerome of Stridon (c.393 ce) and, in all probability,
Jacob of Edessa (c.708 ce). Arabic and Armenian witnesses provide further sup-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

port for these translations and Pseudo-Hegesippus (c.370 ce) does too in his Latin
paraphrase of the TF.63 Strikingly, the translations of Jerome and Jacob also closely
conform to how Josephus presents Jesus elsewhere when he says that he was
‘called Christ’ (τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ).64 Most intriguing is that the key Syriac
word mestabrā can also be translated as ‘proclaimed’, making it a relatively close
synonym to the Greek word λεγόμενος, which can be translated as ‘called’ or ‘de-
clared’. Regardless of what the original Greek wording was though, the fact that the
Latin and Syriac unite at this point indicates that the original stated that Jesus was
only considered to be the Christ, not that he actually was the Christ.
Still, this change to the Greek textual tradition need not necessarily have been a
purposive Christianization of the passage, for as I show in Chapter 1, most ancient
and medieval Greek writers seem to have read the altered phrase as simply giving
Jesus an alternative name, ‘Christ’, and hence did not take it as a confession of his
messianic status. This is much like how Greco-Roman writers would use the term
‘Christ’ as another name for Jesus, not as a religious title. It would therefore be odd
for a Christian scribe to purposefully change a text which so many other Christians
continued to read along the same lines as the original.
A further reason for considering this change to be accidental is that the phrase
‘he was the Christ’ would be awkward for a Christian to state since it is presented in
the past tense, whereas Christians ancient, medieval, and modern instead confess
that Jesus ‘is’ the Christ with the present tense.65 As such, it seems plausible that if
certain Christians purposefully altered the phrase, they also would have altered
the tense of the verb too.
Whatever the case though, the most probable scenario is that Josephus wrote a
phrase affirming that Jesus was only considered to be the Christ, and that a word or
two was later dropped out, whether by accident or purpose.

61 For references, see pp. 84–5.

62 See Chapter 3 pp. 86–7.
63 For references, see pp. 35–8, 48–52, 86 n. 185.
64 Antiquities 20.200.
65 See Chapter 3 pp. 90–1.
 AUTHENTICITY of the Testimonium Fl avianum 135

Ἰησοῦς τις
‘a certain Jesus’

Beyond this there is one other aspect of the Greek TF that may have suffered a
substantive change to its original meaning and one other aspect that may have suf-
fered an innocuous change. The substantive change regards the phrase ‘a certain
Jesus’ (Ἰησοῦς τις). All Greek manuscripts of the Antiquities studied by scholars
omit ‘a certain’ (τις),66 but the word is preserved in the earliest quotation of the
TF found in the original Greek of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, as well as in the
Syriac and Armenian translations of the Ecclesiastical History. The word is also wit-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

nessed in the TF’s Slavonic recension and the Syriac translation of Jacob of Edessa.
The term would have struck many readers as communicating derogatory intent,
and so omitting the phrase would have made the passage sound more positive in
regard to Jesus. Yet, τις need not be interpreted negatively, for Josephus uses it in a
neutral way too. Nevertheless, even if the word was purposefully omitted by a later
Christian scribe, it was not scrubbed out altogether.67

εἰς [ἔτι] τε νῦν

‘until now’

There is also a question of the precise Greek wording of the TF’s phrase εἰς [ἔτι] τε
νῦν ‘until now’, but this is not a substantive change since all the textual witnesses
provide effectively synonymous phrases. Evidence however clearly favors the ori-
ginal reading of εἰς τε νῦν since the two earliest manuscripts of the Antiquities con-
tain this phrase and important Greek quotations do so as well. No matter what the
authentic reading was though, the basic meaning of the phrase as ‘until now’ is
assured since, as I said above, all textual witnesses (manuscripts, quotations, and
translations) agree on the general sense of the phrase even if they present slightly
different variations of it.68

Other Textual Changes?

It appears then that the TF’s original form has been preserved in its entirety within
its broad textual tradition, though only Jerome and Jacob of Edessa preserve

66 For a complete listing of manuscripts of the Antiquities books 11–20; see Schreckenberg, Die
Flavius-Josephus-Tradition, 13–47.
67 For further discussion of the phrase Ἰησοῦς τις, see pp. 67–9.
68 For further discussion of the phrase εἰς [ἔτι] τε νῦν, see pp. 103–4, 126–7, 223–4. One may ask
why it is appropriate to include τις in the TF, but to exclude ἔτι, when Eusebius is the primary witness
for including both. But there are additional witnesses for τις in the Slavonic translation and the Syriac
136 Josephus and Jesus

that Jesus was ‘believed to be’ or otherwise ‘thought’ to be the Christ; and only
Eusebius, Jacob, and the Slavonic recension preserve the word ‘certain’. But be that
as it may, are there any textual changes to the TF of which we are unaware? Could
there have been other statements in the TF that were omitted or added by later
Christian scribes?
This is very unlikely. If Christian scribes were in the habit of doctoring the TF,
why would the TF be so thoroughly Josephan in style? Why would it reflect early
Jewish beliefs about Jesus? Why would the TF have so many statements that do not
draw from Christian modes of expression or that seem to contradict Christian be-
lief ? Why, if Christian scribes were in the business of making alterations to the TF,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

would they leave so many potentially disparaging statements behind?69 And how
would such tampering have so quickly contaminated so many lines of textual evi-
dence, including Greek manuscripts, early Greek quotations, and early Latin and
Syriac translations?
The most plausible conclusion is that there was no concerted effort by scribes to
tamper with the TF and that the only two potentially substantive changes to manu-
scripts of the Antiquities have been identified.

Possible Translations

Yet it must be emphasized that even these two potentially substantive changes need
not be read as necessarily altering the meaning of the TF, just as none of the TF’s
potentially negative statements inherently call for a negative interpretation. For as
I have maintained, the TF’s statements are on the whole ambiguous and can be in-
terpreted in a variety of ways by the reader. Thus, when taken in the full context of
Josephus’ work, statements that could be interpreted negatively will also often be
used elsewhere by Josephus in a purely neutral context, and those statements that
might be positive, are also deployed by Josephus in a neutral or negative context.
Thus, saying that Jesus performed παράδοξα could be interpreted negatively
as ‘magical deeds’ or neutrally as ‘incredible deeds’, but also positively as ‘miracu-
lous deeds’. Asserting that Jesus ‘misled’ or ‘induced’ (ἐπηγάγετο) many people
might also be reasonably translated as the more ambiguous ‘brought over’ or even
the neutral ‘led’. Likewise, characterizing Jesus’ disciples as receiving ‘truths with

translation by Jacob of Edessa, both of which had independent access to the Antiquities. In contrast, ἔτι
does not have any other witnesses that can be shown to have consulted manuscripts of the Antiquities
directly. Further, from a text critical perspective there is ample evidence that τις was omitted by scribes
since it can be shown to have been transcribed by Eusebius, but then omitted by many later scribes of
his work. Hence it seems much more likely to have been omitted in the manuscripts of the Antiquities by
scribes. However, with ἔτι no similar evidence shows scribes tending to omit it.

69 For discussion on what Josephus meant by the TF, see the Conclusion pp. 201–3.
 AUTHENTICITY of the Testimonium Fl avianum 137

pleasure’ (τῶν ἡδονῇ) could be taken negatively as pertaining to an uncontrolled

appetite for lesser ‘truisms’, yet it could also be understood positively as referring
to an avid pursuit of certain ideals or hard and fast facts. Finally, labeling Jesus as
a ‘certain Jesus’ (Ἰησοῦς τις) could obviously be derogatory, but Josephus will use
the same term for biblical figures whom he respects, so it need not necessarily be
taken as a sign of contempt. Such ways of understanding the TF may be seen in
Chapters 1 and 2 with how various Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Arabic writers inter-
preted the TF—though it is telling that most Greek writers seem to have preferred a
neutral, ambiguous, or slightly negative interpretation of the TF.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Negative, Neutral, and Positive Translations
To illustrate the ambiguity of the TF I give on the next page three possible ways of
translating it.70 All three follow what I regard to be the original text of the TF and
therefore include the Greek word τις (‘certain’) and omit the word ἔτι (which could
be translated as ‘still’ or left untranslated). The only textual difference between the
three is that the ‘negative’ translation includes the slightly skeptical Syriac words
‘thought to be’ (mestabrā itaw) whereas the ‘neutral’ translation includes the Latin
‘believed to be’ (credebatur esse). Both of these reconstructions are discussed in
detail in Chapter 3. The ‘positive’ translation omits any Latin or Syriac evidence.
Different translational decisions are indicated in bold font.
The TF’s rather ambiguous Greek is not possible to perfectly render into
English, and obviously many of my translational choices could be swapped back
and forth into different combinations, or otherwise nuanced. One must not forget
that it is less likely but still technically possible to translate the Syriac mestabrā as
‘proclaimed’, a translation that loosely follows the Greek word ‘called’ (λεγόμενος)
which Josephus uses elsewhere for Jesus in Antiquities 20.200. This then would be
another viable way to understand the TF.
Another important item to consider is that with the positive translation the
phrase ‘he was Christ’ can, in the original Greek, be more easily interpreted as
an alternative name and not a title, which is how several Greek authors seem to
have understood it. For our purposes here though, these three interpretations are
enough to demonstrate the ways in which the TF could have been plausibly inter-
preted by ancient and medieval readers.

70 Parallel translations are also provided by Vicent, though with significant differences in interpret-
ation compared to my own; see Cernuda, ‘El testimonio flaviano’, 507. Nodet similarly provides par-
allel translations; see Nodet, Baptême et résurrrection, 66; Nodet, ‘Jésus et Jean-Baptiste selon Josèphe
[pt. 1]’, 332.
138 Josephus and Jesus

Negative Neutral Positive

And in this time, there And in this time, there And in this time, there
was a certain Jesus, a wise was a certain Jesus, a was Jesus, a certain wise
man, if indeed one ought wise man, if indeed one man, if indeed it one
to call him a man, for he ought to call him a man, ought to call him a man,
was a doer of magical for he was a doer of in- for he was a doer of mi-
deeds, a teacher of men credible deeds, a teacher raculous deeds, a teacher
who take pleasure in tru- of men who receive tru- of men who receive
isms. isms with pleasure. truths with pleasure.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

And he led astray many And he brought over many And he led many from
from among the Jews and from among the Jews and among the Jews and
many from among the many from among the many from among the
Greeks. He was thought Greeks. He was believed Greeks. He was the
to be the Christ. to be the Christ. Christ.
And, when Pilate had con- And, when Pilate had con- And, when Pilate had
demned him to the cross demned him to the cross condemned him to the
at the accusation of the at the accusation of the cross at the accusation of
first men among us, those first men among us, those the first men among us,
who at first were devoted who at first were devoted those who at first loved
to him did not cease to be to him did not cease to be him did not cease to do
so, for on the third day it so, for on the third day so, for on the third day
seemed to them that he he appeared to them to he appeared to them
was alive again given that be alive again given that alive again given that
the divine prophets had the divine prophets had the divine prophets had
spoken such things and spoken such things and spoken such things and
thousands of other won- thousands of other won- thousands of other won-
derful things about him. derful things about him. derful things about him.
And up till now the tribe And up till now the tribe And up till now the tribe
of the Christians, who of the Christians, who of the Christians, who
were named from him, were named from him, were named from him,
has not disappeared. has not disappeared. has not disappeared.

Conclusion

But aside from how the TF could viably have been understood, what did Josephus
actually intend to communicate concerning Jesus? Was he purposefully ambiguous?
Or did he have in mind a neutral, negative, or positive perspective? For that matter,
where did Josephus get his information about Jesus? And what can Josephus tell us
about the Jesus of history? It is on these questions that the following chapters turn.
 PART 2
TH E S OUR CE S OF JOSEPHUS
A N D TH E ME A N I NG OF TH E
T E ST IMON IUM F L AV I A N UM

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025
 5
Josephus’ Sources
Clues in His Background

Given that the Testimonium Flavianum appears to be authentically Josephan, ques-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

tions naturally arise regarding Josephus’ sources of information about Jesus. Did
Josephus simply recast a Christian source to make it more neutral or ambiguous?
Or did he draw from a non-Christian source, perhaps one that had independent
knowledge of Jesus? It has been supposed by some that Josephus obtained his in-
formation about Jesus from the Gospel of Luke,1 but this does not square with the
evidence. If Josephus had done so, one would think that there would be at least
some explicit phraseology shared between the TF and Luke, and yet there is none.2
In fact, it is one of the remarkable aspects of the TF that it so frequently employs
language not used by early Christians, such as the terms ‘having the third day’, or
that Jesus worked ‘incredible’ or ‘magical deeds’, or that he taught men who receive
‘truisms’ with ‘pleasure’, or that Christians were a ‘tribe’.3

1 Goldberg is most prominent in this regard, yet even he does not think that Josephus necessarily
used Luke, only a source like Luke which Josephus then rewrote; see Goldberg, ‘Josephus’ Paraphrase
Style’, 6; Goldberg, ‘Coincidences’, 76. Goldberg does show that the TF parallels the Emmaus account
in Luke in terms of its general structure and perhaps in some vocabulary items, but Goldberg is too
critical of the idea that these arose from coincidence. If a person were to independently summarize the
general contours of Jesus’ life, it would be unsurprising if that person would happen to follow one of the
New Testament summaries of Jesus’ ministry in terms of its general sequence while sharing a sprinkling
of similar words (for such New Testament summaries see Acts 2:22–32, 3:13–15, 5:30–2, 10:36–43,
13:23–31). Further, in n. 2 below I show that when Josephus does borrow from written sources, he
sometimes copies whole phrases, which Josephus does not do with Luke. Still, if one were to insist that
the points of contact between Josephus and Luke are too great to be coincidental, it ought to be remem-
bered that Josephus and Luke did share similar sources in view of evidence that Luke was present at the
trial of Paul before Herod Agrippa II and that Josephus knew Agrippa II and his sister Berenice, who
were both at the same trial (see discussion in Chapter 6). Luke also was familiar with James, the brother
of Jesus (Acts 21:18), and Josephus was familiar with James’ enemy, Ananus II, who put James to death
(Antiquities 20.200). Ananus II was also likely at the trial of Jesus himself and Luke may have known
others at the trial too (on these matters see Chapter 6). Hence, one need not speak of a shared written
source between Luke and Josephus; instead, if their accounts of Jesus really do overlap, such points of
contact are readily explainable due to the fact that they seem to have been connected with the same
individuals—both allies and enemies of Jesus—who were close to the events at hand. Other scholars
have unpersuasively argued that rather than Josephus using Luke, Luke used Josephus, but this is un-
likely on chronological grounds; see Appendix 2 n. 99.
2 Cohen for instance says that when recasting a written source Josephus will repeat occasional
phrases; Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 232. This is evident when examining Josephus’ use of
the Letter of Aristeas, where he copies exact phrases; see for example Letter of Aristeas 10 [183–4] and
Antiquities 12.96–7. For further discussion see Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 34–47. This bor-
rowing is far more direct and explicit than the words and concepts shared between Luke and Josephus,
which are pointed out by Goldberg; see above.
3 See Chapter 3 and, for a list of these points, see Conclusion p. 198.

Josephus and Jesus. T. C. Schmidt, Oxford University Press. © T. C. Schmidt 2025.

DOI: 10.1093/​9780191957697.003.0006
142 Josephus and Jesus

But what is more significant than all this is that the TF actually contrasts with—or
even contradicts—Luke and other early Christian sources by its statement that Jesus
had many Greek followers, by its emphasis on the responsibility of Pilate in Jesus’
execution, and by its apparent claim that Jesus’ disciples remained faithful to him at
his death.4 The placement of the TF within the Antiquities also contradicts Luke and
other Christian tradition insofar as it discusses Jesus’ ministry before it discusses that
of John the Baptist, implying that Jesus ministered before John. But no early Christian
group seems to have believed such a thing except possibly one small Christian sect,
and they seem to have derived the notion from Jewish tradition.5 Likewise, the TF’s
placement in the Antiquities further hints at Jewish traditions about Jesus’ birth and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

burial, none of which are alluded to in early Christian writings.6 It would be highly
unlikely that these things would be true of the TF had Josephus been relying upon
Luke or any other Christian source. Rather, the above evidence suggests that the
source or sources Josephus was using were Jewish, not Christian. And this fits well
with the profile of Josephus who, after all, was a Jewish historian, who was raised in a
Jewish society, and who was writing about Jesus, a Jewish man.

Josephus’ Background

But what or who were Josephus’ Jewish sources? In answering this question, it
must not be forgotten that Josephus would have been afforded many opportunities
for learning of Jesus from Jews who had encountered him directly, or at least who
were well apprised of his activities.

Josephus’ Youth

Josephus was born in 37/​8 ce in Jerusalem7 and was also raised in Jerusalem.8 His
family was aristocratic9—his father of high priestly pedigree and royal lineage,10
and his mother also of royal descent;11 the one was in his mid-20s when Jesus died

4 Luke 24:11, 25 highlight the unwillingness for the disciples to believe that Jesus had actually been
raised from the dead. For further discussion, see Conclusion.
5 See Chapters 3 and 4 pp. 129–30.
6 See Chapter 4 pp. 130–3.
7 Life 5, 7, 198, 205. Though these passages do not technically mandate that Josephus was actu-
ally born in Jerusalem, they certainly imply as much since Josephus’ father appears to have been from
Jerusalem and Josephus claims to have been as well. See also further discussion immediately below.
8 Life 12. In this passage Josephus returns to Jerusalem at age 19 after an absence of three years. In
69 ce his father was still living in Jerusalem (Life 202–4; War 5.533) and his mother, wife, and children
were still there too (War 5.419). Josephus also considered Jerusalem to be his ‘home’ (πατρίς); see Life
205. For discussion, see Mason, Life of Josephus, 103 n. 912.
9 Josephus recounts that his family was greatly distinguished by being members of the first of
twenty-four courses of priests, and by being of the chief family of that course; see Life 2.
10 Life 1–8. See also War 1.3.
11 Life 2.
 Josephus’ Sources 143

and the other probably in her teens if not early 20s.12 Josephus’ father, being of
eminent priestly stock, would have been present in Jerusalem on the Passover of
30/​33 ce when Jesus was publicly put on trial and then publicly crucified,13 and his
mother likely was too, for it would have been expected of all devout Jews to be in
attendance and both seem to have been residents of Jerusalem anyway.14 Josephus
stayed in touch with his mother and father for more than thirty years and would
have learned much from them.15
Yet Josephus had more than just his parents to hear tell of Jesus. By age 14 he was
already known for being well read in religious matters and for having an excellent
memory16—likely self-aggrandizement on the part of Josephus, but someone who

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

goes on to publish almost half a million words in a language not his own can be
trusted to have been a precociously gifted teenager. At that same age, around 51/​2
ce, he informs us that he was already familiar with the ‘chief priests and first men
of the city’ of Jerusalem (τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν τῆς πόλεως πρώτων), with whom
he was ‘continually’ (ἀεί) meeting.17 This surely means that his father knew them
too or was even one himself, as would be expected for Josephus’ father, a man of an
esteemed priestly family claiming descent from high priests and kings, however far
removed.
Josephus confirms elsewhere that his father was indeed a trusted confidant of
at least one High Priest.18 And Josephus would go on to be personally acquainted
with two and probably more High Priests.19 It is important to note that many of the
‘chief priests and first men’ whom Josephus knew as a teenager20 would have been

12 Josephus’ father was born in 6 ce; see Life 5. Josephus’ mother may have been younger than his fa-
ther, but she could not have been much younger because she did have at least one child before Josephus
(Life 8) and in Life 9 Josephus considered a 14-year-old to still be a ‘child’ (ἀντίπαις), hence, his mother
was likely not married before 15 or 16 years of age and therefore she likely would not have had Josephus
(who was not her first child), before 19 or 20 years of age. Probably she was therefore born sometime be-
tween 6 ce and 17 ce. On Josephus’ brother being older than him, see Mason, Life of Josephus, 12 n. 53.
13 Numbers 8:24 appears to indicate that priests begin their service at age 25, around the age of
Josephus’ father when Jesus was crucified. However, 1 Chronicles 23:27 suggests that this may have later
been lowered to age 20. When priests began their service in the first century ce is unknown. For infor-
mation on first-century priestly practice, see Sanders, Judaism, 77–92.
14 On the biblical requirement for Jews to be present in Jerusalem on Passover, see pp. 190–1.
15 Around 68 ce Josephus received a letter from his father begging to see him (Life 204–5). Josephus
speaks of being quite worried about his mother’s safety around 69 ce (War 5.419) and that at the
same time his father was in prison (War 5.533). Josephus may have rescued both after Jerusalem’s fall
(Life 418).
16 Life 8–9.
17 Life 9.
18 Life 193, 202.
19 Josephus would go on to know the High Priest Ananus II and the High Priest Joshua son of Gamala,
and he may well have also known the High Priests Ishmael, Joseph, and Jonathan the son of Ananus
I, see pp. 177–90. Josephus further implies in Life 194 that he was acquainted with ‘many chief priests
and rulers of the people’ (πολλοὺς γὰρ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τοῦ πλήθους προεστῶτας). Throughout
his works, Josephus uses the term ἀρχιερεύς in reference to both the ‘High Priest’ (indicating the
highest-ranked priest) and ‘chief priests’ (indicating the class of higher-ranking priests). However, his
context almost always makes it clear to which category he intends. In this book, I further disambiguate
ἀρχιερεύς by translating it with the terms ‘High Priest’ or ‘chief priest’ depending on Josephus’ inten-
tion. For further discussion on Josephus’ usage of ἀρχιερεύς, see n. 158 in Chapter 6.
20 Life 9.
144 Josephus and Jesus

in Jerusalem on the Passover of Jesus’ execution twenty years before, and could
have easily encountered Jesus then, or in any number of other locations and times.
Some of them may have even attended proceedings against Jesus. This is a crucial
point, to which I will return below.21
Starting at age 16, in 53/​4 ce, Josephus began intensely studying the practices of the
Essenes, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees.22 This led him to become a disciple of an
ascetic named Banas who seems to have been an Essene. Banas was much like John
the Baptist with his frugal and rough diet, primitive clothing, home in the desert, and
frequent washings in water.23 Josephus says he was with Banas for three years.24

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Josephus’ Adulthood

At age 19, in 56/​7 ce, Josephus became a Pharisee, but probably for political reasons25
since he never abandoned his love of the Essenes.26 Then, between 56 and 62 ce,
when Josephus was 20 to 25 years old, he would have started serving as a priest, like
his father.27 Toward the end of this period, in 62 ce, his reputation had apparently
reached such heights that he was chosen to lead an embassy to Rome in quest of
releasing certain distinguished priests.28 There he obtained an audience with the
empress, who interceded on his behalf. She also happened to be holding under her
supervision a former High Priest named Ishmael. It is likely that Josephus would have
come to know Ishmael during his stay in Rome and even have worked to free him.29

21 I also discuss this topic at length in Chapter 6.

22 Life 10.
23 Life 11. On Essene practices, see below pp. 148–9.
24 Life 12.
25 Josephus explains that Sadducees often had to become Pharisees in order to curry favor with the
public; see Antiquities 18.15, 17 and relatedly 13.298. It stands to reason that as Josephus was entering
into ‘public life’ (πολιτεύεσθαι; Life 12) he may have been forced to make a similar decision and there-
fore to leave the Essenes.
26 Josephus, though a Pharisee himself, could be quite critical of them; see Antiquities 17.41, for fur-
ther discussion see p. 149. He also is critical of the Sadducees, War 2.166. Yet he consistently praises the
Essenes; see Antiquities 18.18–22; War 2.119–61. Mason disputes that Josephus was actually a Pharisee,
and hence believes he only followed pharisaical norms out of the necessity of being active in public
life, but this would still mean that Josephus was extremely familiar with Pharisees; see Mason, Flavius
Josephus on the Pharisees, 342–56. For Josephus on the Sadducees, see Baumbach, ‘The Sadducees in
Josephus’. For the Essenes, see Rajak, ‘Ciò Che Flavio Giuseppe Vide’.
27 Josephus confirms that he did become a priest; see Apion 1.54; War 1.3, 3.352. For when he would
have begun his priestly service, see n. 13.
28 Life 13–16.
29 Josephus’ embassy to Rome in 62/​3 ce was meant to free certain priests who had been sent there
some years earlier by the Roman governor Felix, whose service ended c.59 ce (on this dating see Keener,
Acts, vol. 3 p. 3331). While in Rome, Josephus appealed to Poppaea, the wife of Nero, who managed to free
them (Life 16). At around the same time, Ishmael the High Priest was also being held in Rome (Antiquities
20.193–5), having arrived when Festus was governor (c.59–62 ce; for dating, see Keener cited above).
There, Ishmael remained under the supervision of Poppaea. The dates of Felix and Festus’ terms as gov-
ernor are not entirely certain and can be moved about two or three years here or there, but it is most
likely that Josephus’ embassy was either meant to free Ishmael, or that Josephus at least met Ishmael in
Rome since Ishmael seems to have been in Rome at the same time as Josephus (62/​3 ce) and was held by
Empress Poppaea, the very person to whom Josephus appealed for the release of eminent Jewish priests.
 Josephus’ Sources 145

Around the same time, about 62 ce,30 Josephus relates that James, the brother
of Jesus, became the target of the High Priest Ananus II, who had him illegally
executed.31 This caused such a stir among the people that Agrippa II removed
Ananus II from the high priesthood. Josephus would go on to know personally
both Agrippa II and Ananus II,32 so he could have learned of James directly from
them. Still, he probably would have already known about James in 62 ce given the
great political upheaval James’ execution had caused. But if Josephus had known
of James, he would have also known reports of James’ much more famous brother
‘Jesus, who was called the Christ’, as Josephus styles him.33
Shortly after the death of James, in 64 ce,34 the city of Jerusalem was riven by strife

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

and intrigue.35 War was afoot. Josephus, concerned about rebellion and having re-
turned to Jerusalem, began ‘again spending time with the chief priests and the first
men of the Pharisees’ (πάλιν τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν καὶ τοῖς πρώτοις τῶν Φαρισαίων
συνδιέτριβον).36 Then, a year or so later, Josephus was appointed general of Galilee37
and later sent by ‘the first men of Jerusalem’ (τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν οἱ πρῶτοι) into
Galilee itself.38 That Josephus was a member of the upper echelons of Jewish society
is indicated by the fact that only six others were appointed to the rank of general; two
of these seem to have been sons of a High Priest and another of a chief priest.39 It is
plausible that the remaining generals had similar connections as well. The general
Joseph son of Simon, for example, was probably a former High Priest.40
Upon arriving in Galilee, Josephus gathered an army of 100,000 men41 and
began planning defenses, all while staying in communication with the ‘Sanhedrin’

30 James was likely executed in 62 ce because Josephus relates that his trial occurred during the
intervening moment when the Roman governor Festus had died and his replacement had not yet ar-
rived (Antiquities 20.200; for the dating of Festus’ death, see n. 29). It is probable that Josephus was
either at that time in Rome or in Jerusalem.
31 Antiquities 20.200.
32 On Josephus’ relationship to Ananus II, see Chapter 6 pp. 187–8.
33 Antiquities 20.200.
34 This date is derived from the fact that Josephus tells us that he began to meet with the first men of
Jerusalem before the arrival of Cestius Gallus (Life 23). Given that, according to War 2.555, Cestius was
defeated in the twelfth year of Nero (65/​6 ce), his meetings must have happened shortly before. On the
date of the twelfth year of Nero, see Mason, Judaean War 2, 377 n. 3331.
35 Life 17; Antiquities 20.214.
36 Life 21.
37 War 2.568.
38 Life 28–9. Josephus tells us in Life 80 that shortly after this time he was in his thirtieth year, which
puts the timing of his appointment as general around 66/​7 ce.
39 War 2.566–8. The generals who were sons of High Priests were John, son of the High Priest
Ananias, and Eliezer, son of a certain High Priest whose name seems to have suffered textual corrup-
tion. Another general, Joshua, was the son of a chief priest. For discussions on the identity of these gen-
erals, see notes in Mason, Judaean War 2, 381–5.
40 See Chapter 6 pp. 180–2. It might be supposed that Josephus has exaggerated his role in the Jewish
war and was therefore never a general, but even the usually suspicious Cohen cannot bring himself to
reject Josephus as being a general of Galilee, though he speculates that in actuality Josephus and Ananus
II were two of eleven generals appointed for the war as opposed to Josephus being one of seven gen-
erals appointed under two supreme commanders, the latter of which included Ananus II; see Cohen,
Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 195–206, especially 200.
41 War 2.576. For Josephus’ activities in Galilee, see Jossa, ‘Josephus’ Action in Galilee during the
Jewish War’; Schwartz, ‘Josephus in Galilee: Rural Patronage and Social Breakdown’.
146 Josephus and Jesus

(τῷ συνεδρίῳ) and the ‘first men of Jerusalem’ (τῶν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις πρώτων).42
He also set about becoming familiar with the geography of Galilee and its inhab-
itants. Over the next two or three years (66–9 ce) he traveled extensively in the
region and could count 240 Galilean cities and villages.43 His travels touched upon
many areas associated with Jesus, as can be seen in the Map below. He visited
Capernaum,44 Gadara,45 Tiberias,46 and even lived in the towns of Cana47 and
Magdala.48 He knew well the coast of the Sea of Galilee,49 could describe in de-
tail the land of Gennesaret,50 and undoubtedly was familiar with many other lo-
cales where Jesus had lived and preached and traveled by. All these areas, the reader
should remember, are said in the canonical Gospels to be where Jesus preached to

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

thousands of people about thirty-five years before Josephus’ arrival.51 Certainly
many of them would have been still alive when Josephus was there.
Josephus was further acquainted with places where early Christians are known
to have had residence. He, for example, was stationed in Sepphoris for a time,
where the Tosefta (third–fourth centuries ce) reports that some early Christians
were ministering.52 Sepphoris, like Cana, was also only three or so miles down the
road from Nazareth, Jesus’ hometown,53 and it surely would have had citizens in
Josephus’ day who remembered Jesus. Josephus traveled to Capernaum as well,
which not only had been the center of Jesus’ ministry, but is later said to have been
the home of early Christians.54 He visited Joppa too, where according to Acts the
apostle Peter had once ministered.55 Toward the end of his tenure in Galilee, the
‘first men of Jerusalem’ (οἱ τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν πρῶτοι) confirmed Josephus as
‘ruler’ (ἀρχήν) of Galilee.56

42 Life 62, 217.

43 Life 235.
44 War 3.519; Life 403. Capernaum, of course, was Jesus’ home throughout much of his ministry; see
Matthew 4:13; Mark 2:1; Luke 4:31; John 2:12, 6:59.
45 Life 42, 44, 82. This location is attested in Matthew 8:28 according to its earliest manuscripts, as
well as other manuscript readings at Mark 5:1 and Luke 8:26.
46 John 6:23; Life 31, 64, 68, 82, 92, 94, 164, 167, 169, 188, 280, 322–3, 326.
47 Life 86; John 2:11, 4:46.
48 Magdala was the Galilean hometown of Mary Magdalene, perhaps Jesus’ closest female disciple
(Matthew 27:56, 28:1; Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1; Luke 8:2, 24:10; John 19:25, 20:1, 18). Josephus calls
Magdala by the Greek name ‘Taricheia’ (Ταριχέης). He was stationed there for some time during the
Jewish war; see Life 96, 127, 132, 156–9. On the identification of Magdala with Taricheia, see Matassa,
‘Magdala’.
49 Josephus calls the ‘Sea of Galilee’ the ‘Sea of Gennesaret’, a term which the New Testament also
uses on one occasion; see War 3.463–4, 506–15; Luke 5:1. The Gospel of John will also use the term Sea
of Tiberias (John 6:1, 21:1).
50 War 3.506–15; Matthew 14:34; Mark 6:53.
51 Matthew 14:13–21, 15:32–9; Mark 6:31–44, 8:1–9; Luke 9:12–17; John 6:1–14. See also Matthew
4:25; Mark 3:8; Luke 6:17.
52 Tosefta, Hullin 2.22–4. For a skeptical discussion of this reference, see Schäfer, Jesus in the
Talmud, 42–7.
53 Stern, New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ‘Sepphoris’ vol. 4 1324.
54 Midrash Rabbah Ecclesiastes 1.8.4. See also Epiphanius, Panarion 30.11.10, who claims that by the
fourth century there were no Christians in Capernaum.
55 Life 230; War 2.573; Acts 9:36–43.
56 Life 310.
 Josephus’ Sources 147

It can fairly be said that a man of such background and interpersonal connec-
tions need not have had written sources to tell of Jesus, for he would doubtlessly
have known people who had met Jesus or were well apprised about him. Indeed,
there are many contacts of Josephus who would have had good knowledge of Jesus,
perhaps even firsthand knowledge.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Map. Ancient Israel in the Time of Jesus and Josephus

148 Josephus and Jesus

The Essenes and the Pharisees as Sources

In evaluating the formative years of Josephus, one senses that of the many avenues
he had to learn of Jesus, a likely thoroughfare would have been his time with the
Essenes in the 50s ce, since he voices many opinions that are paralleled by both
the Essenes and early Jewish-Christian texts.57 Hence, like the Essenes, Josephus
approved of frequent washings in water,58 rough and simple clothing,59 and vege-
tarianism (or at least dietary frugality),60 and affirmed those who abstained from
animal sacrifices in the Temple.61 These traits notably match early Jewish-Christian
sources which similarly affirm frequent baptism,62 and which describe Jesus and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

John the Baptist as abstaining from meat,63 and which describe Jesus as forbid-
ding sacrifices.64 John the Baptist is also portrayed by Jewish-Christian writings as
wearing rough clothing.65 In a similar way, Josephus too held John the Baptist in
high regard and implies that he preached after Jesus, not before. This is much like
the Gospel of the Ebionites, an early Jewish-Christian text, which praises John the
Baptist and also implies that John preached after Jesus, not before.66 Josephus fur-
thermore disagreed with the Sadducees concerning their rejection of the afterlife,
which not only agrees with the beliefs of Essenes,67 but also parallels criticisms of

57 Josephus also reports that Essenes often were advanced in years, meaning that in all probability
he would have been familiar with many Essenes who were far into their adulthood when Jesus was
ministering; see War 2.151. Philo corroborates the tendency for Essenes to be of a great age; see Philo,
Hypothetica 11.3.
58 Josephus’ teacher, Banas, practiced frequent bathing (Life 11), as did the Essenes (War 2.129, 138).
59 Josephus’ teacher wore only plant-based clothing (Life 11), and the Essenes were also quite frugal
in their clothing (War 2.121–3, 126, 137).
60 Josephus’ teacher, Banas, was a vegetarian (Life 11) and certain distinguished priests whom
Josephus endeavored to rescue from imprisonment in Rome were also vegetarian (Life 14). Josephus
does discuss the frugal diet of the Essenes (War 2.130–4), though nowhere does he explicitly say that
the Essenes were vegetarian; yet he does state that they followed the ‘lifestyle’ (διαίτῃ) of Pythagoras
(Antiquities 15.371), who was said to be a vegetarian. There is good reason however to suspect that most
Essenes were not actual vegetarians; see Taylor, The Essenes, 16, 195. Curiously, the Slavonic version of
the War states that John the Baptist was a vegetarian; Slavonic Jewish War 2.7.2b, 2.9.1f.
61 Josephus states, or at least implies, that Essenes did not sacrifice at the Temple; see Antiquities
18.19; War 2.129. Josephus also praised John the Baptist, whom Josephus says believed that purity
could be gotten by means other than sacrifices; see Antiquities 18.117.
62 Epiphanius, Panarion 30.15.3–16.1. The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.55.3–4 strongly af-
firms the importance of baptism in the face of Jewish criticism but does not mention repeated baptism.
This and the below citations taken from the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions may originally derive
from the second- or third-century Jewish-Christian document called the Ascents of James; on this see
Chapter 3 p. 74.
63 Gospel of the Ebionites (found in Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.4, 30.19.3, 30.22.4). Epiphanius
goes on to say that vegetarianism was a general trait of Ebionites in Panarion 30.15.3. See also
Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions 1.30.1.
64 Gospel of the Ebionites (found in Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16.5). See also Pseudo-Clement,
Recognitions 1.37.4, 1.39.1, 1.54.1.
65 Gospel of the Ebionites (found in Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.4).
66 For further discussion, see p. 129.
67 Antiquities 18.18. Josephus would have believed in the immortality of the soul given that he be-
came a Pharisee and also trained as an Essene, both of which embraced such a belief. On the Pharisees
and the afterlife see Antiquities 18.14.
 Josephus’ Sources 149

the Sadducees found in the early Jewish-Christian Ascents of James.68 These com-
monalities argue that each group—Essenes and early Jewish followers of Jesus—
was likely well aware of the other. By extension, Josephus, while training as an
Essene, would have likely known of Jesus and early Christians.
Aside from the Essenes, it is also quite likely that in the 50s ce Josephus learned
of Jesus through pharisaical sources since he remarkably seemed to agree with
Jesus’ condemnation of Pharisees even though Josephus appears to have been a
Pharisee himself.69 Thus Josephus critiques Pharisees for making a show of things
(προσποιουμένων), for holding women in their thrall (ὑπῆκτο ἡ γυναικωνῖτις),
and for ‘being intent on violence and rabble rousing’ (εἰς τὸ πολεμεῖν τε καὶ

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

βλάπτειν ἐπηρμένοι).70 These are very like the criticisms Jesus lodges against the
Pharisees in the Gospel of Matthew where he accuses them of doing deeds ‘to be
seen by men’ and of ‘devouring the houses of widows’—and of, in general, being
lawless, bloodthirsty, and rejecting mercy and justice.71 There is, moreover, a trad-
ition in early Jewish-Christian sources that depicts Pharisees as endorsing the
ministry of John the Baptist,72 much like Josephus did.73
In view of these shared concerns, it would be quite unlikely for the young
Josephus in the 50s ce not to have been aware of Jesus, especially given the
points of belief held in common by early Jewish-Christians on the one hand and
the Essenes, Pharisees, and Josephus on the other. This is not to mention Jesus’
famous conflict with the Pharisees which would have made him a notorious figure
throughout the pharisaical groups in which Josephus traveled. It would have also
been probable that Josephus knew of Jesus given that in the 50s ce Christianity
was a growing movement that was being championed by the former Pharisee Saul
of Tarsus, all of which was occurring precisely when Josephus was joining the
Pharisees.

The First Men and Chief Priests

The above are plausible ways by which Josephus might have learned of Jesus; be it
from his parents, or Pharisees and Essenes, or the common folk of Judaea and Galilee,
or even from chief priests, High Priests, and the ‘first men’ of Jerusalem. But I would
like to examine the sources of Josephus’ knowledge of Jesus further. Is there any spe-
cific evidence identifying Josephus’ sources? Indeed, there is.

68 Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions 1.56.1–2. See also Matthew 22:23–33; Mark 12:18–27; Luke
20:27–40; Acts 23:6–8.
69 On this, see p. 144.
70 Antiquities 17.41.
71 Matthew 23:5–7, 14, 23–34. See also Luke 11:39–44.
72 Gospel of Ebionites (found in in Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.4); Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions
1.54.6–7.
73 Antiquities 18.117.
150 Josephus and Jesus

In the TF, Josephus says that it was the ‘first men’ (πρώτων ἀνδρῶν) who brought
an accusation against Jesus. With these words Josephus implies that it was not merely
a few of the most senior of the chief priests who took Jesus to trial, but a broader collec-
tion of Jewish leaders. In agreement with this are the Gospel accounts which maintain
that it was ‘all the chief priests and elders’,74 ‘the scribes’,75 and ‘the whole Sanhedrin’76
and also Herod Antipas the Tetrarch77 who participated in the judicial (or extra-
judicial) proceedings against Jesus, and that the great majority voted for death. The
Babylonian Talmud also portrays the trial of Jesus as being held before a court, un-
doubtedly the Sanhedrin.78 The Mishnah (third–fourth centuries ce) further reports
that quorum for the Sanhedrin in cases of trying a false prophet was seventy-one

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

members.79 Thus, the outlined scenario from Josephus, the Talmud, the Mishnah,
and the Gospels is that there were dozens of ‘first men’ taking part in the proceed-
ings against Jesus during the Passover of 30/​33 ce, from the High Priest and Herod
Antipas the Tetrarch, to chief priests and the junior members of the Sanhedrin and
perhaps other high-ranking Jews besides—anyone who might be classed among the
‘first men’.80
This fact is crucial to grasp, for Josephus goes on to say that in 51/​2 ce he him-
self was ‘continually’ (ἀεί) meeting with the ‘first men’ (πρώτων) of Jerusalem
and with the ‘chief priests’ (ἀρχιερέων).81 And this acquaintance of his with
the ‘first men’ and ‘chief priests’ appears many times throughout the following
twenty years of his life, as we have seen in the above. Josephus was even of such
prominence that, at only the age of 25, he obtained an audience with the emp-
ress of Rome in order to release certain distinguished priests. Later, he seems
to have been known by ‘many chief priests’,82 and often conferred with the ‘first
men’ of Jerusalem, and was commissioned as general of Galilee by them. He also
knew two High Priests face to face, and likely others as well.83 Indeed, it is pos-
sible that his own father may have been considered one of the first men or chief
priests of Jerusalem, for Josephus says that he was one of ‘the most famous of the
Jerusalemites’ (γνωριμώτατος ὢν . . . τοῖς Ἱεροσολυμίταις),84 was descended from

74 Matthew 27:1; Mark 14:53.

75 Luke 22:66, 23:10; see also Matthew 26:57.
76 Mark 14:55.
77 Luke 23:6–12; Acts 4:27.
78 Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a.20–1.
79 Mishna, Sanhedrin 1.5. Josephus roughly corroborates the Sanhedrin as being around seventy
members in War 2.570. For further information about the ancient Sanhedrin, see Mantel, ‘Sanhedrin’,
vol. 18 pp. 21–3. On the charge of Jesus being a false prophet, see Chapter 6 n. 214.
80 The category of ‘first’ (πρῶτοι) men in Josephus seems to designate a relatively exclusive and in-
fluential group. For example, in Antiquities 20.194 the ‘first’ men sent to Rome are associated with the
High Priest.
81 Life 9. See also Life 21.
82 Life 194.
83 See n. 19.
84 Life 7.
 Josephus’ Sources 151

both high priestly lineage and royal ancestry, and married a woman also of royal
descent, Josephus’ mother.85
From these observations it is not too much to conclude that some of these ‘first
men’ with whom Josephus was familiar could have been among those ‘first men’
whom Josephus says lodged an accusation against Jesus. So too could the ‘chief
priests’ whom Josephus knew have been some of those chief priests who put Jesus
on trial—for the Gospels say ‘all the chief priests’ were there.86

Among Us

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

But can we move beyond mere plausibility? Can it be shown that Josephus did
know certain of those ‘first men’ and chief priests who brought charges against
Jesus? I believe so. For there lies within the TF a statement, half hidden, indicating
that Josephus was personally acquainted with some of those very men who ac-
cused Jesus. This is signaled when Josephus says that it was not the ‘first men’
(πρώτων ἀνδρῶν) who brought Jesus to trial, but the ‘first men among us’ (πρώτων
ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν). In adding ‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν) Josephus appears to supply a
personal note of familiarity. This at least is how Gary Goldberg has read the phrase.
Goldberg concludes from this that the TF must have been derived to some extent
from a Christian source because Josephus was not in the habit of ‘inserting him-
self ’ into his ‘historical narrative’ and therefore would not have composed the
phrase as it stands.87
Yet, as we have seen, it was quite typical of Josephus to boast of his famil-
iarity with the ‘first men’ of Jerusalem and he could easily have known some
of those involved with Jesus’ trial. Moreover, Josephus was fond of the phrase
‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν) and deploys it fifty-one other times,88 so there is no
reason to find its presence unusual in the TF. Of greater importance than these
points is that a careful review of these fifty-one instances reveals that Josephus
seems to only use the phrase ‘among us’ for things and people with whom he
or the speaker was personally acquainted.89 Such evidence indicates that in the
TF Josephus is claiming direct familiarity with some of the ‘first men’ who ac-
cused Jesus.

85 Life 2, 4.
86 Matthew 27:1; Mark 14:53.
87 More specifically, Goldberg argues that this phrase reveals that Josephus did not compose the
phrase whole cloth, but must have been inattentively copying Luke 24:20. Goldberg, ‘Coincidences’,
70–1. See also Winter, ‘Josephus on Jesus’, 434.
88 The total of fifty-one instances includes forty-nine instances of παρ’ ἡμῖν and two instances of the
synonymous παρὰ μὲν ἡμῖν.
89 In the below footnotes I cite all fifty-one instances of παρ’ ἡμῖν or παρὰ μὲν ἡμῖν in Josephus’
corpus. I make comments on those instances that are not straightforward.
152 Josephus and Jesus

Thus, Josephus frequently uses the term ‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν) in reference to
Jewish laws,90 customs,91 terminology,92 attitudes,93 writings,94 language,95 and
to the Jewish kingdom,96 their capital of Jerusalem,97 and their temple98—every
one of which Josephus (or the speaker whom Josephus quotes) had directly ex-
perienced and had firsthand knowledge. So, Josephus says regarding the Festival
of Tabernacles ‘this is a festival especially observed among us’ (ἑορτὴ δέ ἐστιν
αὕτη παρ’ ἡμῖν εἰς τὰ μάλιστα τηρουμένη),99 and of course Josephus would have
celebrated this festival many times himself. And, similarly, Josephus asserts that
Jerusalem is ‘the greatest city among us’ (τῇ μεγίστῃ πόλει . . . παρ’ ἡμῖν)100 and
Josephus would have known Jerusalem personally, for he was raised in Jerusalem.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Events, deeds, and historical happenings that occurred under Josephus’ observa-
tion or that of the speaker are also marked by him with ‘among us’, as when he says

90 Antiquities 16.177; Apion 2.150, 2.271, 2.277, 2.287.

91 Antiquities 12.277, 15.50, 15.259, 20.264; Life 1, 275; Apion 1.162, 2.181; War 3.377. In Apion
2.124 Josephus describes a false charge that Jews were in the habit of swearing an oath to hate foreigners,
which Josephus refutes by saying ‘no one has ever said that they heard this oath sworn among us’
(οὐδεὶς πώποτε τὸν ὅρκον εἶπεν ἀκοῦσαι παρ’ ἡμῖν ὀμωμοσμένον). By the phrase ‘among us’, Josephus
as the speaker means to say that no one, including himself, has directly witnessed Jews who have sworn
such an oath. Josephus obviously was personally acquainted with many Jews who did not hold this
custom.
92 Antiquities 3.172, 3.248, 11.107, 14.106, 15.371. The latter reference reads ‘who among us are
called Essenes’ (οἱ παρ’ ἡμῖν Ἐσσαῖοι καλούμενοι). At first glance this might imply that Josephus is
stating that a particular group of ascetic Jews, who existed in the distant past, was actually ‘among us’;
but the context shows rather that he is explaining Jewish terminology with which he was directly fa-
miliar. This follows the exact pattern of Antiquities 3.172 and 3.248. Of course, Essenes continued to
thrive in Josephus’ day and he also knew many.
93 Antiquities 5.96 (the speaker is Joshua). In War 1.16 Josephus uses the phrase ‘among us’ to refer
to himself and his readers many of whom Josephus would have of course known. Is also possible that
the phrase could be interpreted as referring to Jewish history, much of which of course Josephus per-
sonally witnessed in the War. In Apion 2.232 Josephus presents an exaggerated rhetorical statement,
boasting ‘therefore especially among us’ ( Ἄρ’ οὖν καὶ παρ’ ἡμῖν) no one can claim to know of even two
or three Jews who ‘betrayed their laws or were afraid of death’ (προδότας γενομένους τῶν νόμων ἢ
θάνατον ϕοβηθέντας). Taken literally, Josephus is of course wrong as he himself has described Jews
betraying Jewish laws (like the whole Sanhedrin in Antiquities 20.216–18), but in Apion 2.232 he is rhet-
orically (and hyperbolically) using ‘among us’ to claim that no one has directly witnessed Jews who be-
trayed their country or their laws, in order for him to highlight past and present Jews who upheld great
steadfastness and bravery in the face of death, some of whom Josephus witnessed in the Jewish war with
Rome, and whom he knew many others directly witnessed as well (Life 420; War 3.229–34, 3.320–2,
4.326–9, 4.385). That Josephus was a personal witness to some of these is in evidence in Apion 1.55; War
5.420, 429. Josephus himself also faced death (Life 136–46; War 4.624–9, 5.419) and so he is probably
including himself in the statement too.
94 Antiquities 10.267, 14.187; Apion 1.1, 1.38. Relatedly, Apion 2.180 refers either to writings or
Jewish beliefs about God.
95 Antiquities 20.71.
96 Antiquities 8.113 (the speaker is Solomon).
97 Life 7.
98 Antiquities 3.318; Apion 1:109, 1.154. In these references Josephus speaks of the temple of
Solomon as being ‘among us’, but it should be noted that though Solomon’s Temple, from a certain
perspective, did not exist in Josephus’ day, given that it had been destroyed centuries before, Josephus
himself still considered that the rebuilt temple, in which he served as a priest, was the genuine temple of
Solomon, as he makes clear in War 6.269.
99 Antiquities 15.50.
100 Life 7.
 Josephus’ Sources 153

‘and until now this cure has remained in force among us, for I have observed . . .’
(καὶ αὕτη μέχρι νῦν παρ’ ἡμῖν ἡ θεραπεία πλεῖστον ἰσχύει· ἱστόρησα γάρ . . .).101
Or, in Antiquities 10.35 Josephus indicates that biblical prophecies were fulfilled
‘among us’. Later, in a speech to the besieged inhabitants of Jerusalem, shortly be-
fore its fall, he claims some of these biblical prophecies were being fulfilled before
his very eyes by Jerusalem’s impending defeat, ‘Who does not know the records of
the old prophets, especially the oracle which is already coming to fruition against
this miserable city?’ (τίς οὐκ οἶδεν τὰς τῶν παλαιῶν προϕητῶν ἀναγραϕὰς καὶ
τὸν ἐπιρρέποντα τῇ τλήμονι πόλει χρησμὸν ἤδη ἐνεστῶτα;).102
There in fact seem to be only three out of fifty-one examples where the phrase

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

‘among us’ marks a subject where it is not conclusive that the speaker had direct
or personal knowledge, but even in these instances such knowledge is quite likely.
First, Josephus quotes the High Priest and general Jonathan Apphus as referring to
his predecessor as ‘Onias III who was High Priest among us’ (Ὀνίᾳ τῷ γενομένῳ
ἀρχιερεῖ παρ’ ἡμῖν).103 Onias III died in 175 bce104 and Jonathan became High
Priest in 152 bce, but was already leading men in battle around 165 bce,105 and
had helped his father, a distinguished priest,106 to violently thwart sacrilege in the
temple around 167 bce.107 Hence, probability favors the High Priest Jonathan
having known the former High Priest Onias III face to face given their chrono-
logical proximity and the fact that they were both of important priestly families.
Secondly, Josephus refers to the High Priest Ishmael as ‘Ishmael who was High
Priest among us’ (Ἰσμαήλου δὲ παρ’ ἡμῖν ἀρχιερέως ὄντος),108 and Ishmael was
not only High Priest when Josephus was an adult, but Josephus may have even led

101 Antiquities 8.46. See also Antiquities 8.117 (the speaker is Solomon), 8.280 (the speaker is Abijah).
In Antiquities 1.5 Josephus describes his book as containing ‘all of the antiquities among us’ (ἅπασαν
τὴν παρ’ ἡμῖν ἀρχαιολογίαν); and books 19–20 of the Antiquities of course describe many events and
people whom Josephus knew directly, such as Herod Agrippa II. On Josephus’ relationship to him, see
Chapter 6 pp. 161–4.
102 War 6.109. See also War 4.387. For related references, see also War 3.352, 7.432. In a different
example, in Antiquities 1.9 Josephus mentions Greeks ‘who endeavored to know the affairs among us’
(γνῶναι τὰ παρ’ ἡμῖν ἐσπούδασαν). With this, Josephus clearly has in mind not just ancient Greeks,
but also contemporary Greeks interested in the past and present affairs of the Jews, like his patron
Epaphroditus, whom he mentions in the same verse (Antiquities 1.8–9), and other Greeks of his day
who were interested in Jews, whom he mentioned a few verses earlier (Antiquities 1.4). He may also
have had in mind Empress Poppaea, whom Josephus had known (Life 16), and also Greek writers
whose works were extant in Josephus’ day (Apion 1.215–18, 2.2, 2.84, 2.145), or who even wrote during
Josephus’ lifetime (like Apion, whom Josephus wrote against in Against Apion). Thus the ‘affairs among
us’ pertains to the past and contemporary affairs of the Jews—and whether the speaker is here con-
strued to be Josephus or certain Greeks, clearly all were directly familiar with some of these affairs.
103 Antiquities 13.167.
104 Antiquities 12.225. For the date of the death of High Priest Onias III, see VanderKam, From Joshua
to Caiaphas, 197.
105 Antiquities 12.321 (for the date of the event), 12.333, 335, 350.
106 Antiquities 12.264 (for the date of the event), 12.268.
107 Antiquities 12.266, 270. For the reign of the High Priest Jonathan Apphus, see VanderKam, From
Joshua to Caiaphas, 251–70.
108 Antiquities 3.320.
154 Josephus and Jesus

an embassy to Rome to set him free.109 The circumstances of this episode are not
definite, yet if Josephus did not lead such an embassy for Ishmael, he was person-
ally familiar with two or more High Priests and several other chief priests around
when Ishmael was alive.110 His knowledge of Ishmael must therefore have been
quite close and likely even direct.
Thirdly, and perhaps most tenuously, is when Josephus asserts that Essenes were
true prophets and then somewhat ambiguously adds that he has seen fit to relate ‘mi-
raculous’ or ‘strange things’ (παράδοξα) which ‘have occurred among us’ (περὶ τῶν
παρ’ ἡμῖν ἐμϕῆναι).111 If Josephus is speaking generally here, then he of course was
witness to certain παράδοξα, as he himself says in a speech he once gave.112 However,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

if he is specifically referring to the miraculous fulfillment of prophecies given by
Essenes, then the matter is not so clear. Josephus does relate several of their prophetic
fulfillments,113 but all these occurred before he was born. It is very possible though
that Josephus did believe that he witnessed certain fulfillments himself even if he
does not mention them explicitly. In War 2.159, for example, he implies that such
Essene prophecies were still being given and, besides this, he investigated the Essenes
and seems to have undergone the three-year initiation period of an Essene.114 During
this time he could have obviously observed many of what he thought to be prophetic
fulfillments. He also describes himself as making authentic prophecies that were ful-
filled,115 so he may also have had in mind his own role as a true prophet in the lineage
of the Essenes, especially given that he seems to have trained as one.
In reviewing the examples discussed or cited above, even including the
last three, the phrase ‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν) marks a subject as one with which
Josephus (or the speaker) was directly familiar or at least was probably so. But if
not, then it marks something which the speaker had at least good, close connection
and sure knowledge of.
One could object that none of these examples precisely match the way the
phrase ‘among us’ is deployed in the TF, where it pertains not to any kind of
custom, event, location, individual or such like, but to a group of people, ‘the first
men among us’ who brought an accusation against Jesus, as Josephus says. There
are though, seven remaining instances of the term ‘among us’ and these do demar-
cate a group of people. So, it must be asked, in these seven instances, does Josephus
use the term to indicate that he himself (or the speaker) personally knew members
of the group? He does appear to do just that. It will be fruitful to work through the
seven examples one by one.

109 See Chapter 6 pp. 179–80.

110 See n. 19.
111 Antiquities 15.379.
112 War 6.102.
113 War 1.78–80, 2.111–13; Antiquities 13.311, 15.373–9, 17.345–8.
114 War 2.137–8; Life 10–12. On Josephus’ teacher, Banas, and his relationship to Essenes, see
above pp. 144, 148–9.
115 War 3.351–4, 4.622–9.
 Josephus’ Sources 155

Josephus uses the phrase while quoting Jonathan Apphus who speaks of sending
along two men ‘who are from the senate among us’ (τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς γερουσίας ὄντων
παρ’ ἡμῖν).116 Clearly Jonathan not only knew the two Jewish senators, but he
would have known many other members of the Jewish senate as well since he was
the Jewish political and religious leader at the time.117
When enumerating the five sons of the High Priest, Ananus I, Josephus
points out that all five became High Priest themselves, ‘which never happened
to any [other] of the High Priests among us’ (ὅπερ οὐδενὶ συνέβη τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν
ἀρχιερέων).118 He also twice refers to the whole roster of Jewish high priests as
‘the High Priests who were among us’ (οἱ γὰρ ἀρχιερεῖς οἱ παρ’ ἡμῖν).119 It is ob-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

vious that Josephus was not on personal terms with all of the Jewish High Priests
in history, but he was on such terms with at least two of the High Priests, as he tells
us explicitly elsewhere. He even describes the High Priest Joshua as his friend and
trusted confidant.120
Again, Josephus mentions the three Jewish ‘sects among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν
αἱρέσεων)121—the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes—many members of
which Josephus knew personally, some of whom were even leaders of these sects.122
Josephus also states ‘for I served as general of those among us who are named
Galileans’ (ἐστρατήγουν μὲν γὰρ τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν Γαλιλαίων ὀνομαζομένων).123 It
goes without saying that Josephus was well acquainted with many Galileans, in-
cluding their leaders,124 during his years stationed in Galilee.125 In two final ex-
amples, Josephus further uses the phrase ‘among us’ to indicate ‘those [kings]
among us who were allies’ (οἱ παρ’ ἡμῖν σύμμαχοι) of the Romans,126 and he cer-
tainly knew the Jewish king, Agrippa II, who was an ally with Rome and also his
friend; he doubtless knew many other Jewish leaders who were allies too, including

116 Antiquities 13.169.

117 On the High Priest Jonathan Apphus, see p. 153.
118 Antiquities 20.198.
119 Apion 1.36. See also Antiquities 1.11, which reads ‘Eliezer was second to none in virtue compared
to the High Priests among us’ (ὁ δὲ τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν ἀρχιερέων οὐδενὸς ἀρετῇ δεύτερος Ἐλεάζαρος).
120 For discussion of Josephus’ relationship to the High Priest Joshua and other High Priests, see n. 19
and p. 178.
121 Life 10.
122 Josephus knew the High Priest Ananus II (see Chapter 6 pp. 187–8), who was a Sadducee
(Antiquities 20.199); he also knew the leaders of the Pharisees (Life 21) and was a Pharisee himself (Life
12); and he personally studied the Essenes (Life 10) and is likely to have even undergone the three-year
initiation of an Essene (see p. 144). One of his fellow generals may also have been an Essene (War
2.567–8, for a contrary analysis see Mason, Judaean War 2, 384 n. 3396).
123 Apion 1.48.
124 Life 79.
125 Life 84.
126 Apion 2.134. One might claim that in this verse Josephus is only speaking specifically about the
time in the long past when the Romans conquered Judaea, yet Josephus clearly describes a plurality of
Jewish kings (βασιλέων) who were allied with Rome, meaning that he must be referring to the entire
timeframe, up until his present day, in which Rome occupied Judaea. It is possible that Josephus also
knew Aristobulus, the Jewish king of Chalcis; see Chapter 6 pp. 169–71.
156 Josephus and Jesus

himself.127 Josephus again deploys ‘among us’ in a similar way shortly afterwards
when he speaks of illustrious ‘men among us’ (τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν ἀνδρῶν) mentioned
in his work Against Apion.128 These, again, would comprise many famous Jewish
leaders whom he personally knew such as various High Priests, like Ananus II and
Joshua son of Gamala, both of whom he greatly praises at times,129 and, once more,
King Agrippa II, whom he also lauds.130
A survey of the above fifty-one instances of ‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν) reveals that
in almost every case it is employed by Josephus for something of which he him-
self or the quoted speaker would have had first-hand knowledge. In just three in-
stances does Josephus use the phrase for something of which he (or the speaker)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

only probably had first-hand knowledge, but even in these cases there is neverthe-
less a very close association.
Let us though, for the sake of argument, be skeptical. Perhaps Josephus simply
uses the phrase ‘first men among us’ as a synonym for the ‘first men among the
Jews’ whether known or unknown to Josephus, past or current, near or far.
Perhaps the phrase says nothing about Josephus’ connections to the first men
who accused Jesus, but merely indicates that something was associated with Jews
generally.
In considering this, it is surely relevant that not one time does Josephus use the
term ‘among us’ to describe something or someone related to Jews but of great per-
sonal distance from the Jewish speaker, despite hundreds of opportunities to do
so.131 That is, Josephus never uses the phrase to refer to matters far removed from
the speaker in time or geography. Thus, when Josephus speaks about Mordechai,
who lived hundreds of years before Josephus, he does not say ‘Mordechai was
one of the first men among us’, but instead he says that Mordechai was one of ‘the
first men among the Jews’ (τῶν δὲ πρώτων παρὰ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις)132—for Josephus
could not have known Mordechai face to face and hence does not use the phrase
‘among us’.
There are many other like cases. As, for instance, when speaking of far dis-
tant historical leaders, Josephus says ‘the first men of the Jews’ (οἱ πρῶτοι τῶν

127 For examples of Jewish leaders who were allies of the Romans, see War 4.14–15; Life 30, 32–4,
43, 46, 407–8. For Josephus’ relationship with King Agrippa II and others of the Herodian dynasty, see
Chapter 6 pp. 159–172.
128 Apion 2.136.
129 On Josephus’ relationship to these High Priests, see Chapter 6 pp. 177–8, 187–8. On Josephus’
praise for their leadership, see War 4.318–22.
130 Antiquities 20.12 (here Josephus approvingly quotes a letter praising Agrippa II); Apion 1:51; Life
367. For Josephus’ relationship with Agrippa II, see Chapter 6 pp. 161–4.
131 Out of the fifty-one times Josephus uses the phrase, there are several instances where one could
conclude that Josephus’ primary intent is to refer to Jews generally rather than to the speaker’s direct
relationship with the given subject (see also p. 158). Most likely are with Apion 2.124, 2.232, and
Antiquities 1.9, but as I show in nn. 91, 93, and 102, in all of these examples the speaker is still directly
familiar with the subject. These three examples also pertain to quite general statements and are not con-
crete, specific historical assertions like that found in the TF.
132 Antiquities 11.198.
 Josephus’ Sources 157

Ἰουδαίων),133 or ‘the first men of the people’ (τοὺς πρώτους τοῦ λαοῦ),134 or ‘the
first men of the people of the Hebrews’ (οἱ τοῦ λαοῦ τῶν Ἑβραίων πρῶτοι),135
or ‘the first men among the Jews and Samaritans’ (οἱ πρῶτοι τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἔν τε
Ἰουδαίοις καὶ Σαμαρεῦσι).136 He will also use similar terms like ‘the magis-
trates of the Jews’ (Οἱ δ’ ἐν τέλει τῶν Ἰουδαίων),137 or ‘the leaders of the Jews’
(οἱ δοκιμώτατοι τῶν Ἰουδαίων).138 But in all these he does not say ‘the first men
among us’ or ‘the leaders among us’, or some such similar term alongside the phrase
‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν).
Nor does Josephus use ‘among us’ when speaking of Jews who lived during his
lifetime but whom he did not know. So, for example, after Josephus says that it was

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

the ‘first men among us’ who accused Jesus in Antiquities 18.63, he then soon after-
wards in Antiquities 18.257 switches to use the third person when speaking of Jews
in Alexandria and Babylon, who lived far from Josephus’ home city of Jerusalem.
In the first instance, he says that around 39/​40 ce the Jews of Alexandria sent the
famous philosopher Philo as ‘the lead ambassador of the Jews’ (ὁ προεστὼς τῶν
Ἰουδαίων τῆς πρεσβείας)—he does not say ‘the lead ambassador among us’, since
Philo and his Alexandrian entourage were evidently not known by Josephus.139 He
does the same again soon thereafter in Antiquities 18.379 when speaking of the Jews
in Babylon around 50 ce, ‘such were the affairs of the Jews who lived in Babylonia’
(καὶ τὰ μὲν κατὰ Ἰουδαίους τοὺς ἐν τῇ Βαβυλωνίᾳ κατῳκημένους τοιαῦτα ἦν).140
He does not say ‘those among us who lived in Babylonia’, since it seems quite un-
likely he would not have known those Babylonian Jews personally.
Or, in an example even closer in time and place, Josephus explains that around
60 ce there arose a dispute between the chief priests (τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι) and, in his
words, ‘the first men of the masses of the Jerusalemites’ (πρὸς τοὺς πρώτους τοῦ
πλήθους τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν).141 It is notable that Josephus does not say ‘the first
men of the masses among us’, for in all probability he did not know the leaders of

133 Antiquities 14.165.

134 Antiquities 11.141.
135 Antiquities 7.53.
136 Antiquities 17.342.
137 Antiquities 14.163. See also Antiquities 14.302, 17.160; War 1.243, 3.138, 4.336. More literally ἐν
τέλει could be translated ‘in office’. The reader should note that Josephus frequently deployed the first
person in the Antiquities, but only rarely in his War, where he refers even to himself in the third person
(for example, War 2.568). This means that citations from the Antiquities are more valuable for deter-
mining whether Josephus is claiming direct knowledge of a subject. On Josephus’ use of first and third
person, see Winter, ‘Josephus on Jesus’, 434.
138 Antiquities 14.21.
139 Antiquities 18.259. Technically the phrase should be literally translated as ‘the leader of the Jews’
embassy’.
140 Antiquities 18.379.
141 Antiquities 20.180. Certain manuscripts of the Antiquities read that the chief priests were also
opposing the regular ‘priests’, however these words (τοὺς ἱερεῖς καί) are omitted in the oldest manu-
script of Antiquities book 20 (Manuscript A in Niese, which is MS Ambrosianae F128sup. f. 348r line
18). Zonarus seems to agree on this point in his Epitome Historiarum 6.16 11–12 (Dindorf, Ioannis
Zonarae: Epitome Historiarum, 2:47).
158 Josephus and Jesus

the lower classes in Jerusalem since he himself was of aristocratic lineage. Less than
twenty verses later though, he returns to the first person when speaking about cer-
tain of the ‘High Priests among us’ (τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν ἀρχιερέων),142 for Josephus did
know at least two High Priests directly.143
Some of the above instances would not prove the case. But after so many, a con-
sistent pattern develops: Josephus deploys ‘among the Jews’ (παρὰ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις)
or a synonymous phrase when referring to matters related to Jews generally. But
when specifically referring to matters related directly to himself (or the speaker),
he writes ‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν). These are telling signs that, as used by Josephus,
the term ‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν) bespeaks close familiarity, near acquaintance,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

and direct knowledge.144 This is not to say that the primary meaning of the phrase
‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν) is always to mark direct knowledge, for obviously the phrase
could have additional connotations in certain instances. Rather what I wish to em-
phasize is that with ‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν) the marking of direct knowledge seems
to always be intended, sometimes as a primary meaning and at other times as a
concurrent secondary meaning. But in every example direct knowledge appears
to be intended.145
And this is what I submit Josephus meant when he said in the TF that it was ‘the
first men among us’ who accused Jesus. For, given the linguistic evidence gath-
ered above, it is very likely that Josephus is claiming to have known some of those
‘first men’. And historically speaking, this is not at all improbable for a man like
Josephus, of an eminent priestly family, who kept company with ‘chief priests’
and ‘first men’ of Jerusalem beginning in 51/​2 ce, and was even himself directly
acquainted with at least two High Priests and King Herod Agrippa II, and other
members of the Herodian dynasty besides.
But this is not all that can be said about Josephus and Jesus, for as the next
chapter will show, it is even possible to identify those acquaintances of Josephus
who may have actually brought Jesus to trial.

142 Antiquities 20.198.

143 On his relationship with the High Priests, see Chapter 6 pp. 177–90.
144 In other words, the case is proved by the consistent pattern Josephus displays, not by isolated in-
stances. It is possible that future scholars will find exceptions to this pattern, but the whole point is that,
despite counterexamples that may be found, the strong tendency of Josephus is that he deploys ‘among
us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν) when marking a subject of which the speaker has direct knowledge.
145 See n. 131.
 6
Identifying the ‘First Men among Us’
Possible Candidates

As observed in the last chapter, evidence suggests that Josephus was directly fa-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

miliar with some of the ‘first men among us’ who put Jesus on trial. Given this,
would it be possible to determine the identities of these men, known to Josephus,
who were also partisans in the trial of Jesus? I believe it is possible. In fact, Josephus’
social network is so thoroughly illuminated that we can actually identify several
probable candidates who both participated in the trial of Jesus and were later dir-
ectly connected with Josephus. There are others too who, if they were not at the
trial, at least may have otherwise met Jesus or been well-informed about him. All
these contacts would have been capable of directly apprising Josephus of Jesus or
of doing so indirectly through any number of mutual acquaintances.
What follows is a sketch of six leading families with whom Josephus was fa-
miliar and whose members were also likely party to the execution of Jesus. These
include the royal family of the Herodians, the rabbinic family of Hillel, and the
high priestly families of Camith, Boethus, Phiabi, and especially Ananus I.1 As the
reader will see, not every family nor every one of their members possess the same
likelihood of having encountered Jesus or of serving as one of Josephus’ sources.
Some are less certain and others more, but the potential candidates are so many
and so closely connected to Jesus that even if some did not actually meet Jesus (or
did not tell Josephus of him), others of course very probably did. Hence, they are
likely candidates for Josephus’ ‘first men among us’ who accused Jesus.

The Royal Family of Herod the Great

We commence with the Herodians. It is important to note at the outset that

navigating the Herodian dynasty with understanding requires a good chart. The

1 There were very few families that held the high priesthood in the first century, see War 4.147–9.
For discussion, see VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 488. As will be shown below, Josephus was
directly familiar with High Priests from the four most influential high priestly dynasties. These four
dynasties drew their lineages from their patriarchs Ananus I, Camith, Boethus, and Phiabi. All told,
between 6 ce and 70 ce there were nineteen High Priests and around a dozen were supplied by the
above four families. See VanderKam who tabulates eleven, but he neglects to include the Camith family;
VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 493.

Josephus and Jesus. T. C. Schmidt, Oxford University Press. © T. C. Schmidt 2025.

DOI: 10.1093/​9780191957697.003.0007
 newgenrtpdf

Chart 1. The Family of Herod the Great

Note: Single lines mark biological descent, dotted lines mark marriage or romantic relationship.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 161

dynasty’s founder was Herod the Great, whom the Gospel of Matthew presents
as attempting to kill the infant Jesus.2 This Herod had many wives and many chil-
dren, and their descendants then went on to marry one another. So systematically
did they interbreed that charting out their bewildering genealogy results in less a
family tree and more a family circle.
Herodias, for example, married her uncle (Herod Philip), then divorced him
and married her other uncle (Herod Antipas),3 and then gave her daughter,
Salome, as a wife to her other uncle (Philip). When he died, Salome married her
own cousin (Aristobulus of Chalcis).4 Salome could not marry her own uncle
(Herod of Chalcis) because he had already married her cousin, Berenice.5 When

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Berenice’s husband (and also uncle) died, she is alleged to have had an affair with
her own brother, Agrippa II.6
Before such a tangled family, English kinship terms fail. The reader is hence
advised to refer to Chart 1 to redress any confusion that arises due to the mass
of names and interrelations mentioned below. It is vital to get good bearings re-
garding the Herodian family, for many of their members are presented in the New
Testament as having connections with Jesus or his early followers. Many also had
connections with Josephus, whether direct or indirect. The Herodians are there-
fore plausible avenues for Josephus’ knowledge of Jesus, with one or two perhaps
being included within the ‘first men among us’ whom Josephus says participated
in Jesus’ execution.

Agrippa II and Berenice

Of all the Herodians, Josephus was closest to King Herod Agrippa II (c.27/​8–94/​5
ce). Agrippa II wrote sixty-two letters to Josephus or on his behalf.7 In two that re-
main he says that he writes to Josephus, his ‘dearest friend’ (ϕιλτάτῳ),8 and prom-
ises Josephus that ‘whenever you should meet with me, I myself shall inform you

2 Matthew 2:1–18.
3 Antiquities 18.136. Josephus claims that Herodias first married a son of Herod the Great named
‘Herod’ and then divorced him to marry another son named ‘Herod’, who also had the name ‘Antipas’
(War 2.167) and was Tetrarch of Galilee (War 1.668, 2.94–5). Herodias’ daughter later married Philip,
the Tetrarch of Trachonitis, who was yet another son of Herod the Great (Antiquities 18.137). Matthew
and Mark however state that Herodias first married a son of Herod the Great named ‘Philip’ before
divorcing him and marrying a son of Herod the Great named Herod (Matthew 14:3; Mark 6:17). Many
scholars have concluded, not without controversy, that Herodias’ first husband’s name therefore was
‘Herod Philip’ just as her second husband’s name was ‘Herod Antipas’. For discussion, see Hoehner,
Herod Antipas, 131–6.
4 Antiquities 18.137.
5 Antiquities 19.354.
6 Antiquities 20.145; Juvenal, Satires 6.158.
7 Life 364. For the age of Agrippa II, see nn. 15, 44.
8 Life 365–6.
162 Josephus and Jesus

of many matters which are not generally known’.9 Agrippa began his reign in 49 ce
over Chalcis, a kingdom northeast of Galilee close to the location where Matthew
has Jesus uttering his famous phrase ‘upon this rock I will build my church’.10
Then in 53 ce Agrippa was transferred by the Emperor to the greater territories
of Batanea, Trachonitis, Gaulonitis, and Abilene,11 in portions of which Jesus
had personally ministered.12 The town of Bethsaida, for example, seems to have
straddled the border of Galilee and Trachonitis and three of Jesus’ disciples called
Bethsaida home,13 and Jesus himself frequently visited the locale and was even said
to have worked several miracles there.14
As king of such areas, nothing prevents the conclusion that Agrippa II would

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

have come to know many locals, both high and low, who had encountered Jesus
twenty or so years before, or at least were correctly informed of him. But these per-
sons would not be Agrippa’s only connections to Jesus, for it turns out that Agrippa
actually grew up in Jesus’ home territory of Galilee, being born there in 27/​8 ce
and living there off and on until probably at least 37 ce.15 And Galilee in the late 20s
and early 30s is of course when and where Jesus conducted most of his ministry.16

9 ὅταν μέντοι συντύχῃς μοι καὶ αὐτός σε πολλὰ κατηχήσω τῶν ἀγνοουμένων. Life 366. A more
literal translation would be ‘matters which are unknown’, but I adapt the translation of Thackeray,
Josephus: The Life, Against Apion, 135.
10 According to Matthew 16:13–18, Jesus spoke these words in the area of Caesarea Philippi, and
this locale seems to have bordered Chalcis since Chalcis included much of the large mountain range
of Mount Hermon in present-day Lebanon and Syria. See as well Mark 8:27. Jesus also ministered fur-
ther west of Chalcis in the areas of Tyre and Sidon, see Matthew 15:21; Mark 7:24. There were several
territories in the ancient world called ‘Chalcis’, but the one ruled by Agrippa II must have been rela-
tively close to Galilee, see Will, ‘Un Vieux Problème de La Topographie de La Beqā’ Antique’; Reinach,
‘Le mari de Salomé et les monnaies de Nicopolis d’Arménie’, 141. Schwartz however disagrees, see
Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 9 n. 25.
11 Antiquities 20.138; War 2.247.
12 Portions of these areas make up what is termed the Decapolis, see Mark 7:31. Crowds also fol-
lowed Jesus from these regions (Matthew 4:25; Mark 3:8; Luke 6:17) and one man was said to loudly
proclaim Jesus’ deeds in this area too (Mark 5:20).
13 According to John 1:44 the apostles Philip, Andrew, and Peter were from Bethsaida. See also
John 12:21.
14 Matthew 11:21; Mark 6:45, 8:22; Luke 9:10, 10:13.
15 As Josephus says, Agrippa II was about 17 when his father died (Antiquities 19.354), which
was in the third year of Claudius (Antiquities 19.350–1) or 44 ce. Agrippa II was living in Galilee
with his parents beginning around 28 ce where he remained for at least a few years until his father,
Agrippa I, fled to Syria in 32 or 33 ce; see n. 41 below. Josephus says elsewhere that Agrippa II
eventually was brought up in Rome (Antiquities 19.360), but he was probably not sent there until
he reached puberty around 40 ce or when his father, Agrippa I, was appointed to rule over the
Tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias in 37 ce (Antiquities 18.237–8). For example, Herod the Great’s
sons were not sent to Rome for education until they were 10–14 years old given that they were sent
between 20 and 22 bce. They then were retrieved when they were of marriageable age in 17 or 18
bce (see Antiquities 15.342, 16.6, 16.136; chronological notes in Loeb translation; and also Schürer,
A History of the Jewish People, vol. 1, p. 452). The whereabouts of Agrippa II between 32 and 37 ce
are not entirely clear, but Josephus does say in Antiquities 18.160 that his mother took her children
(undoubtedly including Agrippa II) back to Judaea, which must have been sometime in the mid-30s
ce. All told then, Agrippa II would have as a child spent significant time in Galilee and Judaea in the
30s ce. For a plausible reconstruction of the movements of the father of Agrippa II, see Schwartz,
Agrippa I, 49–53.
16 Matthew 4:23; Mark 1:39.
 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 163

It is surely plausible that as a young boy Agrippa II heard of Jesus. Agrippa’s own
uncle, for example, is said by Luke to have interrogated Jesus17 and others in his
family had good opportunity to have witnessed Jesus in person.18
This leads to an intriguing possibility that I will discuss at the end of this chapter.
For now, I will say that whatever knowledge Agrippa II had about Jesus (as ju-
venile as it may have been in the mind of a boy) could obviously have matured
through Agrippa’s contacts with others during his adult years. This is in evidence
in Acts 25–6, where Luke reveals that Agrippa II personally attended the trial of the
apostle Paul, around 59 ce.19
Preparatory to Paul’s trial, Luke describes the Roman procurator Festus as

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

informing Agrippa about the early Jesus movement.20 This does not seem to have
been necessary though, because when Paul speaks to Agrippa about Jesus he as-
serts that Agrippa ‘is aware of these things’ regarding Jesus ‘since I am convinced
that none of these things has escaped his attention’.21
Agrippa’s sister, Berenice (c.28/​9–after 79 ce), accompanied him at this trial
and it is almost certain that Josephus knew her as well.22 The evidence for this
is that Josephus and Berenice were both in Rome at the same time;23 Josephus
knew Berenice’s beloved brother, Agrippa II, quite well;24 Josephus also knew
her lover, the future emperor Titus;25 and lastly Josephus knew both Agrippa II
and Titus when both were in Rome, the very time that Titus was having his affair
with Berenice.26 Such connections mean that Josephus knew two different people,
Berenice and Agrippa II, who attended the trial of the apostle Paul.
A few years after the trial of Paul we find further hints regarding Agrippa’s
knowledge of Jesus. Josephus tells us that, in 62 ce, Agrippa II defrocked the High
Priest Ananus II for illegally executing ‘James, the brother of Jesus who was called
Christ’.27 To take such drastic and risky political action as removing the High
Priest, Agrippa II in all probability had reliable information about James, Jesus,
and the early Christian movement.
Beyond this, such an event suggests that Agrippa II was not particularly hos-
tile to Christians, since it would have been difficult for him to punish a High
Priest on account of actions against a religious movement that Agrippa himself
disliked. In support of this, Luke portrays Agrippa II as holding a sympathetic

17 See pp. 194–6.

18 See discussions of Agrippa I and Cypros, Herodias, Salome, and Aristobulus of Chalcis, pp. 165–72.
19 Keener, Acts, vol. 3 p. 3331.
20 Acts 25:13–22.
21 λανθάνειν γὰρ αὐτὸν τούτων οὐ πείθομαι οὐθέν. Acts 26:26.
22 For the age of Berenice, see n. 44 below.
23 Life 422–3; Apion 1.50–1; Cassius Dio, Roman History 65.15.3–4.
24 Life 362–6; Apion 1.51.
25 Life 363, 416–23, 428; War 3.408, 5.114, 5.325; Apion 1.48–51.
26 Cassius Dio, Roman History 65.15.3–4. For additional discussion about Berenice and Josephus,
see Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 115–18, 137–8, 156, 212–13.
27 Antiquities 20.200.
164 Josephus and Jesus

curiosity toward Christianity, for at Paul’s trial he makes the following reply to
Paul’s evangelizing efforts, ‘In a short time you are persuading me to become a
Christian!’28 It is possible to instead translate the statement more skeptically
as ‘In a short time are you persuading me to become a Christian?’ But, all the
same, Agrippa and his sister Berenice are not described by Luke as being hostile
to Christianity, and afterward they conclude that Paul had done nothing de-
serving of death.29
It stands to reason that Agrippa would have been well informed of Jesus.
Not only would he have had good opportunity to learn of Jesus when he ruled
over territories in which Jesus ministered only twenty or so years before, but

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

he likely knew people even more closely connected to Jesus while growing up
in Galilee in the 30s ce. Besides all this, Agrippa II and his sister Berenice per-
sonally interrogated the apostle Paul, and Agrippa II personally defrocked the
High Priest on account of his illegal execution of Jesus’ brother. And Josephus
knew Agrippa II closely. Obviously, Josephus could have learned much of Jesus
from Agrippa II and from his sister Berenice, whom Josephus also seems to
have known.

Drusilla and Felix

Josephus’ connections with the Herodian dynasty were not limited to Agrippa II
and his sister Berenice however. It so happens that Agrippa II had also another
sister, Drusilla (c.34/​5–? ce),30 who was the wife of Felix, the procurator of Judaea
(r. 52–59 ce).31 According to Luke, they too heard Paul testify during his impris-
onment around 58 ce when Felix would call for him to speak of Jesus ‘quite fre-
quently’.32 Felix is even described by Luke as possessing ‘quite accurate knowledge’
of Christianity.33 Felix must have gained this knowledge apart from Paul since
Luke indicates that Felix was well informed before meeting Paul. Felix could, for
example, have learned of Jesus through official Roman or Jewish reports regarding
Jesus’ trial,34 especially since he assumed his procuratorship only about twenty
years after the event.
As far as Josephus is concerned, Seth Schwartz thinks it possible that he person-
ally knew Felix’s Herodian wife, Drusilla, due to the fact that Josephus and Drusilla
both seem to have spent years in Rome at the same time where they also traveled in

28 Ἐν ὀλίγῳ με πείθεις Χριστιανὸν ποιῆσαι. Acts 26:28.

29 Acts 26:31.
30 For the date of Drusilla’s birth, see n. 44.
31 Acts 24:24; Antiquities 20.142–3. Neither the beginning of Felix’s governorship nor its duration is
completely certain; see Keener, Acts, vol. 3 p. 3331.
32 πυκνότερον. Acts 24:26.
33 ἀκριβέστερον εἰδὼς τὰ περὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ. Acts 24:22.
34 See Appendix 5 on Sanhedrin documents regarding Jesus’ trial.
 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 165

the same close society.35 This would suggest that Josephus knew her husband Felix
too. It scarcely needs to be pointed out that Josephus could thus have learned much
of Jesus through Drusilla, or her husband (and former Judaean procurator) Felix,
just as he could have through Agrippa II and Berenice. All of these individuals met
Paul himself and heard him tell of Jesus, and Agrippa II and Felix are even said by
Luke to have had good knowledge of Christianity before encountering Paul. Luke
also seems to have been in attendance at these hearings,36 so his statements re-
garding Agrippa II and Felix and their knowledge of Christianity should be given
some weight.
But though Josephus knew Agrippa II and also Berenice, and perhaps even

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Drusilla and Felix, none of them could have been one of the ‘first men’ who ac-
cused Jesus. Agrippa II and Berenice were only little children, Drusilla was not yet
born, and the non-Jewish Felix could hardly be expected to have dealt with Jesus in
Jerusalem some twenty years before his procuratorship. Be that as it may, Agrippa
II and Berenice were both definitely familiar with others in their family who had
remarkable connections with Jesus and who had probably encountered him face
to face. These family members would have been easily capable of telling Agrippa II
and Berenice about Jesus and then for the two of them to relay this information to
Josephus. Let us now turn and examine these family members.

Agrippa I and Cypros

The father of Agrippa II (and his sisters Berenice and Drusilla) was King Agrippa
I (11/​10 bce–44 ce), who was appointed ruler over the territory of Philip the
Tetrarch probably about 37 ce.37 These territories covered Gaulonitis, Trachonitis,
and Paneas, the same area where Jesus was said to sometimes minister, the very
area in fact where Matthew records that Jesus revealed himself to be the Christ.38

35 Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 148, 156. The evidence that Drusilla lived in Rome with
Felix after the destruction of Jerusalem is circumstantial, but plausible insofar as Rome seems the most
likely place for them to go and their son clearly lived nearby Rome given that he was killed in the erup-
tion of Mount Vesuvius in 79 ce; see Antiquities 20.142–4. On Josephus living in Rome, see Apion 1.50;
Life 422–3, 428–9.
36 Luke, the author of Acts, uses the first-person plural ‘we’ to describe himself as being with Paul in
Jerusalem in Acts 21:17–18, immediately after which Paul was arrested. During his imprisonment, Felix
the Governor ordered that Paul’s friends be allowed to minister to him, no doubt including Luke (Acts
24:23). Then sometime later, after Paul’s trial before Agrippa and Berenice in Acts 26, Luke again says
that ‘we’ would sail for Italy (Acts 27:1). Though some scholars dispute this, by far and away the most
straightforward reading of these passages is that the author, Luke, is claiming to have accompanied Paul
at these events.
37 War 2.181. For a reconstruction of events relating to Agrippa I, see Schwartz, Agrippa I, 57–8.
38 Matthew 16:13–18; Mark 8:27–30 which took place at Caesarea Philippi in Paneas. Philip’s tet-
rarchy also included land from the northeastern shores of the Sea of Galilee spreading out north and
east, locations where Jesus ministered; see Mark 5:1–20, 7:31–8, 8:27–38. On Philip’s territory, see
Antiquities 17.189. See also n. 10 above.
166 Josephus and Jesus

Then around 41 ce Agrippa I was granted the title of king by Emperor Caligula,
who also expanded his territory to include Judaea, over which Agrippa I ruled until
his death in 44 ce.39 During this time he executed the apostle James, the son of
Zebedee, who was the brother of the apostle John. He then locked up the apostle
Peter in prison for execution.40 To so aggressively pursue the closest disciples of
Jesus, Agrippa I and his family would have been aware of many reports about Jesus
in the 30s and early 40s ce.
Previous to all this though, Agrippa I served as agoranomos (a kind of inspector
of markets) in Tiberias of Galilee for a few years before and after 30 ce,41 precisely
when and where Jesus and his followers were ministering.42 At this time Agrippa

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

I no doubt had ample opportunity to learn contemporary reports of Jesus. If we
are to accept the Gospel accounts, then Agrippa would likely have been present at
the birthday party of his brother-in-law (and uncle) Herod Antipas, where John
the Baptist was executed, since ‘the first men’ of Galilee were in attendance.43 The
invitees most certainly included Agrippa I, as few in Galilee would have been more
prominent and no Galilean family would have been more closely connected to
Antipas than he. It follows that, if the Gospels are accurate, Agrippa I likely would
have heard many contemporary reports of Jesus at the banquet given that the
execution of John the Baptist (a close associate of Jesus) was by far and away the
most notable event of the party and would have been a topic of great discussion.
Agrippa’s wife Cypros was also with him in Tiberias during these years seeing as
she was bearing his five children at the time.44 Clearly then, Agrippa I and Cypros
were both extraordinarily well-placed to know of Jesus.

39 Antiquities 19.274–5; see also Schwartz, Agrippa I, 91–3. For primary sources outside of Josephus,
see Philo, In Flaccum 25; Legatio ad Gaium 326. For the death of Agrippa I, see Acts 12:20–3; Antiquities
19.343–53.
40 Acts 12:1–5.
41 Antiquities 18.149. These dates are not certain, but they seem the most plausible reconstruction of
the evidence. See Hoehner, Herod Antipas, 259 n. 1; Schürer, A History of the Jewish People, vol. 2, 151
n. 4. Since these scholars, the arrival of Agrippa to Tiberias by 29 or 30 ce has been further supported
through the discovery of a lead weight dating to 31 ce and inscribed with what is likely Agrippa’s name;
see Stein, ‘Gaius Julius, an Agoranomos from Tiberias’. Additionally, Josephus says that Agrippa I left his
position in Tiberias and fled to Flaccus in Syria (Antiquities 18.150), and this was likely on or after 32
ce, since Flaccus does not seem to have been governor of Syria until 32 ce and then died in 33 ce; see
Schwartz, Agrippa I, 47, 51. For an overview of the founding of Tiberias, see Hoehner, Herod Antipas,
91–100.
42 Tiberias is only mentioned by name in the Gospels at John 6:23 (and perhaps 6:1), but it was
a major city in Galilee and Jesus of course spent most of his ministry in Galilee, see Matthew 4:23;
Mark 1:39.
43 τοῖς πρώτοις τῆς Γαλιλαίας. Mark 6:21.
44 Antiquities 19.354 lists four children (see also War 2.220). A fifth child, Drusus, is mentioned in
Antiquities 18.132. This Drusus must have been the third child born since Josephus says that he died
before puberty, yet he is not listed in Antiquities 19.354 as being alive in 44 ce when Agrippa II was 17,
Berenice was 16, Mariamne was 10, and Drusilla was 6 years old. Given that Drusus apparently outlived
his infancy but did not reach puberty, and given the age gap between Berenice and Mariamne, it is most
probable that Drusus was the third child born. All in all then, Cypros seems to have borne five children
to Agrippa I between 27/​8 and 38/​9 ce. Important information regarding the Herodian dynasty ge-
nealogy is given in Antiquities 17.12–22, 18.130–42; War 1.562–5. See also War 1.557.
 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 167

Herod Antipas and Herodias

Josephus’ connections to Jesus may be drawn more closely still. It turns out that
Agrippa I had obtained his position as agoranomos of Tiberias only because his
wife, Cypros, was on close, personal terms with his sister, Herodias. As Josephus
relates, Cypros, being worried about her husband’s financial troubles and mental
health, appealed to Herodias. Herodias then prevailed upon her husband, Herod
Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee, to assist Agrippa I.45 Thereafter, at Herodias’ behest,
Antipas appointed Agrippa I to his position of agoranomos of Tiberias a few years
before 30 ce, as recounted above.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Since Tiberias was the administrative capital of Antipas’ territory, this means
that the family of Herod Antipas was living in Tiberias at the same time the
family of Agrippa I was also living in Tiberias. Such a situation would have
meant that both families—husbands, wives, and children—were in frequent,
personal contact for they were quite close in terms of blood, marriage, pol-
itics, and geography. In fact, Josephus specifically recounts one story where
Agrippa I and Antipas attended a banquet together.46 And Agrippa I, the reader
will remember, was also likely present at Antipas’ birthday party where John
the Baptist was executed. Family gatherings of this sort would have presum-
ably happened often, especially during Jewish festivals in Jerusalem, as over
Passover.47
In view of such close familial interaction, it is fair to conclude that Josephus’
friends Agrippa II and Berenice48 would have been in close contact with their
uncle and aunt, Herod Antipas and Herodias, both of whom likely knew much
about Jesus. As recounted in the Gospels, Herodias is the one who demanded the
head of John the Baptist. Herod Antipas is the one who ordered John’s head to be
given.49 Previous to this, Antipas used to listen to John preach.50 The Gospels go on
to elaborate that Antipas had good knowledge of Jesus: he had heard of Jesus,51 he
desired to see Jesus,52 he also desired to kill Jesus.53 He even knew reports of Jesus’
miracles and hoped to see them.54 Not only this, but a man who was brought up
with Antipas was a follower of Jesus, and the wife of his steward was a follower of

45 Antiquities 18.147–9.
46 Antiquities 18.150.
47 For similar thoughts, see Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty, 308.
48 I omit Drusilla here because she would likely not have been able to recall much directly about
Herodias and Herod Antipas, since she was born in 34/​5 ce and they were exiled in 39 ce. On the date
of exile, see Antiquities 18.252–5; Hoehner, Herod Antipas, 262 and notes.
49 Matthew 14:1–12; Mark 6:21–9.
50 Mark 6:20.
51 Matthew 14:1; Mark 6:14.
52 Luke 9:9.
53 Luke 13:31.
54 Luke 23:8.
168 Josephus and Jesus

Jesus as well.55 Antipas appears further to have sent representatives—the Gospels

call them ‘Herodians’—to test Jesus on the subject of taxation.56
But most strikingly of all, it is recorded in the Gospel of Luke that Herod
Antipas, along with his soldiers, interrogated Jesus on the day of his crucifixion.57
This Herod Antipas, the reader will recall, was in actual fact the uncle (and great
uncle) of Herod Agrippa II and Berenice, both of whom were known to Josephus.
It should be emphasized that both Agrippa II and Berenice would have seen their
uncle Antipas many times growing up in Galilee in the 30s ce. From him they
could have told Josephus many things about Jesus of Nazareth.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Salome and Aristobulus of Chalcis

As surprising as it may be, there are still others in the Herodian family who may
have provided Josephus with information about Jesus. Of those that remain, one of
the most plausible is Salome. Were the Gospels to be believed, she was the girl who
requested from her stepfather, Herod Antipas, the head of John the Baptist and
then presented it to her mother, Herodias.58 Regarding Salome’s age at the time,
she appears to have been in her early teens because she is said to have been only a
‘girl’ (κοράσιον),59 but yet was soon old enough to wed her great-uncle, Philip the
Tetrarch, who died in 34 ce.60 Philip ruled territories on the northeastern side of
the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus occasionally ministered.61 Salome could have heard
of Jesus while living with her husband, or heard of him earlier when living with her
mother and stepfather in Galilee, perhaps even during one of John the Baptist’s
preaching sessions before her stepfather, Herod Antipas.62 She certainly must have
learned of Jesus around when he was crucified, for if Luke is correct, her stepfather
had been hoping to meet Jesus and finally got his opportunity to do so when he
interrogated Jesus the morning of his crucifixion.63 This likely would have been a
topic of great conversation in the household.

55 Acts 13:1; Luke 8:3. Other members of the Herodian family who were associated with Jesus may
include the anonymous royal official whose son Jesus healed in John 4:46–54.
56 Matthew 22:16; Mark 12:13. See also Mark 3:6.
57 Luke 23:6–15. Though only Luke records this event in the New Testament, it does not seem plaus-
ible that he fabricated it as a some have claimed. On the reasons for its historical core, see Fitzmyer, The
Gospel According to Luke I–IX, vol. 2, pp. 1478–80.
58 Matthew 14:1–12; Mark 6:14–29. See also Luke 3:19–20, 9:7–9; John 4:24. For the name Salome,
see Antiquities 18.136–7.
59 Matthew 14:11; Mark 6:22.
60 Antiquities 18.106, 137. Hoehner, Herod Antipas, 155–6; Reinach, ‘Le mari de Salomé et les
monnaies de Nicopolis d’Arménie’, 154.
61 See nn. 10 and 38 above.
62 Mark 6:20.
63 Luke 23:7–12.
 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 169

Aside from knowing about Jesus, it is also possible that Salome was acquainted
with Josephus, as the later course of her life make such connections quite natural.
In 34 ce, Salome’s husband (and great-uncle) Philip died.64 She then married her
cousin Aristobulus of Chalcis, who would in 53 ce come to rule Chalcis, a kingdom
north-northeast of Galilee,65 around where Jesus traveled at times.66 Salome and
Aristobulus went on to live for many years. Coins exist featuring Salome as still
queen in 67/​8 ce.67 Her husband Aristobulus reigned into the 90s.68 How long
Salome lived is not known, nor if Josephus knew her directly, though he certainly
could have.69

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

64 Antiquities 18.106, 137. Hoehner, Herod Antipas, 155.
65 Antiquities 18.137. Aristobulus evidently did not receive the kingdom of Chalcis at his father’s
death, for first it was given to Herod Agrippa II and only afterwards to Aristobulus (Antiquities 20.104,
20.138; War 2.223, 2.247, 7.226). For further references to the family and career of Aristobulus, see
Antiquities 18.134, 20.158; War 2.221, 2.252; and Hoehner, Herod Antipas, 251; Reinach, ‘Le mari de
Salomé et les monnaies de Nicopolis d’Arménie’, 141.
66 For Jesus’ activity in or at least near Chalcis, see n. 10 above.
67 Reinach, ‘Le mari de Salomé et les monnaies de Nicopolis d’Arménie’, 154; Dalaison, ‘L’atelier
monétaire de Nicopolis en Arménie Mineure’, 18–19; Dalaison, ‘Qui était Salomé?’, 504. Reinach was
not able to correctly read the inscription of the coin of Salome he had before him, and hence incorrectly
dated it to around 54 ce; see Reinach, ‘Le mari de Salomé et les monnaies de Nicopolis d’Arménie’, 143.
Dalaison was also incorrect in dating the coin to 61/​2 ce since a very legible example clearly dating to
66/​7 ce was, I believe, unavailable to her. This coin has been catalogued under RPC #1.3840. I thank
Kevin Hoffman for assisting me with these resources.
68 Reinach, ‘Le mari de Salomé et les monnaies de Nicopolis d’Arménie’, 156.
69 It should not be theorized that Salome must have died by 70/​1 ce on the grounds that she is unmen-
tioned on a coin of her husband Aristobulus from 70/​1 ce (RPC #2.1692). This is because there are two
other coins of Aristobulus that do not feature Salome, but which date to when she was still alive (RPC
#1.3839, 1.3840A). Reinach was not aware of this when he theorized that Salome had died in the 60s ce,
see Reinach, ‘Le mari de Salomé et les monnaies de Nicopolis d’Arménie’, 155. Reinach also recounts a
legend from Nicephoras Callistus (Ecclesiastical History 1.20 in PG vol. 145, col. 692d–693a) that tells
a story of Salome dying in a snowy environment, which would imply she died before moving to snow-
less Lebanon from Armenia in 72 ce (the date in which lesser Armenia was taken from Aristobulus);
see Reinach, ‘Le mari de Salomé et les monnaies de Nicopolis d’Arménie’, 155. However, the moun-
tains of Lebanon do receive much snow. Another theory is put forth by Kokkinos, who, against the
evidence, theorizes that the Salome whom Aristobulus married was the granddaughter of Herodias, not
her daughter; see Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty, 310. Other scholars rightly disagree; see Dalaison,
‘Qui était Salomé?’, 498–501; Dalaison, ‘L’atelier monétaire de Nicopolis en Arménie Mineure’, 10–13;
Reinach, ‘Le mari de Salomé et les monnaies de Nicopolis d’Arménie’, 153–4; Schwartz, Josephus and
Judaean Politics, 149. Though Dalaison disproves the arguments of Kokkinos, she then offers her own
theory (Dalaison, ‘Qui était Salomé?’, 502–3) that the Salome who married Aristobulus was indeed
the daughter of Herodias, but that the girl who danced for the head of John the Baptist was not. This
requires Dalaison to create a new personage of whom there is no record in ancient history and to argue
awkwardly that Herodias was not actually the mother of the girl who danced for the head of John the
Baptist, even though the Gospels say she was; see Mark 6:22 and Matthew 14:6. This is made worse by
the fact that the entire tenor of the passage in Mark and Matthew suggests that the girl had a closer rela-
tionship with Herodias than with Antipas, thus suggesting Herodias was her mother and that Antipas
had recently become her stepfather. Dalaison’s only substantive point is that a textual variant at Mark
6:22 can be construed to mean that the girl in question was the daughter of Antipas, not Herodias.
However, as most agree, Matthew used an extremely early version of Mark and so can be trusted for
supplying the original textual reading. Also, the variant in Mark is not contained in early Coptic, Syriac,
and Latin translations, nor several fifth-century Greek manuscripts. Lastly, Herod Antipas does not
have any children listed by Josephus in his genealogies of the Herodian dynasty; see n. 247. But even if
Dalaison is correct, it would still mean that Salome was likely at the banquet where John the Baptist was
executed because the banquet was held in honor of, according to Dalaison, her own father.
170 Josephus and Jesus

One point that speaks to the likelihood of this is that Josephus appears to have
known Salome’s son, Herod, personally.70 And Schwartz considered it likely that
he knew her husband Aristobulus too, and even obtained historical documents
from him.71 It is also possible that Josephus corresponded with Aristobulus during
his many years of historical research. Support for this comes from the fact that
Josephus says at one point that he was familiar with ‘some of the relatives’ (τινες
αὐτοῦ τῶν συγγενῶν) of Agrippa II who were still living in 75 ce and who had
‘been present’ (παρατετεύχεισαν) for the Jewish war with Rome.72 There were
not many relatives of Agrippa II left at that time who also participated in the
war, so Josephus may well have had in mind Salome and especially her husband

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Aristobulus.73
This Aristobulus is therefore yet another intriguing candidate for Josephus’
knowledge of Jesus. As before mentioned, it is possible that Josephus either knew
Aristobulus directly or corresponded with him regarding historical documents.
But if not, he seems to have known Aristobulus’ son, Herod. It is also likely that
Aristobulus would have had good knowledge of Jesus. The date of Aristobulus’
birth is unclear, but evidence indicates it was before 15 ce.74 So he would have been

70 Apion 1.51; see Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 149–50 n. 133; Barclay, Against Apion,
37 n. 210. Barclay seems to lean toward identifying this Herod as indeed being the son of Salome, but
he also believes that there is one other promising candidate: a certain Herod, the son of Phasael, the
son of Phasael, who in turn was the elder brother of Herod the Great (Antiquities 17.22, 18.130–1). As
Schwartz points out though, Phasael senior, the brother of Herod the Great, died around 40 bce when
his eldest son was already 7 years old (Antiquities 14.367–71, 15.12–13; War 1.274–5). His other son,
the younger Phasael, therefore would have been born no later than 40 bce and probably several years
earlier. The younger Phasael’s wife, Salampsio, had a full-blooded brother who was born around 35 bce
and she herself must have been born before 30 bce when her mother died (Antiquities 15.237). Hence,
Herod, son of this younger Phasael and Salampsio, was almost assuredly born between 20 and 5 bce
since this would put the likely age of his father at between 20 and 40 years old and the age of his mother
at between 15 and 35 years old. This Herod therefore would in all probability not have been alive to re-
ceive a copy of Josephus’ War (Apion 1.51), which was completed at the earliest in 75 ce (this is the date
of the last event mentioned; see War 7.158; Cassius Dio, Roman History 65.15.1).
71 Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 157–8.
72 Life 362. See also Life 359; Apion 1.50–2. Josephus must have presented his War to relatives of
Agrippa II no earlier than 75 ce when the work was completed; on this date see n. 70 above.
73 Josephus may imply that he knew multiple Jewish kings in Apion 2.134 where he suggests that
such kings were ‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν); see Chapter 5 p. 155 n. 126. He certainly knew King Agrippa II,
and Aristobulus would be the one other Jewish king he reasonably could have known. However, Apion
2.134 only really necessitates that he knew one Jewish king, so this is not conclusive. Josephus also knew
Archelaus, who married Mariamne, sister of Agrippa II; see Apion 1.51; Antiquities 19.355, 20.140,
20.147. Schwartz wonders if Josephus also knew Julius Hyrcanus the son of Queen Berenice. This is
based on the fact that the name Hyrcanus is rare and may have been selected so as to flatter Berenice, see
Life 5; Antiquities 20.104; War 2.221; Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 11. On Josephus’ connec-
tion to Berenice, see p. 163.
74 For example, Aristobulus was in all probability older than his future wife Salome, who was prob-
ably born between 16 and 20 ce, as discussed above. For the age of Aristobulus, see Reinach, ‘Le mari
de Salomé et les monnaies de Nicopolis d’Arménie’, 153; Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 149.
However, Kokkinos believes Aristobulus was born around 30 ce (Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty,
305), but this would make him around fifteen years younger than his wife Salome, which forces
Kokkinos (p. 310) to imagine that Salome was actually the granddaughter of Herodias when Josephus
specifically says otherwise; see Antiquities 18.136–7.
 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 171

at least a teenager when Jesus was ministering. He also could have observed some
portion of the trial of Jesus, especially since, if Luke is to be trusted, his uncle and
future father-in-law Herod Antipas the Tetrarch interrogated Jesus the day of his
crucifixion.75

Observations: The Herodian Candidates

In sorting through the above interrelations, it is clear that Josephus was acquainted
with several in the Herodian dynasty who would have been well apprised of Jesus

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

and some of whom may have encountered Jesus directly, whether they be Agrippa
II, Berenice, Drusilla, Felix, Salome, Aristobulus, or others unknown. But in
saying that it was the ‘first men among us’ who accused Jesus, Josephus implies
that he was familiar with leading men who were somehow involved in the execu-
tion of Jesus. And it is clear that neither Agrippa II, nor his sisters Berenice and
Drusilla, nor his cousin Salome, nor her son Herod, nor even the procurator Felix
match this description owing to their age, gender, or circumstances. But there is
one Herodian candidate remaining for the ‘first men among us’: Aristobulus of
Chalcis. Evidence shows that he was a teenager or young adult in 30/​33 ce and that
Jesus was brought to trial before Herod Antipas, who was Aristobulus’ own uncle
and future father-in-law.
I will speak at the end of this chapter how an encounter between Aristobulus
and Jesus is not as speculative as it first seems. But, for now, I will say that if such
an encounter did not occur, then Josephus may have had in mind other Herodians
who had to do with the execution of Jesus. As we have also seen, Josephus’ phrase
‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν) might on rare occasion be interpreted as indicating connec-
tions that, while quite close, were not direct.76 If this is so in the TF, then Josephus
could instead have been thinking of someone like Agrippa I, Herod of Chalcis, or
especially Herod Antipas, who is said by Luke to have personally interrogated Jesus
on the day of his crucifixion.77 Though Josephus did not know these men directly,
he did have many secondary connections with them through their children and
other relatives.

75 Luke 23:6–12.
76 This is the case with three out of fifty-one instances of the phrase παρ’ ἡμῖν, though even in these
three it is more plausible that they refer to a direct connection; see Chapter 4 pp. 151–8.
77 Luke 23:6–12. It is true that Josephus says in the TF that Jesus was accused by ‘first men’ and that
Luke states that Herod Antipas did not find anything worthy of death in Jesus (Luke 23:15). This would
seem to indicate that the Herodians did not bring an accusation against Jesus. However, Luke does say
elsewhere that the ‘rulers’ of the Jews delivered Jesus to death (Luke 24:20), and that Herod Antipas
‘gathered’ against Jesus at his trial (Acts 4:27) and that Herod Antipas had previously tried to kill Jesus
(Luke 13:31). Antipas also badly mistreated Jesus on the day of his crucifixion, which is suggestive that
he did not find Jesus to be innocent of all charges, but only innocent of certain trumped-up charges pre-
sented by the Sanhedrin.
172 Josephus and Jesus

One must not forget though that even if Josephus did not consider the Herodians
to be the ‘first men among us’ who accused Jesus, he could still have gained accurate
knowledge of Jesus from some of them.

The Rabbinic Family of Hillel

But let us move on to more probable candidates for the ‘first men among us’. Aside
from royal acquaintances, Josephus was connected with the rabbinic family of
Hillel. This Hillel was an illustrious Jewish rabbi who founded a prestigious rab-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

binical school (or, perhaps more accurately, a lineage) in the first century bce, as is
seen in Chart 2.78 His successor, Simon I, was a famous rabbi in his own right and
may have been Hillel’s son.79 Either way, Simon in his turn, is reported to have had
yet another famous rabbi as a son, Gamaliel by name (sometimes called Gamaliel
I).80 Gamaliel is mentioned several times in the Talmud and Mishnah.81 Many of
his activities are unknown, but he evidently wrote authoritative letters to the people
of Galilee and southern Palestine, and another to the Jews in the Diaspora.82 He
is further reported to have been known by King Agrippa I83 and, more import-
antly, to have been a highly reputed Pharisee and teacher of the law.84 To this, the
Mishnah records that ‘When Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, the glory of the Law
ceased and abstinence died’.85 So respected was Gamaliel that he was first of the
pre-70 ce Pharisees to earn the title Rabban, ‘our master’, and he seems also have
been given the title Nasi, ‘Prince’.86 If so, this means he was the formal leader of the
Sanhedrin around when Jesus was ministering.87

78 For discussion, see Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions, part 1, 312–40.

79 Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 15a.10. Neusner states however that this is not definite since only
later commentators assert the father-son relationship, see Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions, part 1,
294. Some have further thought that Simon may have been the Simeon who is said by Luke to have
taken the baby Jesus in his arms, but such is unpersuasive speculation; see Cutler, ‘Does the Simeon of
Luke 2 Refer to Simeon the Son of Hillel?’ The strongest evidence that Cutler can put forth is that much
like Rabbi Simon, Simeon is called ‘a great teacher’ and a ‘rabbi’ in the Gospel of Nicodemus 16.2, 6. But
the Gospel of Nicodemus is scarcely tethered to historical facts.
80 Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 15a.10, 19a.10; for discussion, see Roth, ‘Gamaliel, Rabban’. Again
though, the fact that Rabbi Gamaliel was both the son of Simon and grandson of Hillel is not certain;
see n. 79 above.
81 For a comprehensive survey, see Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions, part 1, 341–76.
82 Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 11a.14–11b.4.
83 Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 55a.2–3.
84 The evidence for Gamaliel being a Pharisee is that Luke says so in Acts 5:34 and then implies the
same in Acts 22:3 where Paul, a famous Pharisee, says that he learned at the feet of Gamaliel. Josephus
also labels Simon, the son of Gamaliel, as both a Pharisee and a descendent of an extremely famous lin-
eage, implying that his father, Gamaliel, was also a Pharisee; see Life 191.
85 Mishnah, Sotah 9.15 (Danby translation p. 306).
86 Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions, part 1, 375.
87 In the above footnote, Neusner doubts that Gamaliel was accorded the title of Nasi. However,
Jewish tradition does state this (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 15a.10); it also states that at some point
Gamaliel was removed from a certain office (Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 22a.1; Sanhedrin
11b.4). The Mishnah further describes Gamaliel as seemingly being in charge of a ‘court’ (beit din)
 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 173

Gamaliel was also familiar with Christianity. This makes sense because, as a
leading Pharisee, he would have known much about Jesus insofar as the Pharisees
were a locus of opposition to Jesus throughout his ministry.88 More explicit evi-
dence of Gamaliel’s knowledge of Christianity is found in Acts 5, between 30 and
35 ce, when the apostles are arrested and brought before the High Priest and the
Sanhedrin. There, Peter and the other apostles make an impassioned speech where
they accuse the Sanhedrin of murdering Jesus: ‘The God of our fathers raised up
Jesus, whom you murdered by crucifying him on a tree’.89
Then, in the words of Luke, ‘a certain Pharisee in the Sanhedrin named Gamaliel,
a teacher of the law honored by all the people, arose and ordered that the men be

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

brought outside for a moment’.90 He then counseled the Sanhedrin to follow a mod-
erate course of action. His advice wins over the Sanhedrin, who flogged the apostles
and then released them. Later in Acts 22 we learn that the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus,
the future apostle Paul, ‘was trained at the feet of Gamaliel’.91 Thus, according to
the book of Acts, Gamaliel was of immense reputation in the early to mid-30s ce
when he already had great authority in the Sanhedrin—if not being the leader of
the Sanhedrin itself. He also had directly encountered the foremost of the apostles.
More than this, Gamaliel was involved in the trial of Jesus. This is evident for sev-
eral sound reasons. The first is chronological, since as a highly prestigious member
(or even the actual leader) of the Sanhedrin in the early 30s ce, probability indi-
cates that he would have been present at Jesus’ trial. Such is all the more likely be-
cause the Mishnah required any trial of a false prophet to have the whole body of
the Sanhedrin present,92 and Matthew and Mark both say that indeed ‘the whole
Sanhedrin’ (τὸ συνέδριον ὅλον) was present at the trial of Jesus.93 Gamaliel hence
must have been in attendance. And, as a leader of the Pharisees, Gamaliel would have
had great interest in Jesus, their long-time enemy. Further confirming Gamaliel’s
participation in the trial is the conclusion of Peter’s speech before Gamaliel in Acts 5,
where the apostle emphatically says to the Sanhedrin ‘you [plural] murdered’ (ὑμεῖς
διεχειρίσασθε) Jesus.94 Given Gamaliel’s response to this allegation and his presti-
gious position as both a leading Pharisee and a leading member of the Sanhedrin,
Gamaliel surely must have been included as one who ‘murdered’ Jesus.

which met in Jerusalem (Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 2.5). This court seems to have been the Great
Sanhedrin.

88 The Pharisees are mentioned in the New Testament so frequently that it is not worth listing indi-
vidual instances, but by my count they are referred to nearly one hundred times and are almost always
hostile to Jesus.
89 Acts 5:30.
90 Acts 5:34.
91 Acts 22:3. For discussions on the historicity of this claim, see Keener, Acts, vol. 3, pp. 3217–20;
Avery-Peck et al., ‘Gamaliel and Paul’.
92 See n. 215.
93 Matthew 26:59; Mark 14:55, 15:1. See nn. 214–15.
94 Acts 5:30.
174 Josephus and Jesus

But if Gamaliel was connected with Jesus, was he also connected with Josephus?
The Jewish historian refers to Gamaliel three times, and always as the father of one
called ‘Simon’, yet another famous Rabbi.95 This Simon (sometimes titled Simon
II) is further mentioned in Jewish tradition as also being the son of Gamaliel.96 The
Babylonian Talmud goes on to claim that, like his father before him, Simon was the
Nasi, that is, the prince or leader of the Sanhedrin.97 And it was this Sanhedrin that
Josephus communicated with while general of Galilee.98 Josephus further explains
that he himself knew Simon. The passage is worth quoting at length:

Simon son of Gamaliel . . . was of the city of Jerusalem, and was of an exceedingly

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

famous lineage, and of the sect of the Pharisees, who seem to surpass others in the
following of ancestral laws. He was a man of immense intelligence and reason,
able to correct a poor state of affairs by his wisdom. He was an old friend and
companion of John, but he was at that time at variance with me.99

As Josephus goes on to recount, around 68/​9 ce, Simon son of Gamaliel intricately
orchestrated the betrayal of Josephus by bribing the former High Priest and cur-
rent supreme commander, Ananus II.100
The above passages make clear that Josephus knew Simon and that Simon’s fa-
ther, Gamaliel, would have had intimate knowledge of Jesus. Not only this, since
Gamaliel was the teacher of Saul of Tarsus, the future apostle Paul, it is obvious that
his son Simon would have had good opportunity to become familiar with Paul—
both were Pharisees, both were raised in Jerusalem,101 both lived roughly at the
same time, and both learned at the feet of the great Rabbi Gamaliel.102 Simon was
also a member of the Sanhedrin when it presided over the trials of Paul103 and
James, the brother of Jesus.104 All this suggests that Simon knew quite a bit about
Jesus and the apostles, and that he would have been able to communicate this to
Josephus directly.
Yet could Simon son of Gamaliel, be one of Josephus’ ‘first men among us’?
Could he have met Jesus? And, more than that, is it possible that Simon also

95 Life 190–2, 309; War 4.159. For further discussion on Simon, see Neusner, The Rabbinic
Traditions, part 1, 377–88.
96 Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 15a.10; Mishnah Kerithoth 1.7; Mishnah Ta’anit 4:8. Some of
Simon’s teachings may be preserved in Talmudic literature; see Neusner, part 1, 377–88.
97 Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 15a.10.
98 Life 62. For discussion on when Simon was leading the Sanhedrin, see below.
99 Life 191–2.
100 On Ananus II, his role as High Priest and supreme commander, and his relationship with
Josephus, see below pp. 187–8.
101 Acts 22:3. For discussion, see Keener, Acts, vol. 3 pp. 3207–8.
102 See p. 193 for discussions on Gamaliel training his son Simon.
103 Paul stood before the Sanhedrin in the 50s ce (Acts 22:30, 23:1–6), and Paul also claims that the
Sanhedrin in the 30s ce was quite familiar with him (Acts 22:5).
104 Antiquities 20.200.
 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 175

participated in the trial of Jesus? Simon certainly can be placed in Jerusalem at the
time since his family resided there.105 But was he old enough to have participated?
It is not clear exactly when Simon was born. What can be said confidently in
this regard is that Simon’s father, Gamaliel, was already of enormous reputation
in the early 30s ce, suggesting that Gamaliel himself was probably born at least
by 20 bce in order to gain such standing. His son Simon, as Josephus says, was of
similar fame by 68/​9 ce. Jewish tradition pushes this date earlier still since it por-
trays him, firstly, as the prince of the Sanhedrin;106 secondly, as flourishing before
the destruction of the Temple;107 and thirdly, as writing letters on mundane calen-
drical matters to the Jews throughout Israel108—not something one would likely

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

be concerned with doing when Rome was ravaging Israel after 66 ce. This suggests
that Simon had already achieved the highest religious stature by 65 ce at the latest.
Josephus also notes that during the Jewish war Simon was ‘an old friend and
companion of John’ (ϕίλος τε παλαιὸς τῷ Ἰ ωάννῃ καὶ συνήθης),109 implying that
Simon was not a young man at the time since his ‘old friend’ John went on to obtain
command of both Jerusalem110 and its Temple during the final stages of the Jewish
war.111 Such a feat typically requires decades of experience to accomplish. All this
chronological data offers the reasonable conclusion that Simon was getting on in
years by 65 ce. He hence was very likely born before 10 ce. He therefore would
have been an adult when Jesus was brought to trial in 30/​33 ce.
Moreover, Simon was descended from an illustrious rabbinic lineage, a lineage
in which his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were classed as among the
most famous rabbis of their day.112 And Simon himself went on to have many famous
rabbis as direct male descendants with his son, grandson, and great-grandson all
evidently leading the Sanhedrin.113 Undoubtedly, in such a family, rabbinic prac-
tices were passed down from father to son, meaning that Simon would have been
carefully trained from childhood by his own father Gamaliel to assume the role of
distinguished rabbi.
If all these things are so (and I believe they are quite likely), then Simon was
well positioned to have been a partisan in the trial of Jesus—if not as a member of
the Sanhedrin, then perhaps as one of their students who are said in the Mishnah

105 Given that his father was the prince of the Sanhedrin, his family must have lived in Jerusalem. Acts
22:3 appears to confirm that at least his father lived in Jerusalem.
106 Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 15a.10.
107 Mishnah Kerithoth 1.7.
108 Midrash Tannaim on Deuteronomy 26:13 §1–13; for discussion see Neusner, The Rabbinic
Traditions, part 1, 378–9.
109 Life 192.
110 War 4.503. John assumed control of Jerusalem after a power struggle following the death of
Ananus II, the previous supreme commander.
111 War 4.577.
112 Even if one follows Neusner (n. 79) and supposes that Simon was not actually the great-grandson
of Hillel, Josephus is quite clear that Simon was descended from Rabbi Gamaliel.
113 Roth, ‘Gamaliel, Rabban’; Burgansky, ‘Simeon Ben Gamaliel I’; Burgansky, ‘Simeon Ben Gamaliel
II (of Jabneh)’; Ta-Shma, ‘Judah (Nesiah)’.
176 Josephus and Jesus

and Tosefta to have had specific seats reserved for them when the Sanhedrin held
court.114 But if otherwise, Simon clearly would have had good, close knowledge of
Jesus and perhaps have even encountered him face to face in other contexts. And,
of course, Josephus knew Simon personally. Hence Josephus may have had Simon
in view as one of those ‘first men among us’ who accused Jesus.

Chart 2. The Family of Hillel

1. Hillel (20s bce–10 ce)
2. Simon I (10s–20s ce)
3. Gamaliel I (30s–40s ce)
4. Simon II (50s–60s ce)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

5. Gamaliel II (70s–110s ce)
6. Simon III (140s ce)
Note: The above dates are tentative estimates for when each served as prince (Nasi) of the Sanhedrin. It
is definite that Gamaliel I was the father of Simon II, but how the others are related is less certain.

Chart 3. The High Priestly Families of the First Century bce/​ce

The Family of Boethus
1. Boethus (24/​22–5 bce), name may instead have been Simon son of Boethus
2. Joazar son of Boethus (4 bce, 6 ce?), probably served twice as High Priest
3. Eleazar son of Boethus (4 bce)
4. Simon Cantheras son of Boethus (41–42 ce)
5. Elionaeus son of Cantheras (43?–45 ce), probable grandson of Boethus
6. Joshua son of Gamaliel (63–64 ce), married to a daughter of Boethus
The Family of Phiabi
1. Joshua son of Phiabi (30–24/​22 bce)
2. Ishmael son of Phiabi (15–16 ce?)
3. Ishmael son of Phiabi (59–61 ce), possibly the same as the earlier Ishmael son of Phiabi
The Family of Camith
1. Simon son of Camith (17–18 ce)
2. Joseph son of Camei (45–48 ce), Camei is a probable corruption of Camith
3. Joseph son of Simon (61–62 ce), probable son of Simon son of Camith
The Family of Ananus
1. Ananus I (6–15 ce)
2. Eliezer son of Ananus I (16–17 ce?)
3. Joseph Caiaphas (18–36/​7 ce), son-in-law of Ananus I
4. Jonathan son of Ananus I (36/​7 ce)
5. Theophilus son of Ananus I (37–41 ce)
6. Mathias son of Ananus I (42–43 ce?)
7. Ananus II son of Ananus I (62 ce)
8. Mathias son of Theophilus (64–66 ce?), possible grandson of Ananus I
Note: Dates for when each served as High Priest are adapted from VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas.

114 See n. 216 below.

 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 177

The Four High Priestly Families

Thus far we have passed through the royal family of the Herodians and the rab-
binic family of Hillel, both of which had members who were known to Josephus
and who also had ample opportunity to meet Jesus or to have known much about
him. Yet there still remains to speak of the four families that dominated the High
Priesthood in the first century. These families too had several members who could
easily have been at the trial of Jesus, and Josephus knew members of each family.
Hence, in these families there exist good candidates for Josephus’ ‘first men among
us’ who brought accusations against Jesus.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

The High Priest Joshua Son of Gamala

One of the most likely candidates is the High Priest Joshua son of Gamala, who
served in 63–64 ce.115 The Mishnah asserts that this Joshua married the daughter
of Boethus,116 thus linking Joshua inseparably with the famous Boethus high
priestly family. Boethus himself is a shadowy figure and it is not entirely clear if
he ever served as High Priest, or if that honor belonged to many of his descend-
ants. Josephus implies that Simon, the son of Boethus, was the first of his family
to become High Priest (r. 23–25 bce), a position he attained because he had a
beautiful daughter whom Herod the Great wanted to marry.117 Later however,
Josephus seems to contradict this by saying that it was Boethus himself whose
daughter married Herod the Great, which implies that Boethus received the high
priesthood in exchange for his daughter.118 In this view, it may instead have been a
different Simon son of Boethus, also named Cantheras, who served as High Priest
between 41–42 ce.119
Josephus only refers to Boethus three other times. In these he describes the High
Priest Joazar (r. 5–4 bce) as being a son of Boethus120 and his brother, Eliezer,
as being High Priest (r. 4 bce) as well.121 A certain Matthias is also described by
Josephus as being a son of Boethus. He died in 70 ce.122 It is also probable that one
other descendent of Boethus became High Priest too.123 There are several possi-
bilities for untangling how the high priestly members of the Boethus family were

115 For an overview of what is known of Joshua, see VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 483–6.
116 Mishnah, Yebatmoth 6.4.
117 Antiquities 15.320–2, 17.78.
118 Antiquities 19.297, note that the contradiction in Greek is not clear in Whiston’s translation.
119 For discussion, see VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 444.
120 Antiquities 18.3.
121 Antiquities 17.339.
122 War 5.527.
123 Elionaeus son of Cantheras (r. 43?–45 ce); see VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 449–53.
178 Josephus and Jesus

related and likewise several ways to solve the contradiction over whether Boethus
served as High Priest.124 But whatever their resolution, the High Priest Joshua son
of Gamala married into this eminent Boethus family.125 The high priestly members
of this family can be seen in Chart 3.
And Josephus was quite close to Joshua, for he explains that he ‘was a friend and
companion to me’ (ϕίλος ὢν καὶ συνήθης ἐμοί).126 So close was this friendship
that Joshua took great risk in informing Josephus’ father of a secret plot against
Josephus that had been hatched by no less than the prince of the Sanhedrin, Simon
son of Gamaliel, in collusion with the most powerful man in Jerusalem at the time,
the former High Priest Ananus II son of Ananus I.127 It is important to note that

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Joshua was, Josephus tells us, quite elderly in 69 ce, since at that time he was the
‘oldest of the chief priests except for Ananus II’ (ὁ μετὰ Ἄνανον γεραίτατος τῶν
ἀρχιερέων Ἰ ησοῦς).128 This suggests that Joshua would have been at least in his
mid-60s at this point, if not much older. He therefore was an adult when Jesus was
crucified.
It is simple logic to conclude that in 30/​33 ce, Joshua must have been a priest of
immense reputation in order to marry into the illustrious Boethus family, let alone
for him to be so well placed as to be later appointed High Priest himself. As will
be emphasized further below, the evidence from Josephus, the Jewish Mishnah,
and the Gospels together affirm that there would have been dozens of ‘first men’
participating in the judicial proceedings against Jesus inasmuch as the ‘whole
Sanhedrin’129 and ‘all the chief priests’130 came together for the trial with many
other scribes and elders besides.131
Hence it is not improbable to think that Joshua would have been counted a
member of the Sanhedrin or at minimum would have been among the ‘first men’
and ‘chief priests’ when he was an adult in Jerusalem around 30 ce. Joshua there-
fore may well have been party to the prosecution of Jesus. And Josephus definitely
knew Joshua and could have counted him as one of the ‘first men among us’ who
accused Jesus. It must be further observed that even if Joshua was not a partisan
in the trial of Jesus, Josephus could still have relied upon him as a good, close, and
contemporary source of information about Jesus.

124 For example, see VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 444–8.

125 Note that Josephus spells Joshua’s father’s name two different ways: Γαμαλίηλος (Antiquities
20.213, 223) and Γαμάλας (War 4.160; Life 193, 204). For information about Joshua, see VanderKam,
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 483–6.
126 Life 204.
127 Life 196–204.
128 War 4.238.
129 Matthew 26:59; Mark 14:55, 15:1.
130 Matthew 27:1; Mark 14:53.
131 Matthew 26:57; Mark 14:53, 15:1; Luke 22:66.
 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 179

The High Priest Ishmael Son of Phiabi

Josephus may also be connected with our next high priestly candidate: Ishmael son
of Phiabi. He served as High Priest from 59 to 61 ce, though it is possible his tenure
began much earlier, perhaps as far back as 49 ce.132 Two previous men from the
Phiabi family had served as High Priest before him, Joshua son of Phiabi (r. 30–22
bce) and another Ishmael son of Phiabi (r. 15–16 ce). Such high priestly relations
means that our more junior Ishmael was a man of enormous connections within
Jewish religious circles. It is also possible, though unlikely, that the two Ishmaels,
junior and senior, were really one and the same and that, therefore, Ishmael served

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

as High Priest on two occasions several decades apart. It is more probable though
that the name ‘son of Phiabi’ should be read as indicating not a direct biological son
of Phiabi but simply a descendent of Phiabi. In this sense the two Ishmaels were
simply of the same high priestly lineage.
Whatever the case, the Ishmael who served as High Priest in 59 ce traveled to
Rome a year or so later to appeal a decision respecting a temple wall. Upon arrival,
he and his retinue were favorably received by Empress Poppaea who interceded for
them before Emperor Nero. Then, despite the fact that Ishmael’s mission was suc-
cessful, Poppaea for certain motives unexplained, kept him as a hostage.133
There are three reasons for suspecting that Josephus was directly acquainted
with Ishmael. The first is that he refers to Ishmael as a man ‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν),
a phrase which, as I discussed in Chapter 5, Josephus deploys for subjects that
were directly familiar to the speaker.134 Secondly, it was around the time when
Ishmael was a hostage to Empress Poppaea that Josephus himself led an embassy
to Rome to free distinguished priests who were imprisoned. There he obtained an
audience with Poppaea and successfully liberated the priests. It is not absolutely
certain that Josephus’ mission specifically included freeing Ishmael, nor that his
time with Poppaea necessarily overlapped with Ishmael’s captivity, but the latter
at least seems very likely.135 Thirdly, there is evidence that Ishmael survived the
Jewish war, so Josephus may have become acquainted with him at that time as
well.136 The plausibility of this is increased by the facts that Josephus’ friend,
Agrippa II, had personally appointed Ishmael as High Priest,137 and that Josephus
sought out Jewish leaders who survived the war.138 Hence, through Agrippa II,
Josephus would presumably have had some kind of connection with Ishmael in
the early 70s ce.

132 VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 467–75.

133 Antiquities 20.190–5.
134 Antiquities 3.320.
135 For discussion, see Chapter 5 pp. 153–4.
136 War 6.114. See VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 466.
137 Antiquities 20.179.
138 See n. 152.
180 Josephus and Jesus

The evidence thus points to the fact that Josephus probably knew the High Priest
Ishmael face to face, having first met him when they were both in Rome under the
patronage (or imprisonment) of the empress, or he could have connected with him
after the Jewish war, or any number of other possibilities. And of course, Ishmael,
being High Priest in 59 ce, would have been of some priestly standing thirty years
previously when Jesus was ministering. It is also not unlikely that Ishmael, as a des-
cendent of High Priests and a future High Priest himself, would have been either a
member of the Sanhedrin who voted to put Jesus to death or, if not, that he would
have been classed as one of the chief priests, who are all said to have attended Jesus’
trial.139

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Hence Josephus may have had Ishmael in mind as one of the ‘first men’ who ac-
cused Jesus. The strongest hint of this is that Josephus uses the very same phrase for
both Ishmael and the ‘first men’ at the trial of Jesus. He says of Ishmael that he was a
High Priest ‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν) and that that those ‘first men’ who accused Jesus
were also ‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν).140

The High Priestly Family of Camith

Another candidate for the ‘first men among us’ who accused Jesus is the High Priest
Joseph, the son of Simon, though the evidence for this is somewhat tentative.141
Joseph served as High Priest from 61 to 62 ce and seems to have been descended
from the Camith high priestly family. If so, his father was the High Priest Simon son
of Camith (r. 17–18 ce)142 and Joseph may also have had another high priestly rela-
tive who shared his given name: the High Priest Joseph son of Camei (r. 45–48 ce).143
As far as the High Priest Joseph son of Simon is concerned, we know little ex-
cept that he survived the Jewish war by going over to the Romans.144 Evidence also
suggests that he was appointed as a general alongside Josephus during the Jewish

139 Matthew 27:1; Mark 14:53.

140 Antiquities 3.320, 18.64. It is also possible that Ishmael survived the Jewish war since Josephus
explains that he was executed in Cyrene, far away from Judaea (War 6.114). If this is so, Josephus would
have had a further opportunity of becoming acquainted with Ishmael since he made an effort to engage
with Jewish leaders who survived the war. On this see n. 152.
141 Antiquities 20.196.
142 Antiquities 18.34–5.
143 Antiquities 20.16, 103. For discussion on the interrelationships between these three High Priests,
see VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 425–6, 453–5, 475–6. It is not absolutely certain to which
high priestly family the High Priest Joseph son of Simon belonged, but if not to the Camith family then
he would have belonged to the Boethus family, since the only other first-century High Priest named
Simon was of that family. Josephus clearly affirms that Joseph’s father Simon was a High Priest; see
Antiquities 20.196.
144 War 6.113–14. The only other High Priest named ‘Joseph’ to whom Josephus may refer to here
is Joseph son of Camei (r. 45–8 ce), but it is unlikely that this Joseph would have survived more than
twenty-five years after he first served as High Priest. It is also more plausible that Josephus had in mind
the more recent High Priest named Joseph.
 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 181

war.145 The reasons for identifying this general Joseph son of Simon with the High
Priest Joseph son of Simon are twofold: firstly, of the seven generals and two su-
preme commanders leading the Jewish army, one was a former High Priest, two
were sons of High Priests, and another was the son of a chief priest.146 At a later
time, yet another High Priest (Joshua son of Gamala) seems to have joined the
war effort as co-supreme commander.147 Given that the ranks of generals and su-
preme commanders were so frequently associated with the high priesthood, we
might expect to find further high priestly connections among the generals whose
family relations are not definitively known by scholars, as with the general Joseph
son of Simon.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Secondly, though ‘Joseph’ and ‘Simon’ are common names in first-century
Palestine,148 the combination of ‘Joseph son of Simon’ is rare in Josephus’ corpus.
In fact, by my calculations there appear in Josephus’ writings only two individuals
named ‘Joseph’ who also have a father named ‘Simon’.149 And these two are the
High Priest Joseph son of Simon and the general Joseph son of Simon. Further
connecting these two individuals is the coincidence that the High Priest Joseph
flourished at the precise time in which the general Joseph was operating and while
he was operating in the precise military capacity associated with high priestly fam-
ilies. It follows that these two Josephs may have been the same individual.
If so, Josephus would have known the High Priest Joseph son of Simon as one
of his six co-generals during the Jewish war. He also may have become acquainted
with him in later years since Joseph seems to have gone over to the Romans during
the war as Josephus himself did.150 This would have presented an opportune
time for Josephus to become acquainted with Joseph given that Josephus was al-
lowed great latitude by Emperor Titus to meet with Jewish prisoners.151 Later on
Josephus also made efforts to get to know Jewish leaders who had survived the
war,152 providing yet another opportunity for Josephus to become familiar with
the High Priest Joseph.
But, if it is true that Josephus knew the High Priest Joseph, then he would have
known a man whose father was High Priest in 17–18 ce, whose relative was also
High Priest in 45–48 ce, and who himself went on to become High Priest in 61–62
ce. Such a one would have been privy to the highest galleries of Jewish society
throughout his lifetime.

145 War 2.567.

146 See Chapter 5 n. 39.
147 Life 193; War 4.238. For discussion, see Mason, Judaean War 2, 382 n. 3368.
148 This is obvious from looking at the number of times the names are witnessed in part 1 of Ilan,
Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity.
149 To verify this, I searched in Accordance for the names Σεμεών and Ἰ ώσηπος within the same verse
and then also Σίμων and Ἰ ώσηπος within the same verse.
150 War 6.113–14.
151 Life 417–21.
152 Life 359, 362; Apion 1.50–2.
182 Josephus and Jesus

A further reasonable conclusion is that Joseph was likely an adult when Jesus
was crucified. His age at the time can be inferred from the facts that Joseph was
High Priest in 61 ce and that his father was High Priest in 17 ce. Therefore, given
his likely age and eminent status, it is conceivable that Joseph could have partici-
pated in Jesus’ trial as a member of the Sanhedrin, or as one of the chief priests, or
simply as one of the crowd.153 Therefore, even if not probable, it is at least plausible
that Josephus may have learned about Jesus from the High Priest Joseph, or have
included him as one of the ‘first men among us’ who accused Jesus.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

The High Priestly Family of Ananus

Yet of all the candidates for the ‘first men among us’ who accused Jesus, the
most likely are members of the lineage of the High Priest Ananus I. This family
had no less than seven men serve as High Priest in the first century, and perhaps
also an eighth. Their patriarch was Ananus I, who served for nine years between
6 and 15 ce. Ananus I was afterward followed by his son Eliezer (r. 16–17 ce),
and then by his son-in-law Joseph Caiaphas (r. 18–36 ce), and then by four more
sons: Jonathan (r. 37 ce), Theophilus (r. 37–41 ce), Mathias (r. 42–43 ce), and
Ananus II (r. 62 ce). The High Priest Mathias son of Theophilus (r. 64–66 ce) was
likely his grandson.154 These can be seen in Chart 3.
The family of Ananus had many dealings with Jesus and the early Christian
movement, and Josephus knew one or two of their high priestly members.
Nowadays the most infamous member of the family is Caiaphas, the High Priest
who put Jesus to death. If we accept the testimony of the Gospels, then sometime
late in Jesus’ ministry Caiaphas vigorously advocated for Jesus’ execution at a
meeting which included the ‘Sanhedrin’ (συνέδριον), the ‘chief priests’ (ἀρχιερεῖς)
and the ‘Pharisees’.155 Thereafter, about one week before Jesus’ crucifixion,
Caiaphas held a council in his own ‘courtyard’ (τὴν αὐλήν) with the ‘chief priests
and elders’ where it was decided that Jesus was to be arrested and executed.156
As mentioned above, the father-in-law of Caiaphas was Ananus I; he is called
‘Annas’ in the Gospels.157 Though Ananus I was not officially the High Priest when

153 On the requirement for all the members of the Sanhedrin to be present at the trial of a false
prophet, perhaps even with their disciples, see n. 215. For a description of Jesus’ trial, see pp. 182–4 and
Appendix 5.
154 Josephus explains that Ananus was ‘extremely fortunate’ (εὐτυχέστατον) in having five sons
who became High Priest; Antiquities 20.198. For an overview of the family, see respective pages in
VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas.
155 John 11:46–53.
156 Matthew 26:3–5. See also Mark 14:1–2; Luke 22:1–2.
157 The Gospel writers (Luke 3:2; John 18:13, 24; Acts 4:6) spell the name of Ananus as Ἄννας
whereas Josephus prefers Ἄνανος (for instance Antiquities 20.197–8). Such a difference in orthog-
raphy is a phenomenon quite common in the ancient world which did not have consistent spelling.
See, for example, the many variations of ‘Ananus’ documented in Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late
 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 183

Caiaphas reigned, Josephus and the Gospels indicate that he retained a powerful,
emeritus role.158 Hence, according to the Gospel of John and perhaps also Luke,
after Jesus’ arrest on the night of Passover, he was ‘first brought to Ananus, for he
was the father-in-law of Caiaphas’.159 There, in the house of Ananus I,160 Jesus was
interrogated by Ananus I, struck by one of the officers, and then ‘sent bound to the
High Priest Caiaphas’.161
Caiaphas then, according to the Gospels, interrogated Jesus in his own ‘home’
(οἶκος) too,162 but this time there was present the ‘whole Sanhedrin’ (τὸ συνέδριον
ὅλον)163 and ‘all chief priests’ (πάντες οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς).164 When morning came,
the ‘whole Sanhedrin’ (ὅλον τὸ συνέδριον)165 and ‘all chief priests’ (πάντες οἱ

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

ἀρχιερεῖς)166 were called to order yet again, presumably in their official place of
meeting.167 Jesus was interrogated a third time, found worthy of death, and then
brought to Pontius Pilate.168 Then ‘all the multitude of them’ (ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος
αὐτῶν) accused Jesus once more before Pilate.169 According to Luke, some of these

Antiquity, part 1, 99–102. Josephus himself will even spell the name of the same person differently; see
for example ‘Simon’ (Σίμωνα) at Life 190, 309 and ‘Simeon’ (Συμεών) at War 4.159; or Gamala which he
spells Γαμαλίηλος or Γαμάλας; see n. 125 above.

158 Not only do the Gospels of Luke and John portray him in this influential capacity (see nn. 159,
162), but Josephus does so as well by continuing to treat the high priesthood of Ananus I as if it still
continued even though he was out of office. Thus, Josephus will say that Ananus I enjoyed being High
Priest ‘for a long period of time, which never happened with any of the other High Priests among us’.
Antiquities 20.198. Josephus here must be including the years that Ananus I spent in his role of highly
potent, ex officio High Priest, since otherwise his term of service was not all that long compared to
other High Priests contemporary to Ananus I (such as Caiaphas and Ananias). In another related ex-
ample, Josephus refers to Ananus II as still the High Priest in 69 ce (War 4.318), when technically he
had been removed from the high priesthood some seven years previously (Antiquities 20.203). See also
Antiquities 20.213 which portrays past and present High Priests as warring with one another. For fur-
ther discussion, see VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 420–1, 464; Safrai and Stern, The Jewish
People in the First Century, vol. 2, p. 600.
159 John 18:13. See n. 162 below.
160 John 18:15 specifies that Peter watched the proceedings from the ‘courtyard’ (αὐλή) of Ananus,
presumably indicating that Jesus was either interrogated in the courtyard of the house, or was brought
to a location within the residence where Peter could still observe from the courtyard. It is also possible
to translate αὐλή as ‘chambers’ or ‘dwelling’, which would indicate that not only Jesus, but also Peter en-
tered the actual structure of the house. If this is the case, Peter’s presence was likely limited to some kind
of outer hall.
161 John 18:24.
162 Luke 22:54–5; see also Matthew 26:57–8; Mark 14:53–4; John 18:24, 28. Luke and Mark do
not mention the name of Caiaphas and so their description of this event may instead refer to Ananus
I interrogating Jesus, which is related in the Gospel of John. This is especially probable with Luke who
is aware that Ananus I was functioning as High Priest during the ministry of Jesus; see Luke 3:2 and
Appendix 3 n. 2.
163 Matthew 26:59; Mark 14:55, 15:1.
164 Mark 14:53.
165 Mark 15:1.
166 Matthew 27:1.
167 Luke 22:66. The Sanhedrin was said to have met in a part of the Temple called the Chamber of
Hewn Stone, see Mishnah, Sanhedrin 11.2; Middoth 5.4; perhaps also War 5.144.
168 Matthew 27:1–2; Mark 15:1; Luke 23:1; John 18:28.
169 Luke 23:1–5. See also Matthew 27:12–13; Mark 15:3–4; John 18:29–32.
184 Josephus and Jesus

also followed Jesus to accuse him further when Pilate sent him to Herod Antipas.170
After Jesus was returned to Pilate, the chief priests stirred up a great crowd, which
had evidently gathered to watch the events.171
There are various ways to fit the Gospel accounts together with some methods
rejecting certain claims and others reconciling them,172 but what is important here
is that the Gospels are united in suggesting that many members of the family of
Ananus attended the proceedings against Jesus far beyond just the High Priests
Ananus I and Caiaphas. This is clear by how repeatedly the Gospels record that it
was ‘all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes’173 and ‘the whole Sanhedrin’
who gathered against Jesus during his trial.174 The Mishnah corroborates this by

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

stating that at the trial of a false prophet the whole Sanhedrin was to assemble.175
Josephus also suggests the same when he says that it was the ‘first men among us’
who accused Jesus, implying there was present a broad selection of leading reli-
gious and political figures. And who would be more likely to attend the trial of
Jesus than leading members of Ananus’ family? This is especially probable since,
according to the Gospels, Ananus and his son-in-law Caiaphas led portions of the
trial within their own houses. Several leading men of Ananus’ family could also
have witnessed Jesus throughout the last week of his life when he had public en-
counters with Jewish leaders in Jerusalem,176 or if not at that time, then at other
points during Jesus’ ministry.177
Aside from all this though, Luke reports that after executing Jesus the family of
Ananus remained in still close contact with the Jesus movement, giving them fur-
ther opportunities to learn of Jesus. Thus, a short time after Jesus’ death, ‘the rulers,
elders, and scribes in Jerusalem, as well as Ananus the High Priest, Caiaphas, John,
and Alexander, and as many as were of high priestly lineage’178 met together and

170 Luke 23:6–12.

171 Matthew 27:15–24; Mark 15:8–15; Luke 23:4, 48.
172 Certain scholars are skeptical that the Gospel writers can be harmonized regarding the trial of
Jesus, see for example Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, 27–43. For an attempt at reconstructing the trial
which accepts most, though not all, of the Gospel claims, see Theobald, Der Prozess Jesu, 663–6. In view
of this it is important to note that the structure presented by all four Gospels fits quite well with one an-
other: Jesus is arrested at night, brought to Ananus, then Caiaphas, then brought to a morning meeting
of the Sanhedrin, then brought to Pontius Pilate. None of the Gospels contradict this pattern. The de-
tails given by the Gospel writers also parallel the policies articulated in the Sanhedrin tractates; see
Appendix 5. The most substantive contradiction that may exist between the Gospel accounts regards
the calendar day on which Jesus was crucified; see Appendix 3.
173 πάντες οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς. Mark 14:53. See also Matthew 27:1;
Luke 22:66.
174 τὸ συνέδριον ὅλον. Matthew 26:59. See also Mark 14:55, 15:1. Luke 22:66 does not specific-
ally say it was the entire Sanhedrin but describes what could easily have been a plenary session of the
Sanhedrin.
175 See n. 215.
176 Matthew 21:15, 23, 45; Mark 11:18, 27; Luke 19:47, 20:1, 19; John 12: 9–11, 19, 42.
177 John 11:49 seems to indicate that Caiaphas and the chief priests were long interested in Jesus.
Further, John 19:20 records that ‘many of the Jews’ were present and read the inscription posted on the
cross of Jesus. Many undoubtedly saw other events related to the trial of Jesus as well.
178 Acts 4:5–6.
 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 185

interrogated Jesus’ apostles Peter and John. Such a gathering surely included many
members of the family of Ananus beyond the High Priests Ananus I and Caiaphas.
The most likely candidates are the two leading sons of Ananus I: Eliezer who was
at that time a former High Priest (r. 16–17 ce), and Jonathan, who would soon
become High Priest (r. 37 ce). Luke may stipulate these two by name in the quote
above by deploying the Hellenized name ‘A lexander’ and the alternative name
‘John’.179
It is clear too that other members of the family of Ananus would have also
been present, for Luke says that there were gathered ‘as many as who were of high
priestly lineage’ (ὅσοι ἦσαν ἐκ γένους ἀρχιερατικοῦ).180 This may well have in-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

cluded the remaining sons of Ananus I, such as Mathias, Theophilus, and Ananus
II, each of whom would go on to become High Priest. Additional men in attend-
ance likely included members of other high priestly lineages (for Luke implies they
were there), such as the future High Priests Joshua son of Gamala, Ishmael son of
Phiabi, and Joseph son of Simon—every one of whom Josephus might have known
or even definitely did.
If Luke is correct, then following this interrogation of Peter and John, the
sons of Ananus I continued to persecute early Christians. Shortly afterward a
certain High Priest led the Sanhedrin trial of the eleven apostles,181 and a High
Priest, perhaps the same one, supervised yet another Sanhedrin trial, this time
of Stephen,182 the first Christian martyr. That all these High Priests were of the
family of Ananus is clear for chronological reasons since Luke appears to place
these events as occurring sometime in the 30s ce, and in that decade the high
priesthood was continually filled by descendants of Ananus I. For the same
reason during the 30s ce it is probable that Saul of Tarsus received letters from
none other than a high priestly son of Ananus I instructing him to arrest fol-
lowers of Jesus.183
The same family of Ananus may have also instigated the execution of the apostle
James the son of Zebedee in the early 40s ce and then encouraged the arrest of the
apostle Peter, for Luke says that King Agrippa I only did these things because he

179 Though most manuscripts of Acts 4:6 read ‘John’ (Ἰωάννης), Codex Bezae reads ‘Jonathan’
(Ἰ ωνάθας) and therefore matches Josephus’ name for the High Priest Jonathan. Further, there is evi-
dence that the Hebrew names ‘John’ (‫יוחנן‬‎) and ‘Jonathan’ (‫יהונתן‬‎) were sometimes interchangeable or
at least confused in the ancient world; see for example, Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity,
part 4, 87 #3; part 1, p. 144 #14. The Greek name ‘A lexander’ ( Ἀλέξανδρος) in Acts 4:6 is more difficult
to pin down; however, it is similar in sound to the Hellenized Hebrew name ‘Eliezer’ (Ἐλεάζαρος).
Hence, it may have been the High Priest Eleazar’s Greek name, since for ancient Jews in Palestine, a
second name that was Greek (or Roman) often sounded similar to their Hebrew name; see Appendix 4
p. 255–6 and Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 93.
180 Acts 4:6.
181 Acts 5:17–42.
182 Acts 7:1. That this trial took place before the Sanhedrin is clear from Acts 6:12, 15.
183 Acts 9:1–2, 22:5.
186 Josephus and Jesus

saw that it ‘pleased the Jews’, a plausible reference to Jewish religious leadership.184
Lastly, Josephus tells us that Ananus II, the son of Ananus I, illegally gathered the
Sanhedrin in 62 ce to execute James, the brother of Jesus, and others with him.185
Such ruthlessness is why the family of Ananus became a byword for violence
and strife. Thus, the Babylonian Talmud states regarding this family, ‘Woe is
me because of the High Priests of the house of Ananus (‫’)חנין‬.186 For this reason,
Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus may have subtly criticized the cruelty
of the High Priest Caiaphas, his five brothers-in-law, and his father-in-law
Ananus I.187
With the above evidence in view, the conclusion can scarcely be avoided that

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

members of the family of Ananus would have had excellent knowledge of Jesus and
several can certainly be said to have participated in proceedings against him. But
were any of Ananus’ family known to Josephus? And could Josephus have included
them as the ‘first men among us’ who accused Jesus?

Jonathan Son of Ananus I

Observations have already been made in Chapter 5 that Josephus kept company
with the ‘first men’ and ‘chief priests’ of Jerusalem beginning in the early 50s ce. It is
hence very possible that he encountered certain of the high priestly sons of Ananus
I. One plausible candidate is Jonathan. He served as High Priest about 37 ce,188
and was offered the position again in 42 ce but declined.189 He remained however
a still powerful force in politics for years afterward. He was, for example, sent to
Rome around 52 ce to face trial with another High Priest, Ananias, and was vindi-
cated.190 He then befriended the Judaean procurator Felix, but fell out of favor and
was murdered at Felix’s behest in Jerusalem around 58 ce.191 Before this though,
in the early 30s ce, evidence indicates that Jonathan was present for the interroga-
tion of the apostles Peter and John since Luke says ‘as many as were of high priestly

184 Acts 12:1–5. The family of Ananus I held the high priesthood continuously between 18 and 43 ce
except for a brief time during the term of Simon Cantheras son of Boethus (r. 41–42 ce).
185 Antiquities 20.200–1.
186 Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim 57a.8. See Tosefta, Menahot 13.4 (13:21D of ed. Neusner).
187 Luke 16:19–31. This interpretation has not been accepted by scholars, but it is an old one and has
much to recommend it. See, for example, Sepp, Thaten und Lehren Jesu, 329.
188 Antiquities 18.95, 123.
189 Antiquities 19.313.
190 War 2.243–6.
191 Antiquities 20.162–4; War 2.256. Felix was governor roughly between 52 and 59 ce (see n. 31), so
Jonathan must have been murdered sometime within that span. Evidence suggests that it was likely to-
ward the end of Felix’s term of office because Josephus states that Jonathan had initially been a great ally
of Felix but then had fallen into disfavor after continuously vexing him, which is suggestive that Jonathan’s
murder was several years into Felix’s term. Further, Josephus states that Jonathan’s murder was carried
out by the Sicarii, a group which Josephus claims did not come to prominence until the term of the next
governor Festus 60–2 ce (Antiquities 20.185–6; see also War 2.254). Hence, setting a date for Jonathan’s
murder at the end of Felix’s term as governor, perhaps 58 ce, makes best sense of the evidence.
 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 187

lineage’ were present at the proceedings.192 As mentioned above, Luke even says
the high priestly interrogation was attended by a certain ‘John’, a likely alternative
name for ‘Jonathan’.193 This same Jonathan would probably have participated in
the trial of Jesus since his own father and brother-in-law presided over it and ‘all
the chief priests’ were in attendance.194
However, the only evidence pointing to Josephus’ familiarity with Jonathan is
circumstantial. Schwartz argues, for instance, that Josephus had much respect for
Jonathan, which is in great contrast to other members of the family of Ananus. At this
Schwartz hypothesizes that such admiration may have arisen because Josephus actu-
ally knew Jonathan. This personal connection could also explain why Josephus was

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

later appointed to the prestigious position of general in the army of Jonathan’s brother
Ananus II.195 But such potentialities are impossible to verify. It is true though that for
Josephus to obtain such an illustrious position in the Jewish army, he likely had deep
connection with the families of the two supreme commanders, either with Joseph son
of Gorion, or Ananus II son of Ananus I.196 Beyond this though one can only speculate.

Ananus II Son of Ananus I

But there does remain one other, far more likely candidate for the ‘first men
among us’ who accused Jesus—and his name has just been mentioned: Ananus II,
last of the sons of Ananus I to hold the high priesthood. This junior Ananus was
a sometime ally and then later enemy of Josephus. He and Josephus first appear
together around 67 ce when, with war approaching, Ananus II and Joseph son
of Gorion were jointly appointed to be ‘supreme commanders’ (αὐτοκράτορες)
of ‘everything that pertained to the city’ of Jerusalem.197 Under them were placed
seven generals, one of whom was Josephus.198 If before Josephus had not known

192 Acts 4:6.

193 See p. 185.
194 Matthew 27:1; Mark 14:53.
195 Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 94–5 and n. 133. Josephus’ hostility to Ananus and his
family is most notable in the Antiquities and the Life, but far less so in the War.
196 War 2.563. It seems that Joseph son of Gorion must not have continued on as supreme com-
mander since Josephus does not mention him in the ensuing narrative (except perhaps at War 2.563);
on this see Mason, Judaean War 2, 381–2 n. 3368.
197 War 2.563.
198 War 2.568. Mason rightly seems to assume that Ananus II was jointly in charge of the whole war
effort (and hence in charge of Josephus); see Mason, Judaean War 2, 383 n. 3384. However, one might
argue that the Greek in War 2.563 could imply that Ananus II was simply the general appointed over
Jerusalem and that hence he and Josephus were in equal positions of rank. This is unlikely though
because Ananus II is given the title ‘supreme commander’ or ‘emperor’ (αὐτοκράτορες; War 2.563),
whereas Josephus is given the lesser title ‘general’ (στρατηγός; War 2.566; Life 194) or ‘leader’ (ἡγεμών;
War 2.568). Ananus II is also presented in Josephus’ Life and War as having immense sway in the war
effort. Either way, whether Ananus II was Josephus’ direct superior, or whether they were two of a
handful of generals appointed to equal rank in Jerusalem by the assembly, they both would have known
each other face to face.
188 Josephus and Jesus

Ananus II face to face,199 he certainly would have in the war councils that followed.
Josephus was soon dispatched to Galilee, where he kept in contact with the leader-
ship in Jerusalem, no doubt including Ananus II.200
However, in the ensuing months, Ananus II was turned against Josephus. The
head of the Sanhedrin, Simon son of Gamaliel (whom we have met above), se-
cretly counseled Ananus II that Josephus should be removed from his generalship.
Josephus writes that in response:

the High Priest Ananus posited that the deed would not be easy since many of the
chief priests and the leaders of the people testified that I was performing well as

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

general and for an accusation to be made about a man against whom it is not pos-
sible to bring a just charge was the deed of wicked men.201

Undeterred, Simon bribed Ananus II and received clandestine orders to remove

Josephus from command. Josephus was only made aware of this betrayal through
the means of his friend, the former High Priest, Joshua son of Gamala, who was in
attendance at the secret meeting and whom we have also met above.202 Thereafter,
Josephus, while avoiding capture,203 sent ambassadors to Jerusalem. Once there,
they made known the plot before the general assembly. The assembly then reaffirmed
Josephus’ charge over Galilee, though Ananus II seems to have remained in power.204
Ananus II was therefore known to Josephus directly, if not intimately. And
Ananus II knew much about Christians. It was he, the reader will remember, who
considered James, the brother of Jesus, such a threat that at enormous political risk
he went to the extent of having James illegally executed in 62 ce. This act caused
so great an upheaval that King Agrippa II removed him from the high priesthood
after only a few months.205 It was also this Ananus’ father and brother-in-law who
presided over the interrogation of the apostles John and Peter in Acts 4:6, which
Ananus II himself likely attended since Luke says that there were present ‘as many
who were of high priestly lineage’.206 And of course, it was this Ananus’ father and
brother-in-law who personally had Jesus arrested, interrogated, and condemned
to death.

199 It is likely, for example, that Josephus would have become familiar with Ananus II when he was
meeting ‘again’ (πάλιν) with the ‘chief priests’ in the Temple during the outbreak of the war; see Life
20–1. He also would have had many opportunities earlier to have known Ananus II given his long
association with the ‘chief priests and first men’ of Jerusalem; see Life 9 and further discussion in
Chapter 5 pp. 149–51.
200 See Chapter 5 pp. 145–6.
201 Life 194.
202 Life 195–204. See also War 2.626–31.
203 Life 205–308.
204 Life 309–10.
205 Antiquities 20.200–3.
206 Ananus II may also have been present at the death of Stephen since the Sanhedrin had gathered
for it according to Acts 6:12, 15.
 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 189

But was Ananus II at the trial of Jesus in 30/​33 ce? And could he have been one
of those whom Josephus considered ‘the first men among us’ who accused Jesus?
There are good reasons for believing so. First is that Ananus II was well into his
adulthood when Jesus was crucified. As last of the sons of Ananus I (r. 6–15 ce) to
serve as High Priest, Josephus says that in 69 ce Ananus II was ‘the most aged of the
chief priests’ (ὁ γεραίτατος τῶν ἀρχιερέων Ἄνανος).207 This cannot refer to simple
precedent in rank or seniority since the High Priest Joseph preceded Ananus II in
office and was still alive at the time.208 In order to emphasize Ananus’ great age,
Josephus states again elsewhere that Ananus was the ‘most aged of the chief priests’
(γεραίτατος τῶν ἀρχιερέων).209 He also quotes Ananus II as mentioning ‘my old

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

age’ (τοὐμοῦ γήρως)210 in the final speech Ananus gave shortly before he was killed
in 69 ce.211
It is further likely that Ananus II was advanced in years because his father, Ananus
I, began serving as High Priest in 6 ce, more than sixty years prior to Ananus’ final
speech as supreme commander.212 To top that, Ananus II’s brother Eliezer first
served as High Priest in 16 ce, more than fifty years previously. To have a father and
brother serving as High Priests sixty and fifty years beforehand clearly indicates that
Ananus II was well advanced in years. Given this, the conclusion is unavoidable
that in 69 ce the High Priest Ananus II was quite old by the standards of the ancient
world. He must have been at least in his late 60s, but of course being many years
older is more likely. This means Ananus II would have been well into his adult years
when Jesus was crucified in 30/​33 ce, and probably older than Jesus himself.
This observation is of great importance, because as has already been emphasized
it was Ananus’ own brother-in-law, Caiaphas, and also Ananus’ own father, Ananus
I, who brought judicial proceedings against Jesus. Ananus would likely have been
at this trial since the Gospel accounts relate ‘all the chief priests, the elders, and the
scribes’ and ‘the whole Sanhedrin’ gathered together.213 This should not be read
as a Christian exaggeration on the part of the Gospel authors, for the Mishnah
(third–fourth century ce) agrees that when trying a false prophet —which Jesus
was accused of being214—the entire Sanhedrin of seventy-one members was to

207 War 4.151.

208 Antiquities 20.196; War 6.114. For discussion, see p. 180. The High Priest Ishmael was also likely
alive; see above p. 179.
209 War 4.238. In the above quote Josephus may instead be referring to the smaller group of former
High Priests, but if so, Ananus II would still be of great age.
210 War 4.164.
211 War 4.316–18.
212 It is clear from Antiquities 20.197–8 that Ananus II was the direct biological son of Ananus I.
213 Mark 14:53–5; Matthew 26:59. For further references, see nn. 173, 178, 189–90.
214 Matthew 26:60–3, 67–8; Matthew 27:63; Mark 14:57–62, 65; Luke 22:63–4. The witnesses who
allege that Jesus predicted he would destroy the Temple and rebuild it also seem to be accusing him of
false prophecy; see Matthew 26:59–62; Mark 14:56–60. In a lengthy study, Theobald attempts to recon-
struct the trial of Jesus and I think is too suspicious over certain aspects of the trial’s historicity, but he
does agree that Jesus was charged with being a false prophet; Theobald, Der Prozess Jesu, 669–70.
190 Josephus and Jesus

assemble.215 The Mishnah adds that many additional students of the Sanhedrin
members also attended such trials.216 Josephus further corroborates this by saying
that it was the ‘first men among us’ who accused Jesus, indicating a large, leading
body of men. The Gospels of course supply the additional detail that a great crowd
gathered at a portion of the trial too.217
So, then, as the son of a nepotistic high priestly father, a father who would ensure
that five of his sons and also his son-in-law became High Priest, it is only reason-
able to conclude that the adult Ananus II would have had a place reserved for him
whenever the ‘whole Sanhedrin’ and ‘all the chief priests’ assembled, as at the trial
of Jesus. It is quite probable then that Josephus’ acquaintance, Ananus II, was one

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

of the ‘first men among us’ whom Josephus says accused Jesus.

The House of Their Fathers

But the presence of Ananus II at the Passover trial of Jesus is made all the more
certain by a singularly remarkable fact, not yet observed in this chapter. According
to the Torah, on the evening of Passover, faithful Jews were required to gather in
Jerusalem to partake of the Passover lamb ‘according to the house of their fathers’
(‫)לבית־אבת‬.218 This Hebrew phrase ‘house of their fathers’ (bēt avot) stipulates a
group larger than a simple nuclear family, and rather refers to a more extended
household, such as one headed by the oldest paternal grandfather and his des-
cendants, or whoever was the patriarch of the larger family group at the time.219
Exodus confirms this interpretation by saying elsewhere that one must consume a
Passover lamb ‘according to your clan’ (‫)למשפחתיכם‬, a phrase which, as Leviticus
explains, includes relatives like uncles and cousins.220

215 Mishnah, Sanhedrin 1.5–6; Shebuoth 2.2. The same number is suggested by Josephus, War 2.570.
Theobald doubts that the entire Sanhedrin was present for Jesus’ trial, but he does not consider that the
claims of the Gospels match what the Mishnah prescribes; see Theobald, Der Prozess Jesu, 663.
216 Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4.3–4; Tosefta, Sanhedrin 7.8–9, 8.1–2. For further discussion on the nature
of Jesus’ trial and the makeup of the Sanhedrin, see Appendix 5.
217 Matthew 27:15–24; Mark 15:8–15; Luke 23:4, 48.
218 Exodus 12:3. For gathering in Jerusalem, see Deuteronomy 16:2, 5–6 and n. 227 below.
219 Exodus 6:14; Numbers 17:1–3; Joshua 22:14; 1 Chronicles 4:38; Ezra 2:59–60; Nehemiah 7:61–4.
It is also clear that the Passover meal was to involve more people than a typical nuclear family based
simply on the fact that a 1-year-old lamb (Exodus 12:5) is too large for almost all nuclear families to com-
pletely consume in one night (Exodus 12:10; Numbers 9:12; Deuteronomy 16:4). Some might object
that the Hebrew phrase in Exodus 12:5, ‘a son of a year’ (‫שנה‬-‫)בן‬, must indicate that the lamb was less
than a year old and hence was probably newly born in the springtime and, consequently, would not have
provided much meat for even a small family. However, Gray argues persuasively that the phrase indicates
the Passover lamb would have been at least a year old not less; see Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament,
348–51. Revelation 5:6 corroborates this by portraying Jesus as the Passover ‘lamb’ (ἀρνίον) who has
horns, something that no newborn lamb would have. As such, it is clear that the family size at Passover
was marked not by the descendants of the father of the nuclear family, but by those who were related to
the patriarch of the larger family unit. Josephus also claims that the group eating a Passover lamb could
not be less than ten and that groups of twenty were common; see War 6.423; see also Exodus 12:4.
220 Exodus 12:21; Leviticus 25:49.
 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 191

Exodus goes on to specify that there was to be ‘a lamb for a house’ (‫)שה לבית‬221
and that the lamb ‘shall be eaten in one house (‫)בבית אחד‬, you shall not carry any of
the flesh outside the house’222 and also that the blood of the lamb was to be applied
to the door posts of the house itself.223 Moreover, Exodus charges the father with
explaining the purpose of these rituals to his son: ‘Tell your son on that day, saying
“this is because of what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt”.’224 The
Mishnah also speaks of the role which the father played on Passover.225
The obvious sense intended in the above is that, if possible, the entire familial
unit was to eat the Passover lamb within the patriarchal residence. Exodus further
requires that those who partook were to spend the night226 and Deuteronomy adds

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

that in future generations all this was to take place in the city were God’s name
would dwell, that is, in Jerusalem.227 Of course, not all Jews followed every letter
of the law and sometimes it was quite impractical to do so—what with traveling to
Jerusalem, finding a house for your family, etc.—but the clear intent of Passover
law was for an entire extended family to gather in the house of the familial patri-
arch in Jerusalem on the evening of Passover and then to spend the night.228

221 Exodus 12:3.

222 Exodus 12:46.
223 Exodus 12:7, 13, 22, 23.
224 Exodus 13:8.
225 Mishnah, Pesahim 8.3 apparently involves a man slaughtering a Passover lamb on behalf of his
adult sons, and Mishnah, Pesahim 8.1 discusses a man slaughtering a Passover lamb on behalf of his
married daughter.
226 Exodus 12:7, 22. Though Exodus stipulates that no one was to leave the door of the house until
morning, later rabbinic tradition seems to have required members to simply spend the night in the
house, see Mishnah, Pesahim 10.8; Tosefta, Pesahim 8.8i; Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 47b.4. See also
Pseudo-Jonathan, Targum on Exodus 12.7.
227 Deuteronomy 12:5–7; see also 1 Kings 9:3. The Mishnah, Babylonian Talmud, and Jerusalem
Talmud are unanimous: of those Passover regulations I have mentioned above, the only one that
was possible to modify was putting blood on the door posts, see Mishnah, Pesahim 9.5; Babylonian
Talmud, Pesahim 96A; Jerusalem Talmud, Pesahim 9.5.1 (9.5a–c of ed. Neusner). The Tosefta per-
mits the same allowance (Pesahim 8.14) but also contains an ambiguity insofar as it seems to require
spending the night (Pesahim 8.8i), but then also allows one to leave the residence, perhaps temporarily
(Pesahim 8.15). It also states that one may eat the Passover in one location and spend the night in an-
other (Pesahim 8.17), though this likely pertains to the difficulty of journeying to Jerusalem, obtaining
a sacrificed lamb at the Temple, and then bringing the lamb to a house to eat it. The Tosefta also likely
represents a later relaxation of the rules since the earlier Mishnah, Pesahim 5.10 states that one received
his sacrificed lamb in the Temple and then took it away to cook and eat in a house where one would
spend the night. Eating the lamb was supposed to take place within a house because Mishnah, Pesahim
7.12 discusses the dimensions of a house for the purposes of defining where the lamb may be eaten. The
implications of Mishnah, Pesahim 9.5, 10.8 further indicate that one needed to spend the night in the
house where the lamb was consumed.
228 Jesus himself, for example, may not have been following all these Passover stipulations when he
presided over Passover in the upper room with his disciples (Mark 14:15; Luke 22:12). Yet one should
not forget that Jesus was never one for following the particulars of Jewish ritual law as when he violates
the Sabbath (Mark 2:24–6), or touches a dead body (Mark 5:41), or touches a leper (Mark 1:40–2),
or when he does not rebuke an unclean woman for touching him (Mark 5:25–34). It is also possible
that Jesus was actually following Passover law since his father Joseph had probably died by this point
making Jesus the family patriarch. In this view, Jesus’ family may actually have been in attendance at the
Last Supper in the upper room, the location where Jesus may have been planning on staying the night.
Evidence of this is that his mother and brothers and perhaps even his sisters were present in apparently
192 Josephus and Jesus

The House of Ananus I

And all this has enormous consequence for the whereabouts of Ananus II
on the evening of Jesus’ Passover trial. For to put it plainly, on the evening
of Passover Ananus II was supposed to have been at his father’s house in
Jerusalem. And it was on the evening of Passover, at this very time, that Jesus
was actually brought to his father’s house for trial.229 One cannot fail to con-
clude that even if Ananus II was not in attendance at Jesus’ trial as a member of
the chief priests or of the Sanhedrin,230 then he would have been in the house
of his family patriarch on Passover in obedience to Jewish law. And it matters

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

not whether his family held Passover in the house of his father, the former High
Priest Ananus I,231 or in the house of the current High Priest, his brother-in-law
Caiaphas—232 for according to the Gospels, Jesus was brought to both.233 Such
would have provided Ananus II with an extraordinary opportunity to partici-
pate in the interrogation of Jesus.
If it is not certain that Ananus II was at some portion of the trial of Jesus, it is
certainly very likely. After all, a fair-minded assessment would deem it highly
probable for Ananus II, the ‘most aged’ of the High Priests in 69 ce, to have been
considered a member of the Sanhedrin or at least of the ‘chief priests’ and ‘first
men’ in Jerusalem during the Passover of 30/​33 ce. And this is precisely the time
and location where Ananus’ own high priestly father and his own high priestly
brother-in-law interrogated Jesus in the presence of ‘the whole Sanhedrin’234 and
‘all the chief priests’.235 But if otherwise, Ananus II surely would have observed
the portion of the proceedings held in his family’s patriarchal residence, espe-
cially since this occurred on the night when, according to biblical law, Ananus II

the same upper room shortly after his death (Acts 1:13–14). As far as the presence of his disciples at the
Last Supper is concerned, Exodus 12:4 allows for neighbors to partake of the Passover meal under cer-
tain conditions, which could have allowed Jesus’ disciples to do the same.

229 Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7.

230 Given that the gathering of the Sanhedrin was also attended by disciples of the Sanhedrin mem-
bers, Ananus II may have participated or witnessed the trial in a more junior capacity as a disciple to a
Sanhedrin member, such as to his father Ananus I or his brother-in-law Caiaphas. On this, see p. 190.
He also could have been a formal disciple to one of his illustrious brothers, one of whom, Eliezer, had
already been High Priest by that time, see p. 182.
231 John 18:13–15. Luke 22:54 may also imply that Jesus was brought to the house of Ananus, see
p. 183.
232 Matthew 26:57–8, 69; Mark 14:53–4, 66–8; John 18:24, 28; and perhaps Luke 22:54. See also nn.
158 and 162.
233 Theobald is generally skeptical, but he agrees that on the night of his arrest Jesus was taken into
the house of the High Priest; Theobald, Der Prozess Jesu, 664. One might object that in distinction to
the synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John claims that Jesus was actually interrogated the evening before
Passover, not on the Passover evening itself; for this see Appendix 3.
234 Matthew 26:59.
235 Mark 14:53.
 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 193

was supposed to be present at the house of his family patriarch.236 And Josephus
knew Ananus II.

The House of Gamaliel

But this observation—that first-century Jews were required on Passover to partake

of a lamb in Jerusalem ‘according to the house of their fathers’—bears even further
consequence for Josephus’ knowledge of Jesus. For it enables us to place still other
of Josephus’ contacts more closely to the trial of Jesus.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

I have already explained that in the 60s ce Josephus was personally familiar
with the prince of the Sanhedrin named Simon and that, further, Simon’s fa-
ther, Gamaliel, was a leading member of the Sanhedrin in the early 30s ce if not
the prince of the Sanhedrin itself. It is beyond doubt that in the Passover of 30/​
33 ce Gamaliel would have had his family obey Passover law, for what else would
a pharisaic leader of the Sanhedrin do? Hence, the Mishnah records regarding
Passover that:

Rabban Gamaliel used to say . . . ‘in every generation a man must so regard him-
self as if he himself came forth out of Egypt, for it is written “And you shall tell
your son in that day saying, ‘it is because of that which the Lord did for me when
I came forth out of Egypt’ ”.’237

That Gamaliel carefully taught his son Simon to obey Passover law is all the more
evident by the fact that the Mishnah several times quotes both Gamaliel and his
son Simon commenting on the biblical specifications for celebrating Passover.238
And given such specifications, we now know where Simon would have been
on the night of Passover when Jesus was held for court. Simon would have been
celebrating Passover in Jerusalem at the house of his father Gamaliel. Then, after
the Passover meal, Gamaliel would have been called to the Sanhedrin, which had
gathered in the household of Caiaphas to interrogate Jesus. After a first round of
questioning, Gamaliel would have returned to spend the night in his home, as re-
quired by Jewish law. When morning came, he would have joined the Sanhedrin’s
assembly to examine Jesus again. And all the while Simon—his adult son, rabbinic
protégé, and future leader of the Sanhedrin—would have at minimum been wit-
nessing his father coming to and from the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus if not actually
accompanying him to it. And Josephus knew Simon.

236 It is possible that eastern manuscripts of the Jewish biography of Jesus, Toledot Yeshu, preserve
evidence that Ananus II was an active participant in the trial of Jesus. See Appendix 4.
237 Mishnah, Pesahim 10.5 quoting from Exodus 13:8 (Danby pp. 150–1 translation modified).
238 Mishnah, Pesahim 1.5, 3.4, 7.2, 10.5 (Gamaliel), 2.3, 4.5 (Simon son of Gamaliel). Note that this
particular Simon may have been our Simon’s grandson; see Burgansky, ‘Simeon Ben Gamaliel I’.
194 Josephus and Jesus

The Houses of the High Priests

Much the same can be safely presumed for Josephus’ other well-connected ac-
quaintances. Take for example, his ‘friend and companion’,239 the High Priest
Joshua son of Gamala. On the Passover of 30/​33 ce, Joshua would have gathered
in Jerusalem in the house of his family patriarch. At some point in the evening
several leading members of the family would have undoubtedly been called to
the judicial proceedings against Jesus that Passover night—for surely such a dis-
tinguished family would have had some who were members of either the chief
priests or the Sanhedrin, and of course ‘all the Sanhedrin’ and ‘all the chief

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

priests’ were at the trial of Jesus.240 So the family would have had ranking mem-
bers in attendance.
Then, after the nighttime interrogation of Jesus, these men would have rejoined
Joshua’s family in the patriarchal home, spent the night in obedience to Jewish
law, and in the morning returned for the latter half of Jesus’ trial. It is possible that
Joshua would have accompanied his ranking family members to a portion of the
trial—he was an adult at the time and was a High-Priest-to-be, showing that his
family was in all probability actively training him to obtain such a lofty position.241
Joshua obviously could have also been part of the crowd that gathered when Jesus
was before Pontius Pilate. But at a very minimum, Joshua would have been ideally
positioned to hear first-hand information about the trial of Jesus on the very day
(or night) it occurred. And Josephus knew Joshua.
Josephus likely knew other High Priests too, such as Jonathan son of Ananus I,
Joseph son of Simon, and Ishmael son of Phiabi. These three High Priests range
from being possibly to probably known by Josephus and all of them were des-
cended from the most eminent of high priestly families. Each of them also would
have gathered with their distinguished families when Jesus was brought to trial.
Hence each would in the least have heard of the trial of Jesus as it happened, if of
course they did not attend the trial themselves. And Josephus plausibly knew each
of them.

The House of Herod Antipas

There is one more family whose members Josephus knew: the royal Herodians.
They too seem to have been involved in the trial of Jesus. The Gospel of Luke de-
scribes how, during the interrogation of Jesus, Pontius Pilate became frustrated in

239 Life 204.

240 See nn. 173–4.
241 Jonathan is particularly likely to have attended such proceedings since he was the son of Ananus
I and hence would have been staying for Passover in the very residence where Jesus was interrogated.
He also would soon be High Priest in 37 ce.
 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 195

his attempts to free Jesus and so sent him to Herod Antipas. This Herod Antipas was
of course Tetrarch of Galilee, Jesus’ home territory, and Antipas was in Jerusalem
at this time given that it was Passover. He was thus available to receive Jesus. And
this reception likely would have occurred in his own residence since as ruler of
Galilee he would not have had an official government compound of his own in
Judaea. But even if he for some reason did, he would have usually resided in the
compound anyway.242 So then, it would have been there in his Jerusalem residence,
where Herod Antipas and his soldiers interrogated Jesus, humiliated him, and then
sent him back to Pilate.243
But as this chapter has pointed out, Jewish law mandated that Jews assemble on

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

the night of Passover not only in Jerusalem, but also ‘according to the houses of
their fathers’. Thus, on Passover in the house of the patriarch Herod Antipas, the
Herodian family would have been required to gather and then to spend the night.
And it was on the morning after Passover, at that very location, where Jesus was
brought for interrogation.
If Luke is correct in his account, then there would have been many others of
the Herodian family present inasmuch as they probably all would have spent the
previous night there since Jewish law stipulated it—nor did the family blush at
making executions a family affair given their treatment of John the Baptist. This
actually seems very probable. There are three other accounts in the New Testament
describing judicial (or extrajudicial) events presided over by a member of the
Herodian dynasty and all three stipulate that family members were witnesses, even
including the girl Salome, daughter of Herodias, who though a girl, personally re-
quested the execution of John the Baptist and then gruesomely carried his head to
her mother on a platter.244
But as far as the specifics of who in the Herodian family would have been in
attendance at the house of Herod Antipas, it is not too much to say that Agrippa
I and his wife Cypros would have been there since Antipas had recently appointed
Agrippa I agoranomos of nearby Tiberias. So he and his wife would have been
able to come to Jerusalem on Passover. It is likely that their children, Agrippa II
and Berenice, would have been present as well and it is even possible that the two
children could have seen Jesus at this time, though they would have been very
young245—but the Herodian family did after all make children witnesses to judicial

242 For example, Pontius Pilate seems to have been living in the Roman Praetorium since he was
there early in the morning (John 28:28). Florus, a later successor of Pontius Pilate, seems to have taken
up residence in the same location (War 2.301).
243 Luke 23:6–15.
244 The first episode is the execution of John the Baptist, where the wife of Antipas, Herodias, and
her daughter were present (Matthew 14:1–12; Mark 6:21–9). The second is an informal hearing of the
apostle Paul before the procurator Felix, at which his Herodian wife Drusilla attended (Acts 24:24–7).
The third is the trial of Paul before Agrippa II, where his sister Berenice attended (Acts 25:13–27).
245 Agrippa II was born 28/​9 ce, meaning that if Jesus was crucified in 30 or 33 ce Agrippa II would
have been anywhere between about 2 and 5 years of age. His sister Berenice was about one year younger.
On their ages, see n. 44.
196 Josephus and Jesus

proceedings. Either way though, Agrippa II and Berenice would obviously have
had many opportunities to hear about Jesus’ interrogation in the years following
and then told of it to Josephus directly since evidence shows he knew both of
them.246
However, of all the possible residents at the house of Antipas on the specific
Passover in question, it is the most probable that Antipas’ wife Herodias and his
stepdaughter Salome would have been present when Jesus was brought to the loca-
tion, for who else would be more likely to be with him but his wife and young step-
daughter? He had no other descendants.247 And families were required to come
together on Passover and then to spend the night. But, if it is true that Jesus was

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

brought to the house of Antipas the morning after the Passover meal, then it would
have been likely for Herodias and Salome to have heard about such an event, even
if they did not witness portions of it themselves.
Aside from these two, it is also probable that Salome’s cousin and future husband
Aristobulus would also have been among the audience of those observing Jesus’ in-
terrogation since he would have been an older teenager or young adult at the time
and was both the nephew and grand-nephew of Herod Antipas. Therefore, he pre-
sumably would have been required to be in attendance as well.248 And Josephus
knew the son of Aristobulus and Salome, and evidence indicates that he may have
even known Aristobulus and Salome themselves.
Hence, Josephus had many connections with those present in the house of
Herod Antipas when Jesus was interrogated there. He was the ‘dearest friend’ of
Agrippa II, who likely would have been in the house as a young child. He prob-
ably knew Berenice too, who also would have been there, though again very
young at the time. He may further have been acquainted with Aristobulus and
Salome, both of whom had good reason to be present and who would have been
old enough to remember the events or even to have participated. Josephus more
definitely knew their son Herod. Yet even if Josephus did not know any who
were actually present at the house of Herod Antipas, he certainly knew several
who were well placed to hear all about what went on from their family members
who witnessed it.

246 For discussion, see pp. 161–4.

247 Herod Antipas is given no children in Josephus’ genealogies of the Herodians; see Antiquities
17.12–22, 18.130–42; War 1.562–5.
248 Aristobulus and his father, Herod of Chalcis, had further motivation for being in Jerusalem on the
Passover since they possessed a special interest in the Temple of Jerusalem. On account of this interest,
Herod of Chalcis requested from the Emperor and was granted permission by him to oversee the Jewish
Temple, to guard the high priestly vestments, and to appoint the High Priest, see Antiquities 20.13–16,
103 (Whiston omits translating the name of Aristobulus in Antiquities 20.13). Upon the death of Herod
of Chalcis, the privilege of appointing High Priests, for some reason, did not pass to his son, Aristobulus
(though the Emperor had promised that it would) and instead was given to Agrippa II, Antiquities
20.179. On this, see Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 154–6.
 Identif ying the ‘First Men among Us’ 197

Conclusion

This chapter has highlighted ten or so different persons whom Josephus prob-
ably knew and whom evidence suggests could or would have been at the trial of
Jesus. Yet it would be a mistake to consider these individuals as the only possible
sources for Josephus’ information about Jesus. For he surely knew some or even
many others who had encountered the man from Nazareth.249 This only makes
sense for someone like Josephus, who was raised by a distinguished priestly
family in Jerusalem in the 30s and 40s and 50s ce, who knew the leading men of
Judaea throughout much of his life, and who was stationed in Galilee, the center

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

of Jesus’ ministry. Josephus himself emphasizes that ‘many’ people followed Jesus,
and the Gospels say that thousands heard him preach.250 Most of these men and
women would still have been alive when Josephus was a boy growing up in Judaea.
Not a few would have still remained when he was an adult serving in Galilee.
Undoubtedly Josephus could have learned much of Jesus from them.
What Josephus can tell us about the Jesus of history will be the subject of the
concluding chapter.

249 For example, Josephus states in War 6.114 that several high-ranking priests survived the Jewish
war. While the probability is difficult to assess, it is clearly possible that some of these may have been old
enough to have met Jesus and that they could also have known Josephus.
250 Matthew 14:13–21, 15:32–9; Mark 6:31–44, 8:1–9; Luke 12:1, 9:12–17; John 6:1–14. See also
Matthew 4:25; Mark 3:8; Luke 6:17.
 7
Summary and Conclusion
The Jesus of History

The Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Gathered in aggregate and squarely faced, the Testimonium Flavianum gives every
sign of authenticity. The reasons for this, coming down to essentials, are founded
in the TF’s vocabulary, phrasing, reception, content, and context—all of which
agree with early Jewish tendencies in general and with Josephus’ tendencies in par-
ticular. The TF should hence be attributed to Josephus with much confidence.
This conclusion though is not in accordance with previous scholarly theories
which assert that the TF suspiciously contradicts Josephus’ writing style and that it
contains claims unlikely to have been made by the Jewish historian. The results of
this book’s investigations instead show that the TF actually matches Josephus’ style
quite precisely and that its content is very like the things which Josephus often says
elsewhere.1 Not only this, but the TF is suffused with words, claims, and turns of
phrase that were not used by ancient Christians, and that come across as written by
a non-Christian.
To reiterate some examples, the TF uses the phrase ‘having the third day’ (τρίτην
ἔχων ἡμέραν), it calls Christians a ‘tribe’ (ϕῦλον), it says that the followers of Jesus
delighted in ‘truths’ or ‘truisms’ (τἀληθῆ), it calls Jesus a ‘wise man’ (σοϕός), and it
uses the words ‘appear to be’ or ‘seem’ (ϕαίνω) to describe the resurrection of Jesus—
none of which early Christians preferred to use or even ever used. The TF also makes
claims that disagree with early Christian belief, such as how the TF wonders if Jesus
was actually human (or less than human), when early Christians viewed denying
Jesus’ humanity as heretical; or how the TF states, contrary to the New Testament,
that Jesus had many Greek disciples; or how, again contrary to the New Testament,
the TF emphasizes that Jesus’ disciples were faithful to him after his death; or how the
TF places Jesus as flourishing before John the Baptist, which is once more contrary
to the New Testament. There are even potentially derogatory terms in the TF that a
Christian interpolator would be highly unlikely to leave behind, such as ‘a certain
Jesus’ (Ἰησοῦς τις), ‘incredible‘ or even ‘magical deeds’ (παραδόξων), ‘with pleasure’
(ἡδονῇ), and ‘bring over’ or perhaps ‘mislead’ (ἐπηγάγετο).2

1 See Chapters 3 and 4.

2 For further discussion on items in this paragraph, see Chapter 3. For the placement of the TF, see
Chapter 4 pp. 128–33.

Josephus and Jesus. T. C. Schmidt, Oxford University Press. © T. C. Schmidt 2025.

DOI: 10.1093/​9780191957697.003.0008
 Summary and Conclusion 199

Such examples suggest that the TF is not so approving of Jesus as has been pre-
viously supposed. It is in fact ambiguous enough to be interpreted negatively, neu-
trally, or positively—and so it seems to have been by ancient and medieval readers.3
Yet though the TF is in certain ways ambiguous, it is less so when interpreted in the
light of Josephus’ stylistic practice, which makes clear that those aspects of the TF
that have been thought of as the most positive toward Jesus (and therefore the most
suspicious) are in reality far more mundane. Thus, contrary to the assertions of
some scholars, the TF does not affirm Jesus’ resurrection, his messianic status, or
his fulfillment of prophecy. It instead simply reports such matters as things which
Jesus’ followers believed.4 This is why most ancient and medieval writers seem to

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

have interpreted the TF as generally neutral and far from a pro-Christian redaction
or interpolation or any such thing.5

Josephus’ Sources for Jesus

What is more, it is also apparent that in the TF Josephus claims to have actually
known some of the ‘first men’ (πρώτων ἀνδρῶν) who were party to the crucifixion
of Jesus. For he says that these ‘first men’ were ‘among us’ (παρ’ ἡμῖν), a phrase
which, the fifty-one other times Josephus deploys it, seems to always mark a sub-
ject with which the speaker was directly connected and personally acquainted.
Josephus goes on to emphasize several times elsewhere that he was closely familiar
with the ‘first men’ (πρῶτοι) of Jerusalem beginning in the early 50s ce and con-
tinuing through the Jewish war in 70 ce.6 It goes without saying that some of these
‘first men’ were probably the ‘first men among us’ whom Josephus says accused
Jesus two or three decades before. But that is not all, during the 50s and 60s ce
Josephus also directly knew ‘chief priests’7 in Jerusalem and at least one leading
member of the Sanhedrin,8 and the Gospels say that ‘all the chief priests’ and ‘the
whole Sanhedrin’ were present for Jesus’ trial.9 The Gospels ought to be trusted in
this claim since the Mishnah concurs that at the trial of a false prophet the entire
Sanhedrin was to assemble.10 It is probable, therefore, that Josephus knew some
who participated in judicial proceedings against Jesus, whether ‘first men’, chief
priests, or members of the Sanhedrin—for he was well connected to each group
and each group had a hand in Jesus’ crucifixion. And, it turns out, the affairs of

3 See Chapters 1 and 2.

4 See relevant locations in Chapter 3.
5 See Chapters 1 and 2.
6 Life 9, 21, 28–9, 217, 310; see also Chapter 5 pp. 149–51.
7 Life 9, 21, 193–4; see also Chapter 5 pp. 149–51.
8 Rabbi Simon son of Gamaliel; see Chapter 6 pp. 172–6.
9 For ‘all the chief priests’, see Matthew 27:1; Mark 14:53. For the ‘whole Sanhedrin’, see Matthew
26:59; Mark 14:55, 15:1. See also pp. 189–90.
10 Mishnah, Sanhedrin 1.5–6. See also Chapter 6 pp. 189–90.
200 Josephus and Jesus

Josephus’ life have so ordered themselves that it is even possible to identify several
persons, known to Josephus, whom he likely had in mind when speaking of those
‘first men among us’ who accused Jesus.
These individuals can be found among the ten or so different acquaintances of
Josephus discussed in the last chapter, all of whom had good reason to have been
at the trial of Jesus. The most probable is Josephus’ commander, the High Priest
Ananus II. His father, Ananus I, and his brother-in-law, Caiaphas, both had Jesus
crucified. Another likely acquaintance is Josephus’ fellow Pharisee Rabbi Simon,
prince of the Sanhedrin. His father, Gamaliel, was a famous leader (or even the
leader) of the Sanhedrin in 30/​33 ce, the same Sanhedrin which ‘murdered’ Jesus.11

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Yet another likely acquaintance is Josephus’ friend High Priest Joshua. He was
very old in 69 ce, meaning he would in all probability have been a high-ranking
chief priest four decades previously when Jesus was put to trial before ‘all the chief
priests’.12 And the above three persons are apart from the seven others discussed
in Chapter 6 who each have plausible connections with both Josephus and Jesus.
But there is another reason to conclude that Josephus knew some who attended
the trial of Jesus. This is because the individuals mentioned above can all be placed
at the same time and general location of the trial itself. This is clear from Jewish law,
which stipulated that on the evening of Passover—when Jesus was put on trial—
faithful Jews were to gather in Jerusalem in the house of their familial patriarch.
The conclusion from these things is that Ananus II, Josephus’ future commander,
would have been celebrating Passover in the house of his father at the precise time
the New Testament says Jesus was brought to his father’s house for interrogation.13
It means too that Simon, Josephus’ fellow Pharisee, would have been with his fa-
ther Gamaliel when Gamaliel was called to the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus. And much
the same can be said for the other of Josephus’ acquaintances as they celebrated
Passover with their illustrious families, each family undoubtedly having many
members among the Sanhedrin or the chief priests who, according to the Gospels,
all attended the trial of Jesus.
I should not fail to emphasize that the Passover timing of such an event would
have given Josephus’ contacts an extraordinary opportunity to have learned what
occurred at the trial of Jesus, probably even allowing some to participate. And from
this experience they each could have apprised Josephus about many things per-
taining to Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, Josephus is so well connected to Jesus that he is
only one degree of separation removed from each of the four Jewish leaders whom
the Gospel authors describe as participating in Jesus’ trial: Ananus I, Caiaphas,
Herod Antipas, and Gamaliel.14 For Josephus knew close family members of each

11 Acts 5:30.
12 See Chapter 6 for discussions on these three individuals.
13 See Chapter 6 pp. 190–6. Even if Ananus II instead observed Passover in the house of his
brother-in-law Caiaphas, the current High Priest, Ananus still would have had good opportunity to
witness the trial of Jesus, for Jesus was brought to the house of Caiaphas also. On the difference between
the Gospel of John and the Synoptics regarding when Jesus was actually interrogated, see Appendix 3.
14 See Chapter 6 for discussion on these individuals.
 Summary and Conclusion 201

man.15 And of course, some of those family members are likely to have attended
the trial itself, making Josephus a direct contact with those who prosecuted Jesus.
Aside from these persons, there are also any number of other individuals whom
Josephus may have met during his years in Galilee or his decades in Jerusalem
whom he could have heard speak of Jesus.16 These include a great range of people,
from various chief priests, to the scions of the Herodian dynasty, to the leaders of
the Sanhedrin, to the common folk of Jerusalem and Galilee, to even Josephus’
own father and mother. After all, his parents were living in Jerusalem during the
public crucifixion of Jesus in 30/​33 ce, when his father was an esteemed priest and
his mother was at least a teenager.17 They both would have been able to recount

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

to him many things about Jesus. And this is not to forget that Josephus also knew
several Jewish leaders who supervised the trials of the apostles James, Paul, and
likely Peter and John.18 All told then, Josephus clearly had an impressive roster of
informants able to tell him about the man from Nazareth.
But, given these things, there now remains but one more significant ques-
tion to address: what can the TF tell us about the Jesus of history? For if the TF is
authentic—if it really was written by a Jewish historian who grew up in Jerusalem
in the 30s and 40s ce, who lived among the common people of Galilee, who cir-
cled among the chief priests of Jerusalem in the 50s and 60s ce, and who knew the
prince of the Sanhedrin and several High Priests; if its author, Josephus, really did
know some who crucified Jesus and some who put the apostles on trial—then we
would be wise to pay attention to its words. For the TF may have historical depths
which have not yet been plumbed.

The Testimonium Flavianum: Its Text and Meaning

In determining what the TF has to say about Jesus of history, it is necessary to

discover what Josephus meant to communicate in the TF and, also, to ascertain
the original text of the TF. To begin, did Josephus mean his account of Jesus to be
negative, ambiguous, neutral, or positive? Throughout this book I have belabored
the negative potentialities in the TF’s phrasing because so many instances exist
where the wording of the TF is used elsewhere by Josephus in a negative sense.19
However, a purely negative interpretation of the TF runs into problems. First is

15 Hence, Josephus knew one or two sons of Ananus I (Ananus II and possibly Jonathan), he knew
the son of Gamaliel (Simon), he knew one or two brothers-in-law of Caiaphas (Ananus II and pos-
sibly Jonathan), and he knew the nephew (Agrippa II), niece (Berenice), and grandson (Herod) of
Herod Antipas and perhaps also his stepdaughter (Salome) and stepson-in-law (Aristobulus). See
Chapter 6.
16 See Chapters 5 and 6 pp. 142–7, 197.
17 See Chapter 5 pp. 142–3.
18 Josephus’ acquaintances may also have access to Sanhedrin documents concerning the trial of
Jesus, or Josephus himself may have had such access; see Appendix 5.
19 For example, ‘certain’ (τις), ‘incredible deeds’ or ‘magical deeds’ (παραδόξων), ‘with pleasure’
(ἡδονῇ), and ‘lead’ or ‘mislead’ (ἐπηγάγετο). See Chapter 3 for discussion.
202 Josephus and Jesus

that these negative turns of phrase also have counterexamples where Josephus uses
the same terms neutrally or sometimes even positively.20 Secondly, Josephus was
quite capable of being openly critical of religious figures,21 yet he is not obviously
so toward Jesus. Nor does he explicitly follow any of the more outlandish and de-
rogatory portrayals of Jesus found in other Jewish sources like the ‘Jew of Celsus’ or
the Babylonian Talmud, or the Toledot Yeshu. It is true, there are several hints that
he was aware of these criticisms, but he never openly embraces them.22 Along with
this, no ancient or medieval source appears to have read the TF in a purely negative
light, even if some readers were concerned over certain phrases.23 So it would be
unwise for us to read the TF as a wholly negative account.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

In further support of this are several reasons for considering Josephus to have
thought somewhat favorably of Jesus, or at least to have allowed for the possi-
bility. Firstly, his friend and correspondent King Agrippa II was not unfriendly to-
ward Christians suggesting that Josephus would not have been either.24 Secondly,
Josephus greatly esteemed John the Baptist,25 a known associate of Jesus, and it is rea-
sonable that his admiration for John the Baptist would have colored his opinion of
Jesus. Thirdly, he also presents James, the brother of Jesus, in an ambiguous, perhaps
even vaguely sympathetic light. Thus, in the account of James’ trial, Josephus criti-
cizes the conduct of his own commander and former High Priest, Ananus II, who
had James illegally executed. Though Josephus also mentions that James was put on
trial as a lawbreaker, he does not affirm or deny the verity of the charge, and instead
highlights Ananus II as the one committing malfeasance.26 Josephus would have had
good reason to be suspicious over the propriety of James’ trial since it was conducted
by Ananus II, the very man who betrayed Josephus, as explained in Appendix 6. All
this suggests that Josephus may have viewed James with ambiguity, if not a touch of
sympathy, and therefore probably viewed his brother Jesus similarly.
On the other hand, it would be equally unwise to read the TF as purely positive.
There are simply too many potentially negative statements scattered about that to read

20 See respective discussions in Chapter 3.

21 For example, Josephus deeply criticizes pseudo-prophets, deceiving wonderworkers, and false teachers
in Antiquities 18.81–2, 20.97–9, 142, 167–72; War 2.258–63. He also criticizes the behavior of two different
High Priests in Antiquities 20.199, 205–7, the Sadducees in War 2.166, and the Pharisees in Antiquities 17.41.
Relatedly, he condemns certain others for falsely claiming to be a god; see Antiquities 18.72–7, 256.
22 For example, Josephus hints that he knew of Jewish accusations that Jesus worked miracles by
magic given his use of the word παράδοξα; see Chapter 3 pp. 73–6. He also can be interpreted as casting
Jesus as leading or even inducing (ἐπηγάγετο) a large group of disciples, which matches Jewish accusa-
tions that Jesus was a deceiver; see Chapter 3 pp. 81–3. Lastly, Josephus places the TF between a story
of a pretend god sleeping with a woman and a story about Pontius Pilate and aqueducts, each of which,
respectively, hearken back to Jewish traditions about Jesus’ birth and death; see Chapter 4 pp. 131–3.
23 See especially Eusebius’ discomfort with the word παράδοξα; see as well the anonymous author
of the Dissertatio contra Judaeos, as discussed in Chapter 1 pp. 18, 22. Cassiodorus and his team also
neglected to translate the TF, perhaps because it contained statements that elsewhere they translated
negatively; see Chapter 2 pp. 44–5.
24 See Chapter 6 pp. 163–4.
25 Antiquities 18.116–19.
26 Antiquities 20.199–201. Appendix 6 shows that Ananus II and Gamaliel betrayed Josephus and it
was their fathers who had Jesus executed. Hence one more reason Josephus may have been sympathetic
to Jesus is that Jesus was accused by the very same families that betrayed Josephus.
 Summary and Conclusion 203

them all favorably would take some improbable hermeneutical acrobatics. In this re-
gard, the placement of the TF and some of its vocabulary allude to Jesus as being a
conjurer, an insurrectionist, a pretender, a false Messiah of disreputable birth and sus-
picious burial, who led a rabble of overzealous, uneducated followers. Though, as said
above, Josephus never unequivocally states any of these things and only alludes, sug-
gests, hints, or subtly refers to them.27 Such is why most Greek authors seem to have
interpreted the TF as ambiguous, neutral, mundane, or slightly negative.28
All told then, the above observations answer quite completely to the question of
what Josephus meant by the TF. He seems to have intended it to be neither openly
negative nor openly positive, and therefore largely neutral. He did however insert

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

a healthy amount of ambiguity, enough for one to draw several negative or positive
inferences about Jesus. Whether this was because Josephus hoped to curry favor
with an audience divided over their estimation of Jesus, or because he himself had
no certain opinion of Jesus, or because his sources differed regarding Jesus, or be-
cause he admired Jesus but did not want to reveal his true feelings, or because he
simply did not care, I cannot tell.

Text and Translation of the TF

In terms of the actual wording of the TF, its original Greek text is accurately pre-
served in present Greek manuscripts and quotations with the exception that one
or two Greek words seem to have dropped out from the phrase ‘he was the Christ’
(ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν). As discussed in Chapter 3, Jerome’s Latin translation and
Jacob’s Syriac translation show that the phrase originally read something like
that Jesus was ‘believed to be the Christ’ (credebatur esse Christus) or that ‘it was
thought that he was the Christ’ (‫)ܡܣܬܒܪܐ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ‬. These translations
are further supported by later Armenian and Arabic versions and by the early Latin
version of Pseudo-Hegesippus. Of all the ancient versions, Jerome’s Latin most
closely follows the grammar of the remaining Greek text ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν, while
Jacob’s Syriac most closely follows its vocabulary.29 The Syriac is also intriguing
because the phrase mestabrā itaw (‫ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬. . . ‫ )ܡܣܬܒܪܐ‬can be alternatively trans-
lated as ‘proclaimed to be’. Though this is not the usual way to understand mestabrā,
such an interpretation is almost synonymous with the Greek word λεγόμενος that
Josephus uses elsewhere for Jesus when he says that Jesus was ‘called’ or ‘declared’
(λεγόμενος) the Christ.30
Be that as it may, the rule of textual criticism is that one should err on the side of
conservatism and normal word usage. Hence, in the below Greek text I supply the
Syriac phrase mestabrā itaw between brackets and then translate it according to its

27 See n. 22 and pp. 73–6, 77–79, 81–3, 89–90, 131–3.

28 See Chapter 1 pp. 33–34.
29 See pp. 88–9.
30 Antiquities 20.200.
204 Josephus and Jesus

typical meaning as ‘thought to be’. This results in a text that does not contain conjec-
tural emendations,31 and which follows Greek witnesses at all times except at one point
where it relies on the wording of Jacob’s Syriac version and the grammar of Jerome’s
Latin version, both of which are supported by other Latin, Arabic, and Armenian wit-
nesses. Though the Syriac in all likelihood fairly portrays Josephus’ intended meaning,
the reader should remember that the original Greek wording of the phrase may have
read something like ‘thought to be’ (εἶναι νομιζόμενος) or ‘believed to be’ (εἶναι
πιστευόμενος) or simply that Jesus was ‘called Christ’ (ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός).32
As far as the English translation goes, it is not possible to preserve all of the am-
biguity of the original TF, but one can get a good approximation of what Josephus

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

meant by comparing how Josephus uses the same words and phrases in the TF else-
where throughout his work, as I do at key points in Chapter 3. One particularly diffi-
cult word to translate is paradoxa (παράδοξα), which I have rendered as ‘incredible
deeds’. Taken together, all this results in an English translation that sounds like so:33

Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον And in this time, there was a certain
Ἰησοῦς τις σοϕὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought
αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή· ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων to call him a man, for he was a doer of
ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων incredible deeds, a teacher of men who
τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ receive truisms with pleasure. And he
πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς brought over many from among the
δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο· ὁ Jews and many from among the Greeks.
χριστὸς οὗτος [mestabrā itaw] ἦν. καὶ He was [thought to be] the Christ. And,
αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν when Pilate had condemned him to
παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος the cross at the accusation of the first
Πιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον men among us, those who at first were
ἀγαπήσαντες· ἐϕάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς devoted to him did not cease to be so,
τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν for on the third day it seemed to them
θείων προϕητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα that he was alive again given that the
μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων. divine prophets had spoken such things
εἰς τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε and thousands of other wonderful
ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ ϕῦλον. things about him. And up till now the
tribe of the Christians, who were named
from him, has not disappeared.

31 According to Metzger and Ehrman, a conjectural emendation occurs when an editor supplies a
reading that is not witnessed by the original language of the ancient text or by any of its ancient or medi-
eval translations; see Metzger and Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament, 230.
32 One might argue that my reconstruction should also add the Syriac word for ‘was’ or hwa (‫)ܗܘܐ‬,
but this is already represented by the Greek word ἦν and hence does not need to be supplied.
33 This translation is quite similar to the ‘neutral’ translation presented in Chapter 4 pp. 137–8 with
the exception that I use the phrase ‘it seemed to them that he was alive again’ instead of ‘he appeared to
them to be alive again’.
 Summary and Conclusion 205

With the above translation in view, it is fitting to take our interpretive cue from
the TF’s opening line: ‘In this time there was a certain Jesus, a wise man, if it is
necessary to call him a man, for he was a doer of paradoxa. . . .’ Howsoever one
translates paradoxa (παράδοξα) will guide the interpretation of the whole. If it be
deemed positive, as in ‘miraculous deeds’ (a viable translational decision), then the
tenor of the TF will change accordingly. The same goes for the relatively equivocal
‘incredible deeds’, which would cast ambiguous light on the TF. But if one chooses
the negative ‘magical deeds’, then the meaning of the TF swings in a more crit-
ical direction. One could also reasonably translate ‘brought over’ (ἐπηγάγετο) in a
negative manner as ‘induced’ or ‘led astray’, which would then make the whole TF

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

quite condemnatory of Jesus. There are of course several other aspects of the TF
which could be translated as slightly positive or negative in English, though in the
original Greek, the ambiguity of these phrases would have been on full display for
readers.34
It deserves mentioning yet again that however one may choose to translate
the TF, it is unlikely that Josephus intended a purely negative portrayal of Jesus.
Likewise, one must also consider that, as far as the phrases that have often been
understood as the most positive toward Jesus, the evidence indicates that these are
far more neutral. Thus, the original text of the TF did not say that Jesus ‘was the
Christ’ but instead something like that Jesus was ‘believed to be’ or ‘thought to be’,
as the Latin and Syriac evidence indicates (with support also coming from Arabic
and Armenian evidence). It could also be that Josephus repeated the same terms
he used of Jesus elsewhere and that the original text was that Jesus was ‘called the
Christ’ (τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ).35
Similarly, drawing on Josephus’ own grammatical style, it is clear that the TF’s
mention of Jesus’ resurrection should not be translated as ‘he appeared to them
alive again on the third day’ but rather ‘he appeared to them to be alive’ or even ‘it
seemed to them that he was alive’.36 This casts the entire assertion about Jesus’ res-
urrection and his fulfillment of prophecy as a belief of Jesus’ disciples, not a belief
of Josephus himself.

The Jesus of History

So then, if in the TF Josephus means to describe Jesus somewhat neutrally while

providing a good bit of ambiguity, what can the TF tell us about the Jesus of his-
tory? It tells us much I think. In fact, it corroborates many key points regarding
Jesus presented in the New Testament.

34 For further discussion on paradoxa, see Chapter 3 pp. 73–5. For other possible translations of the
TF, see Chapter 4 pp. 137–8.
35 Antiquities 20.200.
36 See Chapter 3 pp. 96–100.
206 Josephus and Jesus

Corroborations

Viewed as a whole, the TF broadly outlines the same account of Jesus’ life and min-
istry as the four canonical Gospels, though with a different tenor and emphasis.
Hence, the placement of the TF in the Antiquities confirms that Jesus ministered
during the governorship of Pontius Pilate, the reign of Herod Antipas the Tetrarch,
and the high priesthood of Caiaphas, when the emeritus High Priest Ananus I was
still of great influence. This accords completely with the Gospels and other refer-
ences in the New Testament.37
As far as the actual content of the TF goes, Josephus begins by calling Jesus a

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

‘certain Jesus’ (Ἰησοῦς τις), thus applying to Jesus a possibly derogatory or sus-
picious turn of phrase, but one that matches how early non-Christians spoke
of Jesus.38 Next, Josephus calls Jesus ‘a wise man’ (σοϕός), but nowhere do
the New Testament authors call Jesus this and some even criticize the ‘wise’.39
Obviously early Christians portrayed Jesus as having much wisdom,40 but they
did not characterize him with the term σοϕός probably because it reminded
the first-century listener of a pagan Greek philosopher. It is telling though that
non-Christian writers missed this subtle emphasis and instead freely admitted
that Jesus was ‘wise’.41 So it is understandable that Josephus would have done
the same.
Moving along, Josephus rhetorically wonders whether to call Jesus ‘a man’
since, in Josephus’ words, he was ‘a doer of paradoxa’. As already mentioned,
paradoxa (παράδοξα) pertains to miraculous deeds that are frequently associ-
ated with conjuring and wizardry. This then chimes with assertions, again wit-
nessed by the Gospels, where Jesus is accused of performing miracles with the aid
of demons.42
Further, as regards Jesus’ humanity, the TF rhetorically wonders whether
‘one ought to call [Jesus] a man’. This harmonizes with how the Gospels present
first-century Jews as being conflicted over Jesus, with some speculating that he
might be the Son of God or even God,43 and with others accusing him of not only
being in league with demons, but of being a demon himself.44 Josephus’ rhetorical
statement about Jesus’ humanity hence quite agrees with the New Testament’s

37 Luke 3:1–2; Acts 4:6, 27; John 18:13, 24, 28–32.

38 Acts 25:19. For further discussion, see Chapter 3 pp. 67–9.
39 Matthew 13:54; Mark 6:21; 1 Corinthians 1:18–25.
40 For example, in 1 Corinthians 1:18–25 Paul criticizes the ‘wise’, but goes on to emphasize that
Jesus was actually the very ‘wisdom’ of God. And again, in Matthew 13:54 and Mark 6:21 Jesus critiques
the ‘wise’; though elsewhere he also implies that he himself had immense wisdom: Matthew 11:19,
12:42; Luke 7:35, 11:31, 49.
41 For example, Mara bar Serapion, Porphyry, and the Milesian Apollo. For discussion, see
Chapter 3 pp. 69–71.
42 See Chapter 3 pp. 73–5.
43 John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8; Philippians 2:6.
44 Matthew 10:25.
 Summary and Conclusion 207

portrayal of early first-century Jewish beliefs.45 More than this though, the ambi-
guity with which Josephus describes Jesus may be attributed to Josephus’ under-
standing that Jesus was a polarizing figure, who generally caused Jews to fall into
diametrically opposed groups.46 It could also reflect the fact that many Jews in the
first century simply did not know what to think of Jesus and his miracles, as the
New Testament itself also claims,47 or that Josephus did not know either, or other
such possibilities.48
Of Jesus’ disciples, Josephus affirms that Jesus had many followers and that
his ministry, somewhat shockingly for a Jewish teacher, also included Gentiles.
This again coheres with the Gospel accounts which emphasize that thousands

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

of people followed Jesus, or otherwise heard him preach, and that a few of these
were Gentiles.49 The character of Jesus’ disciples and the nature of his teachings are
also alluded to by Josephus and again these match the canonical Gospels. Such is
clear from careful evaluation of Josephus’ vocabulary which shows him describing
Jesus’ disciples as ‘those who receive truisms with pleasure’. The phrase ‘receive
with pleasure’ (τῶν ἡδονῇ . . . δεχομένων) in Josephus’ writings most frequently
refers to overzealous or heedless actions. Along with this, the term ‘truisms’
(τἀληθῆ) contrasts with the more profound term ‘truth’ (ἀλήθεια) and suggests
basic, run-of-the-mill facts, observations, and the like.50
Thus, the content of Jesus’ teaching, as portrayed by Josephus, seems to be
one of a simple, matter-of-fact nature, much like the presentation of Jesus’ public
teaching in the Gospels with his pithy sermons, succinct retorts, colloquial par-
ables, and so on.51 This is in great contrast to many Jewish teachers in the first
century who delivered complex, elaborate, and even inscrutable teachings.52
Furthermore, Josephus’ description of the disciples as receiving these simple ‘tru-
isms with pleasure’ also corresponds nicely with the New Testament description
of Jesus’ disciples as being slow to understand,53 uneducated,54 overly zealous, and
volatile in temperament.55

45 It should also be observed that early Christians ardently believed that Jesus was in fact human
and so it seems quite unlikely that a later Christian scribe would have inserted a phrase into the TF that
hypothetically wonders whether Jesus was human or not. For further discussion, see Chapter 3 pp. 71–3.
46 John 7:11–13, 25–31, 40–52.
47 Matthew 12:23, 13:54–7; Mark 6:14–15, 8:27–8; Luke 9:7–8, 18–19; John 4:29.
48 See pp. 73, 203 for further possibilities.
49 On Jesus having thousands of followers, see Matthew 14:13–21, 15:32–9; Mark 6:31–44, 8:1–9;
Luke 9:12–17; John 6:1–14. See also Matthew 4:25; Mark 3:8; Luke 6:17. On non-Jewish followers, see
Chapter 3 pp. 80–1.
50 See Chapter 3 p. 78.
51 See Chapter 3 pp. 78–9.
52 This is obvious to anyone who has read the original language texts of Josephus, Philo, and certain
Dead Sea Scrolls. On the latter, see Charlesworth, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus’, 26–7.
53 Matthew 15:16; Mark 4:13, 7:18; Luke 24:25.
54 Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21; John 7:15; Acts 4:13.
55 Matthew 20:20–8; Luke 9:54–5, 22:50–1; John 18:10–11. Jesus’ disciples also promised to remain
faithful to him, before actually rejecting him; see n. 72 below.
208 Josephus and Jesus

Josephus then uses the ambiguous term ‘brought over’ (ἐπηγάγετο) to describe
Jesus leading many Jews and Greeks. This word can be interpreted as connoting
deception, exactly like what Jewish leaders accused Jesus of doing according to
the Gospel accounts.56 Moreover, the Gospels describe how Jesus’ many followers
caused great alarm among Jewish leaders57 who worried that the ‘whole world’
was going to follow him58 and that Jesus would cause a rebellion.59 All this is once
again corroborated by Josephus’ portrayal of Jesus leading ‘many from among the
Jews and many from among the Greeks’ and then being crucified by the Roman
governor at the behest of Jewish leaders. The reader of the TF is thus left with a
fair impression that Jesus may have been accused of fomenting rebellion, which,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

according to the Gospels, he actually was. It must be observed however that
Josephus never openly affirms that Jesus led an uprising, but only hints at the
possibility.
Turning to Jesus’ execution, resurrection, messianic status, and fulfillment of
prophecy, Josephus also confirms the New Testament. He says, unequivocally, that
Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate at the accusation of the ‘first men among us’.
This precisely accords with how the Gospel accounts portray many Jewish leaders
hounding Pontius Pilate with accusations against Jesus, causing Pilate to sentence
Jesus to crucifixion.60 The fact that Josephus affirms the crucifixion also verifies the
claim of the Gospels that Jesus was charged with rebellion,61 since the crucifixion
of a non-slave was typically reserved for only two crimes: robbery and rebellion.62
Of course, Josephus further substantiates the fact that Jesus’ disciples believed that
Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecy, that he was the Christ, and that he was raised from
the dead after three days.63
Lastly, Josephus also calls Jesus’ followers ‘Christians’, which once more subtly
corroborates the New Testament. This is because the New Testament implies that
the term ‘Christian’ (Χριστιανῶν) was originally coined by non-Christians in the
mid-first century.64 Hence it would be quite probable that a first-century Jew, like
Josephus, would deploy the term, and that he would also find the need to define
such a neologism. And of course, Josephus does both in the TF.

56 Matthew 27:63; Luke 23:2; John 7:12, 47, 52.

57 John 4:1–2.
58 John 12:19.
59 Luke 23:1–5, 14.
60 See Chapter 6 pp. 183–4.
61 Luke 23:2–5. While Luke is the only Gospel writer who is specific about this charge, the three
others portray Jesus as being charged with claiming to be an unlawful king, which would amount to
rebellion in Roman eyes; see Matthew 27:11, 36; Mark 15:2, 26; John 18:33, 19:19–22.
62 Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World, 46–50.
63 It is true that technically Josephus does not explicitly claim that Jesus’ disciples believed he was
the Christ, but the whole thrust of the TF leads one to assume as much, especially given that Josephus
specifically credits the disciples as believing that Jesus was raised from the dead and that he fulfilled
prophecy.
64 Acts 11:26, 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16. See pp. 105, 110, 117, 225.
 Summary and Conclusion 209

Contradictions

There are however a few matters that do not, at first sight, accord with the New
Testament and its portrayal of Jesus. The most obvious is that Josephus may have
thought that Jesus died before John the Baptist insofar as he discusses Jesus’ death
before he discusses John’s.65 Though it is true that Josephus may here contradict
the clear claim of the New Testament documents, it is also true that Josephus fre-
quently places historical events out of order for the sake of his narrative. Sometimes
he even does this when retelling historical events that he himself had lived through
and that he himself had already recounted in a different order elsewhere.66 As such,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Josephus may not have actually been making a chronological claim regarding Jesus
and John but instead may have chosen to place Jesus before John because he found
such an arrangement to be more suitable for his thematic emphasis of highlighting
‘disturbances’ during the reign of Pontius Pilate.67
In fairness to Josephus, the point should be made that even if he was making a
chronological claim, the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus did significantly
overlap, so placing Jesus’ death before John’s is not so egregious an error from a purely
chronological perspective. Given this, if Josephus really did think that Jesus died be-
fore John the Baptist, such an error is not all that far off the mark. It also should not
outweigh other New Testament documents which are united in claiming that John
died before Jesus,68 especially given that Josephus muddles chronology elsewhere.
In view of this it should be emphasized that such tension with the New Testament
actually has the counter effect of promoting the authenticity of the TF since it is
so unlikely that a later Christian scribe would have inserted a story of Jesus’ death
before that of John the Baptist. Indeed, the only other group that may have be-
lieved Jesus ministered before John the Baptist was a small, relatively insignificant
Jewish-Christian sect called the Ebionites. They greatly depended on early Jewish
tradition and it is unsurprising that Josephus could have relied on similar Jewish
tradition about the chronology of Jesus’ life as compared to that of John the Baptist.69
The only two other areas where Josephus conflicts with the New Testament
are less examples of contradiction and more of differing perspective.70 In the TF,

65 Jesus is discussed in Antiquities 18.63–4 and John the Baptist is discussed in Antiquities 18.116–19.
66 Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 3–8. See also a table comparing the different chronological
sequences given in the Josephus’ Life and War, found in Mason, Life of Josephus, 213–22.
67 On these disturbances, see Chapter 3 p. 66 n. 16, pp. 128–9. It was common for Josephus to re-
arrange chronology for the sake of his chosen theme or for greater literary effect; see Cohen, Josephus in
Galilee and Rome, 233.
68 See p. 129.
69 See p. 129.
70 One more tension with the New Testament could be deduced from the fact that Josephus high-
lights the role of Pontius Pilate in the death of Jesus, whereas the New Testament almost always empha-
sizes the role of Jewish leaders. This though is not a contradiction and is simply a matter of emphasis
since the Gospel narratives clearly show Pontius Pilate as ultimately presiding over the death of Jesus;
see Chapter 3 pp. 93–4.
210 Josephus and Jesus

Josephus claims that Jesus had many Greek followers and that his disciples did not
cease to be faithful to him after his execution. Of course, the New Testament docu-
ments are quite clear that neither are true. Though Jesus did minister to Greeks on
occasion, he did not have many Greek followers.71 And though Jesus had zealous
disciples, the Gospel accounts are emphatic that they abandoned him at his death
and initially doubted his resurrection, only later returning to their devotion.72 The
New Testament documents go even so far as to show that several of the apostles—
Paul and Jesus’ brothers Jude and James—did not even believe in Jesus during his
ministry, but only did so after he had been raised from the dead.73
But in each of the above two instances, Josephus’ presentation of the case is

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

understandable from his perspective as an outsider. To Josephus it would have
seemed a fair assumption that Jesus attracted many Greek followers during his life-
time given that Jesus did attract some Greeks and that, soon after his death, many
Greeks professed faith in him. Not only this, the one passage in the Gospels that
appears to portray Jesus as having a large non-Jewish following is actually the ex-
aggerated statement of contemporary Jewish leaders—‘Look! The world has gone
after him’74—and hence is not affirmed by the Gospel authors. Thus, drawing from
Jewish sources close to Jesus and peering into the first-century Christian move-
ment from without, Josephus would have had ample reason to report that many
Greeks had followed Jesus even if only a few actually had.75
Likewise, though Jesus’ disciples abandoned him, it is again understandable that
a non-Christian like Josephus would have reported the opposite on the grounds
that those same disciples were afterward willing to die for the belief that Jesus had
been resurrected, as the New Testament76 and other early Christian documents
say.77 Josephus would obviously have been aware of their zeal given that he knew
personally those who supervised the capital trials of the apostles Paul and James
the brother of Jesus. Josephus also likely knew some who had attended the trial of
the apostles Peter and John.78 It hence would have taken an intimate and detailed

71 See Chapter 3 pp. 80–1.

72 The disciples insisted that they would not abandon Jesus (Matthew 26:33, 35; Mark 14:29; Luke
22:33; John 13:37), shortly before actually abandoning him (Matthew 26:56; Mark 14:50; John 16:32).
Judas of course also betrayed Jesus, Peter denied Jesus, and the disciples as a whole refused to believe
that he had been resurrected; see Chapter 3 p. 95 for discussion.
73 Jesus’ brothers, James and Jude, did not believe in him (Mark 3:21, 31, 6:3; John 7:5), but both
apparently were converted after his death (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; 1 Corinthians 9:5, 15:7; Galatians
1:19, 2:9, 2:12; James 1:1; Jude 1:1). Paul of course persecuted the church before becoming a Christian
himself; see 1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13.
74 John 12:19.
75 See Chapter 3 pp. 80–1.
76 Acts 4:18–21, 5:27–33, 40–2, 7:54–60, 12:1–5, 16:22–4, 20:22–4. See also Paul’s trials before Felix,
Festus, and Agrippa II in Acts 24–6 and his words in Philippians 1:21 and 2 Corinthians 11:23–7.
77 Clement of Rome, First Epistle 5.1–7; Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 3.1–3 (see also
Letter to the Romans 4.1–5.3); Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians 9.1–2. See also Antiquities 20.200–1.
78 See Chapter 6 pp. 163–4, 184–6.
 Summary and Conclusion 211

knowledge of Christian teaching to understand that this devotion of Jesus’ fol-

lowers was not maintained after his execution, as Josephus says, but only regained
after the disciples believed Jesus had been resurrected. So, while Josephus is tech-
nically incorrect on this count, his statement is quite explicable as coming from an
outsider.
In the light of these observations, the tensions that the TF holds with the New
Testament once again have the corollary effect of substantiating the authorship of
the TF in view of how improbable it would be for a Christian to make such mis-
takes, but yet how probable for a non-Christian, like Josephus, to have done so if
he was well informed of Jesus, but lacked the specialized, insider knowledge of a

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Christian.

Conclusion

To sum up regarding the Jesus of history, Josephus advances the following

points to a greater or lesser degree: Jesus was a Jew who was crucified by Pontius
Pilate, during the reign of Herod Antipas the Tetrarch and under the high
priesthood of Caiaphas, while the emeritus High Priest Ananus I still held great
sway. Before Jesus’ death he was known as a wise man who taught simple, basic
truths, but who was also a polarizing figure, with some wondering if he was
more than human and others thinking he was less. His disciples were many and
included both Jews and non-Jews. These were perhaps not particularly edu-
cated and were prone to being overzealous. Aside from Jesus’ teaching ministry,
he also performed miracles that were viewed by some as being gotten by sor-
cery. Others, however, believed him to be the Christ. After he was crucified by
Pontius Pilate at the behest of Jewish leaders, his disciples claimed that he had
been resurrected three days later and that he fulfilled Jewish prophecy. These
followers of Jesus were called ‘Christians’ and still existed at the end of the first
century.
To this description there must be added the historical observation that Josephus’
account of Jesus does not likely reflect information about Jesus that originated in
93/​4 ce, when Josephus wrote the TF.79 Rather, Josephus’ information goes back
many decades earlier and can be traced to those who interrogated the apostles in
the 30s through 60s ce and to those who attended Jesus’ trial in 30/​33 ce.80 For
Josephus did know such people.

79 Josephus says in the conclusion of his Antiquities that the present day was the fifty-sixth year of
his life and the thirteenth year of Emperor Domitian, which corresponds with 93/​4 ce. See Antiquities
20.267 and Mason, Life of Josephus, xv–xvi n. 1.
80 It is also possible that Josephus knew those who had access to Sanhedrin documents regarding the
trial of Jesus, or that Josephus himself did; see Appendix 5.
212 Josephus and Jesus

Miracles, Prophecy, and the Resurrection on the Third Day

It is therefore thoroughly remarkable that what Josephus says about Jesus follows
the outlines of what the New Testament documents declare. Most striking of all is
that Josephus’ testimony quite clearly proposes that Jesus did in fact perform mir-
acles and that the belief about his resurrection and fulfillment of prophecy was not
developed years after Jesus lived, but was, to quote Josephus, already held by the
disciples of Jesus ‘on the third day’. This point is considerably fortified by the fact
that Josephus was quite capable of criticizing supernatural claims.81 But instead
of classifying the miraculous reports of Jesus as the outgrowth of later myths and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

legends, he rather presents them as being contemporaneous with Jesus and the
apostles.
All this suggests that there was no long, postmortem period where Jesus went
from humble teacher to resurrected wonderworker, a period in which the basic
claims of Jesus’ miracles and resurrection grew like coral on a reef, with one person
expanding and exaggerating the imagination of the previous. Rather, such funda-
mental beliefs about Jesus were present from the beginning of the Christian move-
ment,82 and were disseminated by Jesus’ own disciples and even, it seems, by his
enemies.83
Josephus, after all, was directly familiar with those Jewish leaders who attended
judicial proceedings against not only Jesus but also against the apostles James, Paul,
and likely Peter and John too. At such trials, Josephus’ acquaintances extracted tes-
timony from Jesus and the disciples regarding their beliefs, often under threat of
execution. Hence these Jewish leaders would have been reliable informants for
Josephus to learn about the teachings of Jesus and his followers.84
All this urges the further inference that the early Christian movement was
not so divided as sometimes supposed. It is agreed by scholars that four of Jesus’

81 Josephus laughs at the idea of wizards in Life 150. He also does not hesitate to portray certain
so-called prophets and miracles as lying and false; Antiquities 20.97–9, 142, 167–72; War 2.258–63. See
Betz, ‘Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus’, 212–13.
82 In his comprehensive study on the historical Jesus, Meier similarly concludes ‘the miracle tradi-
tions about Jesus’ public ministry are already so widely attested in various sources and literary forms
by the end of the first Christian generation that total fabrication by the early church is, practically
speaking, impossible’. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 2 p. 630.
83 Jesus’ enemies of course claimed that Jesus worked miracles, but only with the help of demons or
some similar means; see Chapter 3 pp. 72, 74. And though they did not believe Jesus had been resur-
rected bodily, they did not dispute that the early disciples believed as much; see the Jew of Celsus in
Origen, Against Celsus 2.70.
84 The reader of this book might wonder why Josephus’ contacts would have cared enough about
Jesus to have become well acquainted with him or at least to have been aware of the outlines of his
personal history. But surely the family of Ananus I and those associated with the Sanhedrin would
have been quite interested in Jesus given that he caused so great an upheaval that they appealed to the
Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, to have Jesus executed. The continued flourishing of the Jesus move-
ment no doubt would have also vexed them considerably. This is evident by the fact that Ananus II
risked his own high priesthood in order to have James, the brother of Jesus, illegally executed in 62 ce;
see Antiquities 20.200–1.
 Summary and Conclusion 213

early apostles—Peter, James, John, and Paul—were the most prominent leaders of
the early church.85 Some scholars however go on to hypothesize that these four
strongly disagreed on significant matters.86 Over and against this hypothesis stands
Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum. For Josephus seems to have been in touch
with individuals who put all four of these apostles on trial, yet he does not depict
a Christian movement riven by disagreement, nor does he set forth an account of
Jesus far different from that presented by the New Testament documents. It stands
to reason that whatever conflicts the four leading apostles may have had with one
another, these did not concern the fundamental beliefs sketched out by Josephus.
And according to Josephus, the principal belief upon which the disciples seem to

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

have agreed was that Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day in fulfillment
of Jewish prophecy. This is in great contrast to certain scholars who theorize that
the disciples were consciously deceiving others regarding Jesus’ resurrection, or
that they believed they had seen a mere symbolic vision of Jesus after his death, or
even that they thought Jesus had simply visited them in spirit.87 Instead, Josephus’
words are suggestive that the disciples, from their perspective, actually considered
Jesus to be alive in the flesh three days after he had been dead in the flesh.
For by Josephus claiming in the TF that ‘it seemed’ to the disciples that Jesus was
alive, the implied meaning is clearly that they honestly believed he had risen from
the dead. And by using the word ‘alive’, Josephus could not have meant that the
disciples believed some vision of Jesus was divinely granted to them as a way to vin-
dicate his mission, or affirm his righteousness, or some such thing, for otherwise
they would not have thought Jesus was actually ‘alive’. And by Josephus claiming
that the disciples believed Jesus was alive ‘again’, their intended belief is obviously
that Jesus was physically alive again when he once had been physically dead. It
could not be intended that Jesus’ soul or spirit continued to live and then visited
the disciples, for his spirit would not have died in the first place and hence could
not be alive ‘again’.
Thus, if Josephus had meant to characterize the disciples as being intentionally
deceptive, he would not have said that Jesus ‘seemed to them’ to be alive. If he had
wanted to portray the disciples as claiming that they merely beheld a kind of div-
inely granted symbolic vision of Jesus, he would not have specified that it was actu-
ally Jesus himself whom they considered to be ‘alive’. And, if he intended to cast the
disciples as only believing in the continued spiritual existence of Jesus, he would
not have used the word ‘again’.

85 Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, 389–94.

86 For example, Chilton writes ‘James and Peter and Paul disagreed ideologically’ and discusses
whether these apostles should even be viewed as part of a single ‘movement’. See, Chilton and Evans,
The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul, 487–8.
87 These hypotheses regarding what the disciples originally believed about the resurrection of Jesus
are enumerated in Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 204–13.
214 Josephus and Jesus

Therefore, the plain reading of Josephus is that the belief in Jesus’ bodily resur-
rection on the third day was held by the disciples of Jesus quite soon after his death,
even on ‘the third day’, as Josephus says. And these disciples seem to have included
the four leading apostles of Jesus—Peter, James, John, and Paul—the very ones ‘re-
puted to be pillars’ of the church,88 each of whom went on to lead distinct Christian
communities, each of whom are said to have contributed to the documents of the
New Testament, and each of whom Josephus’ acquaintances had put on trial. The
only surer informants would be those who had encountered Jesus directly—but of
course, Josephus knew people who had. And it bears emphasizing that Josephus’
contacts were not only those who had merely met Jesus, but even certain individ-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

uals who were party to his interrogation and crucifixion.

***
Well then, we have come to the end. The last threads of this book have been gath-
ered together; their tracery is nearly complete—let us now tie the final knot. For
too long scholars have dismissed the value of Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum.
But we must follow the evidence: the Testimonium Flavianum is authentic, and
within it there resides a compelling witness to the origins of Christianity and to ‘the
one called Christ’.

88 Galatians 2:9. Paul does not class himself as a pillar of the church in this quotation, but he has been
by almost all other Christians since. He also does not claim to have seen Jesus on the third day after his
death, but only sometime thereafter.
 APPENDI X 1

Eusebius, His Citational Practices,

and the Testimonium Flavianum

A small but vocal group of scholars contends that the Testimonium Flavianum is largely or

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

completely a forgery and that the forger was none other than the very first person to cite the
TF: Eusebius of Caesarea (c.313 ce).1 He was, they say, in the habit of changing the words
of others, making him a prime suspect. Their central argument, however, turns on three
phrases in the TF which are supposed to exhibit the stylistic hallmarks of Eusebius and no
one else. In this appendix I will hold each of these claims under the light of close examin-
ation. We will see that Eusebius was particularly exacting in his quotations and is therefore
an unlikely candidate for forging the TF. All this is notwithstanding the fact that the TF gives
little sign of forgery anyway, as Chapters 1–​4 demonstrate.

Eusebius’ Citations of Josephus

Ken Olson is chief among the proponents of Eusebian forgery. To lay the foundation for
his case he points to three passages where he believes Eusebius materially alters Josephus’
words.2 One passage though, at Ecclesiastical History 2.6.3, is not actually an alteration at
all; here Eusebius simply summarizes his interpretation of Josephus and then proceeds to
justify it with various excerpts. In this case it is actually Olson who has put words into the
mouth of Eusebius. With the second alleged instance, at Ecclesiastical History 3.5.6, even
Olson admits that Eusebius only ‘implies’ that Josephus placed the fall of Jerusalem on the
Passover,3 but Eusebius does not actually quote Josephus as saying this, and once again,
Eusebius only presents his own interpretation. Neither of these two cases show any kind of
tendency to supply misquotations of Josephus let alone to actually forge or interpolate the
manuscripts of his work.

1 Zeitlin, ‘The Christ Passage in Josephus’, 237–​40; Zeitlin, ‘The Slavonic Josephus’, 41–​50;
Zeitlin, ‘Josephus on Jesus’, 392–​9; Olson, ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 310–​14;
Olson, ‘A Eusebian Reading’; Feldman, ‘On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum’, 25–​8.
Scholars who have engaged with these arguments and have found them insufficient include Paget,
‘Some Observations’, 561–​3, 577–​8; Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium
Flavianum’; Bermejo-​Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 328; Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors,
206–​11. Whealey sums up Olson’s arguments, ‘although Olson has a few insightful points, his overall
linguistic analysis is based on an insufficient and occasionally inaccurate reading of both Eusebius’
works and Josephus’ works, and a few of his general arguments are logically flawed‘; see Whealey,
‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 73.
2 Olson, ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 318–​19. With these examples, Olson relies
heavily on Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 16–​17.
3 Olson, ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 319.
216 Appendix 1

The third passage, at Ecclesiastical History 2.23.20, concerns Eusebius’ treatment of

Josephus and James the brother of Jesus (Antiquities 20.200). There Eusebius incorrectly
states:

And indeed, Josephus does not shrink from witnessing to these things in the following
words ‘These things befell the Jews as punishment for James the Just, who was the brother
of Jesus who was called Christ, since the Jews killed him who was most just’.4 And the
same author records his death in the twentieth book of the Antiquities as follows. . . .5

Eusebius then goes on to quote from Josephus’ description of the death of James in
Antiquities 20.197, 199–​203. It is clear in all this that Eusebius would have us believe that the
above italicized sentence is also from the work of Josephus, yet it is in actuality found no-
where in his corpus. This is the one occasion where Eusebius does truly mangle a quotation

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

of Josephus, but even in this instance Eusebius is not creating or manufacturing any alter-
ations, but rather is accurately passing along a misquotation which was already before him.6
There are several reasons to conclude this. For one, it is improbable that Eusebius’
would have manufactured this quotation because it employs the phrase ‘brother of Jesus’
whereas Eusebius’ preferred vocabulary to describe James was the ‘brother of the Lord’ or
the ‘brother of the Savior’.7 More importantly, Eusebius even cautions that James was actu-
ally not physically related to Jesus, since, as he explains, James was the son of Joseph from a
previous marriage.8 So why would he have interpolated such a thing into Josephus’ work?9
Instead, what seems to be going on is that with the italicized sentence Eusebius has been
misled by his hero Origen (c.255 ce), whom sixty years prior to Eusebius had incorrectly as-
serted in his work Against Celsus that Josephus said ‘These things befell the Jews as punish-
ment for James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, since they killed
him who was most just’.10 Eusebius follows Origen’s characterization of Josephus word for
word, only making explicit implied words and changing the grammar from indirect speech
to direct speech.11
Because Eusebius inherited portions of Origen’s library,12 it is possible that Eusebius’
misquotation of Josephus was based on an interpolation that existed in the manuscripts
of Josephus that Eusebius had obtained from Origen. Yet, if this were the case, Eusebius
would not of course be responsible for interpolating the passage. The far more likely sce-
nario though is that Eusebius simply trusted Origen’s misquotation of Josephus and copied
the quotation directly from Origen’s Against Celsus.

4 ταῦτα δὲ συμβέβηκεν Ἰουδαίοις κατ’ ἐκδίκησιν Ἰακώβου τοῦ δικαίου, ὃς ἦν ἀδελϕὸς Ἰησοῦ
τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, ἐπειδήπερ δικαιότατον αὐτὸν ὄντα οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀπέκτειναν. Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History 2.23.20 (Schwartz and Mommsen, Eusebius Werke 2.1–​3: Die Kirchengeschichte,
vol. 1 p. 172 lines 9–​11.
5 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.20–​1.
6 See Appendix 2 pp. 235–9 for an additional discussion on this question.
7 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.12.4, 2.1.2, 23.1, 23.4, and the chapter heading of 2.23. For Jude,
see 3.19.1, 20.1.
8 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.1.2.
9 For a similar argument, see Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium
Flavianum’, 112.
10 ταῦτα συμβεβηκέναι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις κατ’ ἐκδίκησιν Ἰακώβου τοῦ δικαίου, ὃς ἦν ἀδελϕὸς Ἰησοῦ
τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, ἐπειδήπερ δικαιότατον αὐτὸν ὄντα ἀπέκτειναν. Origen, Against Celsus 1.47
(Marcovich, Origenes, 48 lines 12–​14.). Origen refers to this quotation in two other locations, Against
Celsus 2.13; Commentary on Matthew 10.17.
11 On this see Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum, 43 n. 2.
12 See p. 16.
 Appendix 1 217

Evidence for this is that Eusebius does not supply the title or book number for the work
of Josephus he is citing, as he does for his other Josephan quotations.13 This suggests that
Eusebius did not find the italicized quotation in any writing of Josephus and so could not
actually cite from where it came. Thus, he likely derived it from Origen. Apart from this, a
point that should not be forgotten is that were Eusebius to have been in the business of in-
terpolating passages, he surely would have inserted the noted quotation into manuscripts
of Josephus’ work, cited where it could be found, and been done with it. But there is no
persuasive evidence that the passage was ever inserted into manuscripts of Josephus.14 And
Eusebius appears to have refrained from inserting it even though he believed that the quota-
tion was authentically from Josephus.
Taken together, it is clear that Eusebius was by no means perfect, but even in these sup-
posedly signal cases of misquotation, none of them show Eusebius concocting new words

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

for Josephus, nor less any example of ‘rewriting Josephus’ or even of inserting passages in
the manuscripts of Josephus, as Olson claims.15

Eusebius’ Citational Practice

And all this accords with Eusebius’ citational practice. As Chapter 1 has made clear,
throughout his many hundreds or even thousands of quotations16 Eusebius repeatedly re-
frains from making substantive changes to texts, even when they contradict the Bible or are
potentially offensive toward Jesus. He, for example, points out that Josephus contradicts
the New Testament regarding the name of Agrippa, but does not alter Josephus’ text.17 In
another instance Eusebius does not bother to change contradictions between the dating of
Quirinius’ census in Josephus and the dating of the census in the Gospels.18 Most relevant is
that Eusebius does not alter the TF’s ambiguous or possibly negative statements about Jesus,
even though other scribes and translators did such things. Thus, Eusebius is our primary
witness to the TF’s potentially derogatory phrase ‘a certain Jesus’ (Ἰησοῦς τις), which many
scribes and translations omitted. He also preserves the fleshly sounding ‘with pleasure’
(ἡδονῇ); and maintains the perhaps negative ‘incredible’ or ‘strange‘ deeds (παράδοξα). He

13 Baras, ‘Testimonium Flavianum’, 311–​12.

14 On this, see Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 549–​52; Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and
the Testimonium Flavianum’, 108–​9. Inowlocki finds it convincing that Eusebius was merely recording
the passage that Origen had previously written; see Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors, 195.
Curiously, Olson also agrees; Olson, ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 318.
15 Olson, ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 319. Olson also attempts to cast Eusebius in
a suspicious light by showing that in his Life of Constantine he manufactured a speech of Licinus; see
Olson, ‘A Eusebian Reading’, 97–​8. But this is purely hypothetical since there is no evidence that the
speech has been forged, just the scholarly speculation that it might or could have been. As discussed
below, Eusebius has been accused of forging documents in the Life of Constantine before and been
vindicated. In any case, in the ancient world fictionalizing a speech was viewed as completely different
from interpolating manuscripts and forging passages. The one was an openly accepted practice of an-
cient historians from Thucydides onward (Keener, Acts, vol. 1 pp. 274–​82), while the other was greatly
frowned upon, especially by Eusebius himself, see Ecclesiastical History 5.20.2 and, for another similar
quote, n. 23. See also Kruger, ‘Early Christian Attitudes toward the Reproduction of Texts’.
16 Eusebius quotes from documents other than scripture about 250 times in his Ecclesiastical History;
see Lawlor and Oulton, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 2 p. 19. If one were to include Eusebius’ quotations
from scripture then probably he made thousands of quotations within his writings that are extant. For a
definition of ‘quotation’, see Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors, 6.
17 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.10.10; Antiquities 19.343–​50; Acts 12:19–​23.
18 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.5.3–​4; Antiquities 18.1–​2, 26; Luke 2:1; Matthew 2:1. On this, see
Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 20.
218 Appendix 1

further preserves the term ἐπηγάγετο which can be understood as ‘he led astray’.19 Why
keep these words if he was interpolating or forging the TF?20
Eusebius similarly refrains from altering passages in other authors, such as the Egyptian
Manetho, whose history he says is ‘reliable’ (հաստատագոյն ).21 But though admiring
Manetho for his accuracy, Eusebius still admits that Manetho’s Egyptian dynastic lists
contradict biblical history; yet he leaves such contradictions as they are and instead muses
about possible solutions.22 And all this quite agrees with what Eusebius himself thought of
forging or interpolating documents; for he wrote ‘May such an argument, that a falsehood
be composed for the praise and glory of Christ, never prevail in the church of Christ and of
God, the fathers of exact truth’.23
In fact, Eusebius has been accused of forgery and material interpolation by scholars in the
past and more than once has been vindicated. Certain scholars claimed that Eusebius fic-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

tionalized an edict of Constantine,24 but a remarkable discovery of a contemporary copy of
that very edict shows that Eusebius did not do so.25 Or again, in a survey of Eusebius’ habits
of citation, Sabrina Inowlocki alleged that Eusebius tampered with the TF when quoting
from it in his Demonstration by replacing the TF’s potentially negative phrase ‘receive with
pleasure’ (τῶν ἡδονῇ . . . δεχομένων) with the more pious ‘revere’ (σεβομένων).26 However,
Alice Whealey has proved that Eusebius did not change the TF at all, for in his Theophany,
Eusebius quotes his Demonstration quoting the TF, and there the TF is unaltered.27 Such
shows that a later scribe who copied the Demonstration must have been responsible for the
alteration, not Eusebius since Eusebius quotes himself quoting the passage accurately.
Inowlocki and also Hardwick further alleged that Eusebius altered Josephus’ descrip-
tion of an owl perched above Agrippa at his death in order to make it cohere with a par-
allel passage in the book of Acts which instead describes an angel at the event.28 Hardwick
writes ‘We see for the first time a conscious alteration of the Josephan text to make it serve
Eusebius’ purpose: the testimony of Josephus confirms the accuracy of the New Testament’.29
Inowlocki agreed, stating that in this passage Eusebius omitted βουβῶνα (which she trans-
lates as ‘rope’) and replaced it with ‘angel’ (ἄγγελον), resulting in a passage that looked
much more like that presented in the biblical book of Acts. There are several problems with

19 On each of these statements, see the relevant discussions in Chapter 3.

20 Olson also claims that the TF meets Eusebius’ apologetic too perfectly, to the point of being sus-
picious. Yet it is clear that Eusebius instead barely deploys the TF at all in favor of his apologetic; see
pp. 17–9. Various scholars have noted the same and have rejected Olson’s claims; see Inowlocki, Eusebius
and the Jewish Authors, 209; Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 562–​3; Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 23–​8.
21 Eusebius, Chronicon, ‘Egyptian Chronicle’ (ed. Aucher (Awgerean), vol. 1 p. 199 line 21). For an-
other translation, see Bedrosian, Eusebius’ Chronicle, §43.
22 Eusebius, Chronicon, ‘Egyptian Chronicle’ (ed. Aucher (Awgerean) pp. 200–​ 2; trans.
Bedrosian §44).
23 μὴ δὴ κρατοίη τοιοῦτος λόγος ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ πατέρων ἀκριβοῦς ἀληθείας, ὅτι
ψεῦδος σύγκειται εἰς αἶνον καὶ δοξολογίαν Χριστοῦ. Eusebius, Gospel Problems and Solutions, To
Stephanus 4.1 (Greek fragment 8) (My translation from Pearse, Eusebius of Caesarea: Gospel Problems,
36–​7 [146–​7]). See also Pearse ‘Eusebius the Liar’.
24 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2.24–​42.
25 Jones and Skeat, ‘Notes on the Genuineness of the Constantinian Documents in Eusebius’ Life of
Constantine’.
26 Inowlocki believes that this change was purposeful, ‘I find it hard to believe that this textual
variant reading results from a mere coincidence’; Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors, 211. See
also Olson, ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 313; Thackeray, Josephus, 144.
27 Whealey, ‘Eusebius and the Jewish Authors’, 360–​1.
28 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.10.6; Josephus, Antiquities 19.346; Acts 12:23; Inowlocki,
Eusebius and the Jewish Authors, 194; Hardwick, Josephus as an Historical Source, 82, 122.
29 Hardwick, Josephus as an Historical Source, 82.
 Appendix 1 219

this accusation. Firstly, βουβῶν means ‘owl’, not ‘rope’. Secondly, in Eusebius’ quotation
Josephus himself calls the owl an ‘angel’ immediately afterward, so Eusebius is not guilty of
replacing βουβῶνα with ἄγγελον but only, perhaps, of omitting the term βουβῶνα. Thirdly,
Eusebius is in all likelihood not even guilty of that particular sin of omission since the two
earliest manuscripts of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History do contain βουβῶνα precisely where
it should be.30
Inowlocki also argues that, in his Preparation, Eusebius alters quotations of Plato to
Christianize his philosophy.31 Yet Eusebius himself was no apologist for Plato, and in the
Preparation itself he dedicates numerous chapters against Plato entitled variously ‘that all
things are not rightly stated by Plato, therefore it is not unreasonable that we have rejected
his philosophy’; ‘that Plato is not entirely accurate’; ‘that Plato did not properly present
an opinion concerning the soul’, and several more.32 In fact almost half of book 13 of the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Preparation is devoted to Eusebius refuting Plato. Hence it is not at all clear why in this
same work Eusebius would have changed a passage in Plato when he was also so willing to
proclaim Plato’s errors. It seems more likely that the Platonic passages Inowlocki believes
to have been changed by Eusebius were, in reality, already corrupted in the manuscript
Eusebius or his assistants had before them.33
What all of these examples demonstrate is that no one has been able to find even a single
instance of Eusebius gravely interpolating passages,34 let alone of forging or otherwise al-
tering a passage and then inserting it into the manuscript of another author. This is why
the list is so long of scholars who have praised Eusebius for his accurate quotations—​K arl
Dindorf, Jacob Freudenthal, Paul Henry, Hermann Diels, Édouard des Places, Robert
Grant, Gregory Sterling, J. Coman, Heinz Schreckenberg, and André Pelletier—​sometimes
these scholars even used Eusebius’ quotations to correct manuscripts of other texts.35
Because of this, even the often-​critical Hardwick will say that Eusebius was ‘generally
faithful to his source, paraphrasing only seldom’36 and the sometimes skeptical Inowlocki
also acknowledges that Eusebius typically has ‘great accuracy’ when it comes to his citations,
such that he is unlike ‘most of his predecessors’.37

30 On this, see Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 107
n. 94; Schwartz and Mommsen, Eusebius Werke 2.1–​3: Die Kirchengeschichte, GCS 9.1 p. 128 line 9
and notes.
31 Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors, 87–​8.
32 The titles of these chapters are taken from table of contents of Preparation book 13 c­ hapters 14–​16;
for the Greek text, see Mras, Eusebius Werke 8.1–​2. Die Praeparatio Evangelica, vol. 2 p. 164 lines 9–​13.
33 In a study of the quality of the manuscripts that Eusebius possessed, Schwartz remarks that
the manuscripts were ‘not always especially good and correct’ (nicht immer eine besonders gute und
correcte); see Schwartz and Mommsen, Eusebius Werke 2.1–​3: Die Kirchengeschichte, vol. 3 p. cliii. It is
possible also that the corruptions might have been carried out by Eusebius as a matter of accident.
34 The best example of an interpolation I have seen is when Eusebius (Preparation 8.9.27) may in-
sert the words ‘and upon the cities and houses for protection’ (καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πόλεων καὶ οἰκήσεων διὰ τὸ
σκεπάζεσθαι) into a quotation of the Letter of Aristeas so as, perhaps, to subtly make the Jewish practice
of writing the words of scripture on doors and gates accord with Eusebius’ contemporary Christian
practice of using the sign of the cross as a means of protection. But all of this is very speculative and it
cannot be discounted that the words are actually authentic, or were inserted by someone other than
Eusebius. In any case, if Eusebius did manipulate the text, it would be an isolated example and a fairly
innocuous one at that. For discussion, see Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors, 193–​4.
35 These scholars are listed and discussed in Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors, 85–​7, 191–​3.
36 Hardwick, Josephus as an Historical Source, 69.
37 Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors, 71. She will go on to caution however that ‘Eusebius
was at least able to tamper with the text’ and then I think too suspiciously interprets his faithfulness only
as a means to disguise his dishonesty: ‘he displays honesty throughout the rest of his work on textual
matters and keeps claiming his willingness to be objective as possible’ so that he might get ‘his reader
220 Appendix 1

The worst that can be shown of Eusebius is that he occasionally nips and tucks quota-
tions, trimming words every once in a while, plugging in a synonym here, inserting a
clarification there, or presenting a passage in an uncontextualized way. This has been dem-
onstrated by the results of two different studies. First is the monograph by Inowlocki who
surveys Eusebius’ quotations of Jewish authors in his Demonstration and his Preparation.38
In her work she notes seven occasions in which Eusebius presented a quotation without due
context, but many of these seem to my eyes debatable or fairly minor, and of course none of
them involve interpolations or omissions.39
She further notes thirteen occasions of ‘textual changes’,40 but six of these are small omis-
sions that are arguably all either innocuous or speculative enough so that it is not even clear
if Eusebius actually omitted anything.41 Another is an alleged interpolation, but the only
other textual witness to the passage is an Armenian translation which contains the same

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

wording as Eusebius—​so why consider it an interpolation by Eusebius?42 Another is not
even a quotation, but two paraphrastic summaries, and both are quoted accurately by
Eusebius elsewhere.43 Another features basically synonymous word swapping, but again
Eusebius accurately quotes the same passage in another work.44 Another presents clarifying
additions, and yet again, Eusebius accurately quotes the passage in a different location.45
All that is left is one quotation where Eusebius swapped in what can be viewed as a simple
clarifying synonym (but if not, he accurately cites the passage elsewhere),46 another where
he may have changed a single letter (though even here scholars do not agree that the change
substantially altered the meaning or that Eusebius even changed the text),47 and finally,
another where Eusebius quotes the TF.48 With this, Inowlocki thinks Eusebius accurately
cited the TF in his Ecclesiastical History, but made one small change in his Demonstration—​
though, as I discussed above, this charge has been disproven by Whealey. All that to say
is that, in her study, Inowlocki cannot find any substantial changes that Eusebius made to
quotations and, in fact, has difficulty finding even minor changes.
Lawlor and Oulton also performed a study on the approximately 250 quotations Eusebius
presented in his Ecclesiastical History49 and found similar results. While canvassing these
quotations, they enumerate fifty in which Eusebius omitted text and, of these omissions,

into the habit of trusting him. The changes are even more efficient when they are scattered and discrete’.
Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors, 89.

38 Inowlocki more briefly surveyed Eusebius’ citations of non-​Jewish authors as well, and there al-
leged, I think improperly, that Eusebius altered quotations of Plato. For discussion see p. 219.
39 Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors, 168–​72.
40 Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors, 195–​220.
41 In what follows I transcribe Inowlocki’s citations while changing the titles of works to co-
here with the titles I give in this volume: Preparation 7.13.3 =​Philo, De agricultura 51; Preparation
8.13.2 =​Philo, De opificio mundi 8; Preparation 8.14.1 =​Philo, De providentia 2.3; Preparation
13.18.15 =​Philo, De specialibus legibus 1.17; Preparation 13.18.16 =​De specialibus legibus 1.20;
Demonstration 8.2.402d =​Josephus, War 6.299.
42 Preparation 7.13.1–​2 =​Philo, Quaestiones in Genesim 2.62.
43 Demonstration 8.2.402d–​403a =​Josephus, Antiquities 18.55–9; War 2.169–70 =​Philo, Legatio ad
Gaium 299.
44 Demonstration 8.2.399a =​Josephus, Antiquities 18.34–​5.
45 Demonstration 8.2.397d–​398a =​Josephus, Antiquities 20.247–​9; Demonstration 8.2.398b =​Josephus,
Antiquities 18.92–​3.
46 Demonstration 9.5.431a–​b =​Josephus, Antiquities 18.116–​17.
47 Preparation 7.13.4–​6 =​Philo, De plantatione 8–​10.
48 Demonstration 3.5.1 24b–​c =​Josephus, Antiquities 18.63–​4.
49 Lawlor and Oulton, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 2 pp. 19–​27.
 Appendix 1 221

thirty-​five led to an obscuring of some of the ‘sense’ of the passage.50 But from their discus-
sions of these thirty-​five cases, it is clear that most examples are innocuous and simply omit
antecedents for pronouns and other similar things, and do not alter the overall thrust of the
passage.51 Most crucially, not a single one of these examples shows Eusebius actually adding
words to a quotation.
And in fact, the omissions that Eusebius does make are quite minor. This is in evi-
dence with the two most egregious omissions that Lawlor and Oulton present. In the first,
Eusebius quotes Josephus introducing himself, but Eusebius omits the phrase ‘by race a
Hebrew’ (γένει Ἑβραῖος).52 However, the earliest Greek manuscript of the War also omits
this phrase53 and Eusebius states clearly in the very next verse that Josephus was Jewish.54
Therefore, it is not clear that Eusebius actually omitted this information (for it may have
been missing in the manuscript he was using), but if he did omit the phrase, it should be

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

classified as an inconsequential and innocent omission since Eusebius asserts the omitted
information directly after quoting the passage.55
In what is perhaps the most serious example of omission, Eusebius tries to prove from
a passage in Josephus that Jesus ministered for not quite four full years.56 In this quota-
tion, Eusebius omits vital chronological information from immediately before and after the
quotation that disproves Eusebius’ theory.57 However, the quotation itself also disproves
Eusebius’ theory.58 And, further, the quotation is also accurate. In other words, though
Eusebius has omitted important surrounding material, he does not seem to have done so
with any ill intent because otherwise, why would he accurately quote material that disproves
his own theory? Why not alter the quotation or simply give a distorted paraphrase? This and
like instances led Lawlor and Oulton to conclude that Eusebius was recalling passages from
a sometimes-​faulty memory and then marking off quotations for a secretary to later insert.59
Importantly, this and other examples do not show Eusebius adding or interpolating ma-
terial into his quotations. At worst they show that, on occasion, he might omit the context of
a passage or, more rarely, make slight omissions. But even more importantly, these examples
certainly do not show Eusebius inserting alterations into the manuscripts of another author.

50 Lawlor and Oulton rightly point out that the number of quotations that omit some kind of ma-
terial is likely higher than the fifty quotations they identified because about half of the 250 quotations
given by Eusebius no longer have extant documents by which scholars may check their accuracy. This
however is partially mitigated by the fact that Eusebius will often give summaries of these quotations
elsewhere thus allowing scholars to identify missing material; see Lawlor and Oulton, Ecclesiastical
History, vol. 2 pp. 19, 23.
51 Lawlor and Oulton, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 2 pp. 20–​4.
52 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.9.1 quoting from War 1.3.
53 According to Niese this is MS P or Codex Parisinus Graecus Gr. 1425 from the eleventh century;
see Niese, Flavii Iosephi Opera, vol. 6 p. V, 3.
54 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.9.2.
55 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.9.2.
56 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.10.2–​5.
57 Eusebius quotes from Antiquities 18.33–​5, however he begins in the middle of verse 33 and con-
cludes in the middle of verse 35. The beginning of 33 shows that the timeframe of the passage com-
mences at the very start of the reign of Tiberius, not near the fifteenth year of his reign, which is required
in Eusebius’ chronological theory. The ending of verse 35 contains additional information showing
that several of the High Priests stipulated by Josephus did not serve during the governorship of Pontius
Pilate, again disproving Eusebius’ theory.
58 The information that Eusebius does quote shows that one High Priest served for a very short pe-
riod of time and another served for an uncertain amount of time. Eusebius however claimed that all
four High Priests each served for about a year, thus allowing for a slightly less than four-​year ministry
for Jesus.
59 Lawlor and Oulton, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 2 p. 26.
222 Appendix 1

What is the most interesting though is that, of the thirty-five quotations classified by
Lawlor and Oulton as obscuring some part of the original sense of a passage through omis-
sion, twenty stem from documents that no longer survive. Lawlor and Oulton were able
to conclude that Eusebius’ quotations had omitted material because Eusebius elsewhere
summarizes their content, and in these he reveals missing text.60 This once more led them
to conclude that Eusebius himself was not responsible for preparing the quotations in his
Ecclesiastical History (an arduous endeavor in the pre-printing press world), but had as-
signed this task to a secretary who did not always live up to the job.61
The fact that Eusebius reveals missing text in his discussions of various quotations has
great relevance for the authenticity of the TF. For throughout his writings Eusebius quotes
and discusses the TF three times, and in no instance does he give any hint that material had
been omitted from the TF. Therefore, though Eusebius will on occasion omit material in his

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

quotations, when he does do so the omissions are insignificant and his other quotations of
the same passage tend to reveal such omissions. But though Eusebius quotes the TF three
times, none of them suggest that he omitted material.

Conclusion
We may learn from the above examples that while Eusebius was not perfect and did make
mistakes, he also had numerous motives and opportunities to alter passages, yet he consist-
ently chose not to do so. In fact, not a single example can be found in hundreds of oppor-
tunities where Eusebius significantly altered a quotation, let alone where he interpolated
material into the manuscript of another author. Further, those instances where Eusebius
makes minor (and relatively insignificant) omissions are often revealed when Eusebius
quotes or discusses the same passage elsewhere. Yet Eusebius quotes the TF three times
and in none of the cases does he reveal different material. Given the character of Eusebius’
citational practice, fairness would assume that he did not interpolate or otherwise alter the
TF—​unless specific evidence arises.

Stylistic Parallels between the TF and Eusebius

But Olson, Feldman, and certain others believe that just such specific evidence can be
found. For this they point to three different phrases within the TF that supposedly match
the style of Eusebius far more than that of Josephus. Feldman even writes that these phrases
‘are found elsewhere in Eusebius and in no other author’.62 Thus, the three phrases allegedly
furnish the unmistakable stylistic fingerprint of Eusebius. Let us now turn and examine this
evidence for ourselves.

60 Lawlor and Oulton, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 2 p. 23. For other examples, see p. 220.
61 Lawlor and Oulton, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 2 pp. 24–​7.
62 Feldman, ‘On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum’, 26. See also Olson, ‘Eusebius and
the Testimonium Flavianum’, 313. For a through critique of this, see Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of
Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 80–​4, 96–​105; Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 577–​8; Pearse,
‘Feldman, the Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius and the TLG’; Pearse, ‘Words, Words, Words’.
 Appendix 1 223

εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν

‘until now’
The TF’s phrase ‘until now’ (εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν) is said by Feldman and Olson to be a favorite
of Eusebius, but one not used by any other Greek writer.63 Yet, this ignores the fact that
the textual witnesses for this phrase in the TF are quite diverse. In consequence, it is by no
means clear that the TF originally stated εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν and not another synonymous variant
like εἰς τε νῦν, which is not used by Eusebius.64
In fact, the two earliest manuscripts of the Antiquities instead read εἰς τε νῦν65 and sev-
eral patristic writers who had direct access to the Antiquities also give the same reading.66
The third earliest manuscript of the Antiquities has another reading altogether with εἰς ἔτι
τε καὶ νῦν, but this phrase is also not used by Eusebius.67 I cannot find a manuscript of the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Antiquities that actually reads εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν.
The closest are manuscripts that only excerpt the TF and are not continuous copies of
the Antiquities. As such, these may not be quoting the TF from the Antiquities directly but
instead may be quoting Eusebius (who does quote the TF with εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν). Even so, one of
the two earliest of these excerpts has the slightly different εἰς ἔτι καὶ νῦν.68
It seems that the reason past editors of Josephus’ work have settled on εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν as the
original reading of the TF is because Eusebius quotes it that way in his Ecclesiastical History.
But Eusebius quotes the phrase differently in his Demonstration as the synonymous ὅθεν
εἰσέτι νῦν,69 and two important manuscripts of the Ecclesiastical History also have different
though still synonymous readings.70 So why rely on Eusebius? Given that the two earliest
manuscripts of the Antiquities read εἰς τε νῦν and that patristic writers who had direct access
to the Antiquities read the same (and because many witnesses like Eusebius have a range of
synonymous readings), I think plausibility clearly favors εἰς τε νῦν over εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν.
And the shorter εἰς τε νῦν is no marker of Eusebian authorship because it turns out that
Eusebius never uses it. But whether one settles on εἰς τε νῦν or εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν, I show in
Chapters 3 and 4 that both phrases have parallels with Josephus, making either plausibly
Josephan. Indeed, Josephus seems to have enjoyed deploying ἔτι and νῦν in unique ways,
using both words together in seven unique phrases throughout his work and only νῦν in

63 Feldman, ‘On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum’, 26; Olson, ‘Eusebius and the
Testimonium Flavianum’, 312; Olson, ‘A Eusebian Reading’, 109–​10.
64 A TLG search of Eusebius’ corpus revealed no instances where he uses the phrase εἰς τε νῦν
(searched May 22, 2020, and June 24, 2022). Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the
Testimonium Flavianum’, 101–​3.
65 MS Ambrosianae F 128 (eleventh century) f. 274v line 7; MS Vatican gr.984 (1354 ce) 152v line 31.
See Images 1 and 2.
66 Such as Pseudo-​Sophronius and Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and perhaps the author of
Dissertatio contra Judaeos. In addition to these, Isidore of Pelusium had independent access to the
Antiquities and has the alternative phrase εἰς δὲ τὸ νῦν. Oecumenius also knew the Antiquities and he
reads εἴ τε νῦν. John Zonarus has εἰσέτι νῦν. For citations of these writers, see Chapter 1. For discussion,
see Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 102–​3.
67 MS BML.Plut 69.10 (fourteenth/​fifteenth century) f360v left column line 23. In the manuscript
the third word is written as a kind of superscript above the line as in εἰς ἔτι τε καὶ νῦν. See Image 3.
68 MS Vatican gr.342 (1087–​8 ce) f. 282v line 22. MS Vatican gr.148 (tenth/​eleventh century ce)
f. 214v line 12 which excerpts the TF does however have the reading εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν. See Images 4 and 5.
69 Eusebius, Demonstration 3.5.106 (124c) (ed. Heikel GCS 23 p. 131 line 1).
70 Schwartz and Mommsen, Eusebius Werke 2.1–​3: Die Kirchengeschichte, GCS 9.1 p. 80, label
these manuscripts as B (MS Paris Graecus 1431) which reads εἰς ἔτι νῦν and D (MS Paris Graecus
1433) which reads εἰς ἔτι γε νῦν.
224 Appendix 1

twelve unique phrases, so we should not be surprised if he decided to follow his practice
in the TF. It is also possible that some other synonymous turn of phrase was originally de-
ployed by Josephus since the textual witnesses attest to so many various, albeit equivalent
stylizations. In any event, the evidence clearly favors εἰς τε νῦν as being the original wording
of Josephus and this does not point to Eusebius as interpolator.71

τῶν Χριστιανῶν . . . τὸ ϕῦλον

‘the tribe of the Christians’
Secondly, the TF’s phrase ‘tribe of the Christians’ (τῶν Χριστιανῶν . . . τὸ ϕῦλον) is claimed
to be twice used by Eusebius and no other author before him.72 I must say though that

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

this is not a fair portrayal of the case at all. While Eusebius twice uses the phrase (τῶν
Χριστιανῶν . . . τὸ ϕῦλον) both instances occur in quotations that Eusebius makes of a
summary of Emperor Trajan’s letter about Christians.73 It is true that in the original Latin
of Trajan’s letter there is no Latin equivalent for the term ‘tribe’ of the Christians,74 but
this does not suggest that Eusebius was in the habit of interpolating such phrases into the
writings of non-​Christians. The reason for this is that, as Eusebius tells us, he derived his
account of Trajan’s letter not from the Latin letter itself but rather from a summary of the
letter found in a Greek translation of the Latin Apology of Tertullian.75 Unfortunately, this
translation is lost, but in the original Latin of Tertullian’s Apology it is clear that Tertullian’s
summary of Trajan’s letter does include the Latin term ‘race’ (genus), a rough synonym for
the Greek ϕῦλον.76
So then, it seems most likely that it was the Greek translation of Tertullian’s Apology,77
which used τῶν Χριστιανῶν . . . τὸ ϕῦλον to translate the Latin genus, not Eusebius, who

71 For further discussion on ἔτι and νῦν in Josephus, see pp. 103–4, 126–7, 135. Some may wonder
why I consider ἔτι to be likely inauthentic but have thought τις to be authentic, since the main evidence
for both words comes from Eusebius. On this see Chapter 4 n. 68.
72 Olson, ‘A Eusebian Reading’, 109–​10; Olson, ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 312–​
13; Zeitlin, ‘The Christ Passage in Josephus’, 237–​40, 253–​4; Feldman, ‘On the Authenticity of the
Testimonium Flavianum’, 25–​6. For critiques of this claim, see Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 577–​8;
Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 96–​100.
73 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.33.2, 4 (ed. Schwartz and Mommsen, Eusebius Werke 2.1–​3: Die
Kirchengeschichte, 272 line 8, page 274 line 2).
74 Pliny, Letter 10.97 (ed. Merrill, pp. 301–​2).
75 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.33.3. Eusebius earlier had said that the Apology of Tertullian had
been translated into Greek, Ecclesiastical History 2.2.4. This translation may have come from Tertullian
himself, for he did write works in Greek (Tertullian, De baptismo 15; De corona 6.3; and perhaps De
virginibus velandis 1.1). According to NPNCF2 (vol. 1 p. 106 n. 9) Eusebius likely knew Latin quite
poorly because he only is familiar with Latin works that were translated into Greek and shows great
unfamiliarity with Latin literature in general. Eusebius does on one occasion say that he translated one
small rescript from Latin into Greek ‘to the best of our ability’ (Ecclesiastical History 4.8.8), implying
that he was not very proficient; see Lawlor and Oulton, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 2 pp. 36–​7. Harnack
makes a far more thorough investigation and comes to similar conclusions. He believes, however, that
the translation that Eusebius used of Tertullian was also likely used by Julius Africanus; see Harnack,
‘Die griechische Übersetzung des Apologeticus Tertullian’s’.
76 Tunc Traianus rescripsit hoc genus inquirendos quidem non esse, oblatos vero puniri oportere.
Tertullian, Apology 2.7 (ed. Dekkers, Qvintus Septimius Florens Tertvlliani, 88 lines 32–​3.) When
Tertullian made his summary, he may have been thinking of how other non-​Christians around the
time of Trajan referred to Christians, such as Suetonius, who does label Christians a genus. On this, see
n. 79 below.
77 This translation may have been carried out by Tertullian himself; see n. 75 above.
 Appendix 1 225

is guilty only of persevering the term and being honest about his sources.78 Consequently,
this supposed stylistic connection between the TF and Eusebius is extremely tenuous since
Eusebius never seems to have used the phrase himself, but only quoted others using the
phrase.
Further, I show in Chapter 3 that there is good reason to think that non-​Christians em�-
ployed the term ϕῦλον with reference to Christians toward the end of the first century,
exactly when Josephus wrote. Around this time, the non-​Christian writer Suetonius made
use of the Latin ethnic term genus to characterize Christians.79 And, genus was used else-
where to translate the term ϕῦλον.80 Conversely, ϕῦλον was used to translate the Latin genus
in the Greek translation of Tertullian’s summary of Trajan’s letter. Thus, there is ample evi-
dence that ϕῦλον and genus were interchangeable equivalents. The logical deduction is that
if around the end of the first century Suetonius could use genus to speak of Christians then

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Josephus could use ϕῦλον to do the same.

παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής

‘a doer of incredible deeds’
The third phrase of the TF that is said to be more Eusebian than Josephan is ‘a doer of in-
credible deeds’ (παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής). Olson, followed by Feldman, have pointed
out that no other Greek authors make use of it before 300 ce,81 except that is for Eusebius,
who uses it nine times according to my count.82 They then conclude that such a phrase must
be the unmistakable mark of Eusebius’ tampering. This is their most powerful argument in
favor of Eusebian forgery.
Yet, a careful analysis of Eusebius’ usage pattern tells a different story. Instead of finding
the phrase dispersed throughout Eusebius’ works—​as one would expect if it was a habitual
turn of phrase of his—​the noted expression first appears clustered around Eusebius’ quota-
tions of the TF and then only later does the phrase arise independently of the TF. To put it
another way, Eusebius only begins deploying the phrase independently of the TF twenty or
more years after he had first (and then repeatedly) encountered it in the TF. To me this more
probably indicates that Eusebius had been inspired by the TF to use the phrase, not that he
inserted it into the TF.

78 Because we no longer have the extant Greek translation of Tertullian’s Apology it is unknown
whether the Greek translator translated Tertullian’s Latin word genus with ϕῦλον or with τῶν
Χριστιανῶν . . . τὸ ϕῦλον, but even if the translator only used ϕῦλον then Eusebius has merely added the
Greek τῶν Χριστιανῶν for the sake of clarity.
79 Afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae. Suetonius, Twelve
Caesars, Nero 6.16.2 (ed. Rolfe vol. 38 p. 110 lines 15–​17).
80 See Rufinus’ Latin version of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 1.11.8 (Schwartz and Mommsen,
Eusebius Werke 2.1–​3: Die Kirchengeschichte, GCS 9.1 p. 81 line 9). Rufinus for some reason decides
not to translate the term in his version of Ecclesiastical History 3.33.2 and actually omits the entirety of
Trajan’s reply in his translation of 3.33.3, see Chapter 3 n. 330.
81 Olson, ‘A Eusebian Reading’, 103; Olson, ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 310;
Feldman, ‘On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum’, 22, 26. For thorough responses to Olson,
see Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 577; Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium
Flavianum’, 80–​4.
82 To confirm this, I ran a TLG lemma proximity search for παράδοξος, ἔργον, and ποιητής within
five words of each other in the whole corpus of Greek literature (June 25, 2022). I exclude quotations of
the TF from my total numbers. There may be one hagiography that deploys the phrase before 300 ce,
but its dating is uncertain; see Vitae Sancti Sebastiani et Sociorum TLG# 5219.001 §17 line 10.
226 Appendix 1

Thus, Eusebius first uses the phrase in 313 ce for his Ecclesiastical History83 where he de-
ploys it several chapters before he quotes the same phrase in the TF.84 Then, between 318
and 323 ce, Eusebius uses the phrase four times in his Demonstration, all of which cluster
shortly before and after his quotation of the phrase in the TF.85 In 326 ce he encountered
the phrase again when he quoted the TF in his Theophany.86 Throughout this time he also
would have encountered the phrase several times in the TF as he issued new editions of
his Ecclesiastical History. Only at this point, after encountering the phrase numerous times
over twenty years, does Eusebius begin to deploy it independently of the TF, doing so in his
Commentary on the Psalms (c.335 ce),87 his Commentary on Isaiah (c.337 ce),88 and his Life
of Constantine (c.337 ce).89
Some might object that because Eusebius first uses the phrase in his Ecclesiastical History
several chapters before the TF, he therefore must have first used the phrase independently

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

and afterward interpolated it into the TF. However, Eusebius was a master of the quotation,
and we might expect he would use key turns of phrase to subtly prepare readers for their use
in upcoming quotations, especially if he was going to quote a potentially negative phrase like
παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής.
All must at least agree that this is what Eusebius did when he deployed the phrase
παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής in his Demonstration before quoting it within the TF. In this in-
stance, some kind of habitual usage of the phrase could not have inspired him to interpolate
it into the TF, because the phrase had already existed in the TF at least some five or ten years
earlier when he quoted it in his Ecclesiastical History. Therefore, in his Demonstration he
must have been inspired to deploy the phrase before the TF because either he consciously
wanted to calibrate his reader’s understanding of such an ambiguous phrase or because it
had been subconsciously suggested to him in his preparatory research, as happens to any
of us when we are reading and speaking about other authors. But if we grant that in the
Demonstration Eusebius was inspired to deploy the phrase παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής due
to his planned quotation of it in the TF, then should we not suppose that the same thing oc-
curred the first time he used the phrase in his Ecclesiastical History?
All things considered, it is reasonable that after repeatedly encountering and quoting a
phrase over many years, Eusebius would then begin using it himself. What is more, there is
little plausibility that Eusebius would go to the trouble of concocting a phrase that he knew
opponents of Christianity would readily admit was true, or even one that was vulnerable
to negative interpretation. For as I show in Chapter 3, the opponents of Christianity were
quite willing to state that Jesus performed παράδοξα and Eusebius himself knew that such
a term had connotations with illicit magical deeds.90 If Eusebius knew the phrase could be

83 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.2.23.

84 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7.
85 Eusebius, Demonstration 3.4.21 [107e], 3.5.59 [115b], 3.5.103 [123d], 3.7.4 [134d]. He uses the
phrase in the TF in 3.5.105 [124b]. For the dating of the Ecclesiastical History and the Demonstration,
see p. 16. Note that Olson’s dating for the works of Eusebius is mistaken; see Olson, ‘Eusebius and the
Testimonium Flavianum’, 307, 313.
86 The Theophany is only preserved in Syriac and hence its Greek usage of the phrase is not included
in my total calculations.
87 Commentary on the Psalms PG 23.984 line 57, 23.1033 line 46 (=​TLG 2018.034). For the dating of
this work, see Armstrong, Eusebius of Caesarea: Commentary on Isaiah, xxv.
88 Commentary on Isaiah 2.57 line 62 (=​TLG 2018.019). For the dating of this work, see Armstrong,
xxi–​x xv.
89 Life of Constantine 1.18.2 line 4 (=​TLG 2018.020). This work celebrates the life and death of
Constantine, and hence must have been written after he died in 337 ce; see Armstrong, xxv.
90 For further discussion of this, see pp. 18–9.
 Appendix 1 227

interpreted in a negative fashion, why would he choose to interpolate it?91 In consequence,

the ambiguous nature of the phrase also points to the improbability that Eusebius was re-
sponsible for inserting it. And, as I argue in Chapters 1 and 2, this very ambiguity was sensed
by other Christian writers as well.

Conclusion
Eusebius is a highly unlikely candidate for forging the TF. Studies of his citational prac-
tice show him never to have substantially altered quotations, and he himself warned
against doing anything of the sort. Further, the three phrases in the TF that allegedly match
Eusebius’ style more than Josephus’ are all highly problematic. The TF’s phrase εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

is used only by Eusebius and no other author, but the manuscripts of the Antiquities show
that the original reading was likely εἰς τε νῦν, which is not used by Eusebius. Secondly, τῶν
Χριστιανῶν . . . τὸ ϕῦλον is once again used by Eusebius, but the words are only present
within quotations that Eusebius makes of others and hence are not his own words. Evidence
also suggests that ϕῦλον was a term non-​Christians used to refer to Christians around when
Josephus was writing. Lastly, παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής is only first used by Eusebius
in and around where he quotes from the TF. It is then some twenty or so years later, after
Eusebius had quoted from the TF several times, that he begins using the phrase independ-
ently of the TF. Not only this, but the term was open to negative interpretation and hence
would be highly unlikely for a Christian like Eusebius to interpolate. Given this, it seems
more probable that Eusebius adopted the phrase from the TF, rather than interpolating the
phrase into the TF. All this evidence aside, it does not make much sense that if Eusebius was
interpolating the TF, he would have left behind (or inserted) so many ambiguous or even
potentially negative sounding phrases into it. Lastly, Josephus’ style is evident throughout
the entire TF, and it is unlikely that Eusebius, or anyone else, would have been able to so
closely mimic Josephus’ stylistic markers. This is especially improbable given that many of
these stylistic parallels have been unknown until the advent of computer-​assisted searches.

Addendum
When the manuscript of this book was already with the publisher, I became aware of a re-
cent article by Chrissy Hansen to which I would like to make a brief reply.92 Hansen argues
that all versions of the Testimonium Flavianum—​whether preserved in current manuscripts
of the Antiquities or in other quotations—​can be traced back to Eusebius of Caesarea. From
this Hansen concludes that the only witness to the TF is effectively Eusebius and that, in
turn, Eusebius is likely the one responsible for interpolating the whole TF.93 The present
appendix has shown though that Eusebius is singularly unlikely to have interpolated the TF.
Beyond this, there is also good evidence that Eusebius is not the source for the TF as found
in the manuscripts of the Antiquities nor is he the source for certain other writers who quote
the TF. Hence such witnesses independently confirm the text of the TF.

91 The ambiguity of the phrase is important here, for it seems that when someone deploys it in a
favorable context (as Eusebius does elsewhere) then the context marks it as positive. But when it is de-
ployed without a clear favorable context, as in the TF, then it becomes ambiguous.
92 Hansen, ‘Reception of the Testimonium Flavianum’.
93 Hansen, 68–​9.
228 Appendix 1

The first witness to the TF outside of Eusebius is Pseudo-Hegesippus (c.370 ce),

whom Hansen admits knew of Josephus’ Antiquities. Hansen however dismisses
Pseudo-Hegesippus’ value as a direct source since she thinks he did not read Josephus particu-
larly closely94—​but of course that is beside the point and still shows that Pseudo-Hegesippus
knew the Antiquities directly. Hansen’s arguments that Pseudo-Hegesippus did not
read Josephus closely are also insufficient insofar as the only evidence for this is that
Pseudo-Hegesippus did not closely follow Josephus’ text. Yet Pseudo-Hegesippus feels at
great liberty to change his sources drastically,95 so this is not good evidence of inattentive
reading but only of a willingness to alter sources.
Turning to argue that Pseudo-Hegesippus was dependent on Eusebius, Hansen points
to vague parallels between Pseudo-Hegesippus and Eusebius, parallels like the fact that
Pseudo-Hegesippus and Eusebius both discuss John the Baptist while discussing Jesus.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

But Hansen omits that Pseudo-Hegesippus discusses John after Jesus, just like Josephus
does, but not like Eusebius. This would be unlikely if Eusebius was the source for Pseudo-
Hegesippus.96 Furthermore, Pseudo-Hegesippus summarizes the TF as claiming that ‘they
believed in him’ (crediderunt in eum) which is not what Eusebius’ version of the TF stated
and which sounds much more like the genuine version witnessed by Jerome ‘he was be-
lieved to be the Christ’ (credebatur esse Christus). It also sounds very similar to the ver-
sion presented by Jacob of Edessa ‘it was thought that he was the Christ’ (‫ܡܣܬܒܪܐ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ‬
‫)ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ‬.97 On the issue of dependency, Carson Bay’s recent and excellent study on
Pseudo-Hegesippus lists the Antiquities as a direct source for Pseudo-Hegesippus, but
Bay does not mention Eusebius as a source.98 All told then, the evidence favors treating
Pseudo-Hegesippus as a source for the TF that is independent of Eusebius.
Hansen also tries to dismiss Jerome (c.393 ce) as an independent source by claiming
that Jerome followed Pseudo-Hegesippus due to what seem to be again vague parallels
between the two.99 I note further that Jerome must be following the TF directly since his
translation follows the Greek precisely, something that would be impossible if Jerome had
instead followed the greatly exaggerated version of Pseudo-Hegesippus. Jerome also must
have had direct access to the Antiquities because his version contains the variant ‘he was
believed to be the Christ’ which Eusebius does not have. Hansen’s only response to this is
to conjecture that Christian authors found the TF too Christian to be plausible, so they
tried to reduce such pro-Christian content100—​yet I show that Jerome had no compunc-
tion to exaggerate claims in Josephus in a pro-​Christian way and that he even does so in
his comments immediately after the TF.101 Furthermore, if there really were Christian
authors willing to diminish the Christian content of the TF, as Hansen claims, then why
suspect that all witnesses to the TF have been subjected to Christian interpolation? Would
not, as Hansen’s logic implies, at least some Christians have been averse to such inter-
polation? Should we not, therefore, expect to have some uncontaminated witnesses? All
this aside, the evidence clearly favors treating Jerome as a source for the TF that is inde-
pendent of Eusebius.

94 Hansen, 56–​7.
95 Bay, Biblical Heroes and Classical Culture in Christian Late Antiquity, 46–​53.
96 Hansen, ‘Reception of the Testimonium Flavianum’, 58. See also Chapter 2 p. 36 n. 4
97 For further discussion on Pseudo-​Hegesippus, Jerome, and Jacob of Edessa, see Chapter 2.
98 Bay, Biblical Heroes and Classical Culture in Christian Late Antiquity, 45–​6.
99 Hansen, ‘Reception of the Testimonium Flavianum’, 60–​1.
100 Hansen, ‘Reception of the Testimonium Flavianum’, 58–​60.
101 See pp. 38–9.
 Appendix 1 229

Isidore of Pelusium (c.450 ce) also has first-​hand knowledge of Josephus’ Antiquities and
is thus another independent source. Hansen’s reasons for dismissing Isidore are only that
Isidore quotes a work of Eusebius that does not contain the TF, and that Isidore was friends
with John Chrysostom who quoted from Eusebius, but not from the TF.102 None of this is
strong evidence that Isidore shows dependency on Eusebius’ version of the TF. Much more
persuasive is that Isidore quotes material from the Antiquities not found in Eusebius or any-
where else,103 showing that Isidore knew the Antiquities directly.
Lastly, Jacob of Edessa (c.708 ce) used both Eusebius and Josephus, but in his quotation
of the TF he indicates he was directly dependent on the Antiquities, as I argue in Chapter 2.
Further evidence of direct usage is that his translation contains the remarkable variant ‘it
was thought that he was the Christ’, a variant that cannot have been derived from Eusebius.
Hansen argues in reply that Jacob would have had motive to diminish Christian language

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

in the TF since he labored under Islamic rule,104 but in this Hansen does not realize that
Muslims call Jesus the Messiah.105 Therefore, according to Hansen, Jacob would actually
have suffered the temptation to make Josephus affirm the messianic status of Jesus, yet in-
stead Jacob has the variant ‘it was thought that he was the Christ’. As a consequence, Jacob
should be considered a source independent of Eusebius.
It is likely that several other authors also quote or allude to the TF independently of
Eusebius—​such as the Slavonic version of Josephus, the Roman historian Tacitus, and
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus​106—but time and space do not allow for me to speak of
them in detail here. Instead, I will close by pointing out that the earliest manuscripts of the
Antiquities book 18 do not seem to be derived from Eusebius on account of the fact that their
versions of the TF contain two textual variants not found in Eusebius.
The first variant is contained in the three earliest manuscripts of Antiquities book 18,
all of which present the TF as omitting the word ‘certain’ (τις)—​a possibly derogatory
statement that is included by Eusebius. It is highly unlikely that Eusebius or any Christian
scribe would have inserted this word, and given that no manuscripts of the Antiquities
are known to contain it, there is a good possibility that the manuscripts of the Antiquities
stem from a textual tradition apart from Eusebius—​otherwise one would expect at least
some of them to witness to the word, just as some manuscripts and translations derived
from Eusebius witness to it.107
The second variant is more persuasive for showing that the Antiquities manuscripts are
independent of Eusebius. The two earliest manuscripts of Antiquities book 18 contain ‘εἰς
τε νῦν’ in the TF, whereas Eusebius has the different reading ‘εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν’. Because Greek
manuscripts of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History remain from two different authorial editions
and because both editions contain Eusebius’ variant,108 it must be that this variant is what
Eusebius actually wrote and not what a later scribe inserted. On the other hand, the dif-
ferent variant ‘εἰς τε νῦν’ contained in the two earliest Antiquities manuscripts seems to be
the authentic variant. The conclusion follows naturally that these two manuscripts cannot
be derived from Eusebius—​otherwise they would have followed his incorrect variant.
To top it off, the third earliest manuscript of the Antiquities book 18 also does not follow

102 Hansen, ‘Reception of the Testimonium Flavianum’, 62.

103 Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 37.
104 Hansen, ‘Reception of the Testimonium Flavianum’, 61.
105 Quran 4.171.
106 The Slavonic Jewish War 2.9.3; Tacitus, The Annals 15.44; Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, On
Virtues and Vices 1.84 [50] lines 17–​26.
107 For further discussion, see 67–9, 135, 217 and Image 6.
108 See p. 16 and Burgess, ‘Dates and Editions’, 483.
230 Appendix 1

Eusebius at this point. All this demonstrates that the three most important manuscripts of
the Antiquities—​which are also the three earliest manuscripts of the Antiquities—​are not de-
pendent on Eusebius for the TF.109
Gathering the above observations, the logical conclusion is that there are in actual fact
several witnesses to the TF independent of Eusebius, including quotations, translations,
and the earliest manuscripts of the Antiquities.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

109 For further discussion, see pp. 103–4, 126—7, 135 and Images 1–3.
 APPENDI X 2

James the Brother of Jesus: Antiquities 20.200

The object of this appendix is to present Josephus’ second mention of Jesus found in Antiquities
20.200 and to discuss its authenticity. The vast majority of scholars believe this passage to be
authentic, and those few who dissent will be answered in the ensuing pages. The passage reads

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

as follows:

ἅτε δὴ οὖν τοιοῦτος ὢν ὁ Ἄνανος, νομίσας Because Ananus was of this [persuasion], he
ἔχειν καιρὸν ἐπιτήδειον διὰ τὸ τεθνάναι considered he had a fitting opportunity since
μὲν Φῆστον, Ἀλβῖνον δ’ ἔτι κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν Festus had died and Albinus was still on his
ὑπάρχειν, καθίζει συνέδριον κριτῶν καὶ way. He assembled the Sanhedrin of judges
παραγαγὼν εἰς αὐτὸ τὸν ἀδελϕὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ and, bringing before them the brother of
λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ, Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name
καί τινας ἑτέρους, ὡς παρανομησάντων was James, and certain others, he made an
κατηγορίαν ποιησάμενος παρέδωκε accusation against them as breakers of the
λευσθησομένους. law, and delivered them over to be stoned.

The above section of the Antiquities tells how, with the Roman procurator Festus dead and
his replacement, Albinus, on the way, the High Priest Ananus II assembled the Sanhedrin to
have James, the brother of Jesus, stoned to death around 62 ce. In the immediately preceding
sections (Antiquities 20.197–​9) Josephus had explained that Ananus II was a son of the former
High Priest, the illustrious Ananus I, whose four other sons also were honored with the same
office, Ananus II being the fifth and last. According to the Gospel of John 18:13, the senior
Ananus I also supervised the trial of Jesus alongside his son-​in-​law Caiaphas. All this means that
the junior Ananus II was descended from a family willing to execute their enemies and Ananus
II seems to have been no different himself, for not only did he execute James and certain others,
but Josephus criticizes him as being arrogant (θρασύς) and reckless (τολμητής),1 and even
speaks of how James’ execution was illegal.2 On account of this unlawful act, Josephus goes on
to explain, Ananus II was removed from the high priesthood upon the protest of Jews who were
‘most moderate’ (ἐπιεικέστατοι).3
The large majority of scholars consider Antiquities 20.200 to be authentic,4 and for many
sound reasons. The textual evidence for the passage is secure. It is found in all three principal

1 Antiquities 20.199.
2 Antiquities 20.201.
3 Antiquities 20.201–​3. For further discussion on Ananus I and his family, see Chapter 6 pp. 182–90.
4 Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 2–​5; Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium
Flavianum’, 108–​15; Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 546–​54; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 57–​9; Meier, ‘Jesus in
Josephus’, 79–​81; Feldman, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum’, 183; Feldman, ‘Flavius Josephus revisited’,
823; Thackeray, Josephus, 133–​6; Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 236–​48; Winter, ‘Josephus
on Jesus’, 430–​2. Winter, for example, writes ‘Most authors who reject Antiquities 18.63–​64 as spurious
have no doubts about the genuineness of Antiquities 20.200’ (quotation modified to reflect sectional
numberings of this volume); Winter, ‘Josephus on Jesus’, 430 n. 1. Paget says ‘In general, scholars have
not doubted the authenticity of this passage’; Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 546. Feldman states ‘Few
232 Appendix 2

Greek manuscripts of Antiquities book 20,5 and is also contained in the sixth-​century Latin
translation supervised by Cassiodorus.6 It is further quoted by reliable Greek authors who
had direct access to the Antiquities, such as Eusebius of Caesarea around 313 ce,7 Photius
of Constantinople c.890 ce,8 and John Zonarus in the eleventh or twelfth century.9 The pas-
sage is also coherently embedded within a larger narrative drawing on many themes empha-
sized by Josephus, some quite subtly.10
In terms of the clause concerning Jesus, its authenticity is considerably aided by the fact
that it does not seem like anything that would have been accidentally or intentionally in-
terpolated by an early Christian. Firstly, the clause identifies Jesus with the words ‘who was
called Christ’ (τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ), an ambiguous turn of phrase that, without context,
communicates a distant or skeptical portrayal of Jesus.11
Secondly, the surrounding context contradicts Christian tradition about James’ death in

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

several respects: it places it around 62 ce whereas Christian tradition puts it shortly be-
fore (and even as the cause of ) the destruction of Jerusalem around 69 ce.12 It portrays the
Sadducees as the enemies of James and suggests that the Pharisees were his allies,13 whereas
Christian tradition names the Pharisees as James’ opponents14 (it is also difficult to believe
the great majority of Christians would ever have hinted at the notion that those Jews ‘who
were strict in observing the laws’ were allies of James). In addition to this, Josephus describes

have doubted the genuineness of this passage on James’; Feldman, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum’, 183.
Olson, though rejecting the passage, will also say ‘The vast majority of scholars have accepted the au-
thenticity of the passage about James’; Olson, ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 314.

5 Other Greek manuscripts also contain the passage, though these were not used in Niese’s crit-
ical edition; however, Schreckenberg does not report any differences between their readings and the
reading of the three principal manuscripts; see Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-​Josephus Tradition, 13–​47.
6 For a discussion of this translation, see Chapter 2 pp. 42–5.
7 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.21.
8 Photius, Library 238 (ed. Henry, Photius: Bibliothèque, 152 [317b] lines 7–​9).
9 John Zonarus, Epitome historiarum 6.17 [2.49].
10 Mason, for example, writes ‘A quick glance shows how well this account fits into both the larger and
smaller context’; Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 236–​48, at 239. See also Whealey, Josephus on
Jesus, 3–​4.
11 For example, Pontius Pilate uses the phrase twice (Matthew 27:17, 22). Eusebius uses the very
same phrase a few verses after quoting Josephus’ words about James the brother of Jesus ‘who was called
Christ’ in order to describe the epistle of Jude as the ‘epistle said to be of Jude’ (τῆς λεγομένης Ἰούδα).
Eusebius then describes how Jude’s authorship is disputed (Ecclesiastical History 2.23.25; ed. Schwartz
and Mommsen, Eusebius Werke 2.1–​3: Die Kirchengeschichte, vol. 1 p. 174 lines 14–​15). Eusebius uses
the same phraseology for the Revelation of John (Ecclesiastical History 3.18.2), apparently to communi-
cate that its authorship is disputed also (Ecclesiastical History 3.24.18).
12 Hegesippus records that James’ execution occurred immediately before Vespasian’s siege of
Jerusalem, and Eusebius says that Clement’s account of James’ death agrees; see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical
History 2.23.18–​19, 2.1.4. However, Josephus places the execution some years previous to this.
13 The passage describes the High Priest Ananus II as a Sadducee (Antiquities 20.199) and then says
that those who were upset at James’ death were those ‘who seemed to be the most moderate of those
in the city and were strict in observing the laws’ (Antiquities 20.201; ἐδόκουν ἐπιεικέστατοι τῶν κατὰ
τὴν πόλιν εἶναι καὶ περὶ τοὺς νόμους ἀκριβεῖς βαρέως ἤνεγκαν). This seems to refer to Pharisees be-
cause elsewhere Josephus specifically draws a contrast between the harshness of Sadducees and the
relative gentleness of Pharisees (Antiquities 13.293–​4; War 2.166) and he also emphasizes how par-
ticular Pharisees were about observing laws (War 2.162). For further discussion on these passages see
below pp. 239–40.
14 See Hegesippus in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.10. An early Jewish-​Christian document,
perhaps the Ascents of James also describes Pharisees as enemies; see Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions
1.59.1, 1.63.1 (James’ death is described in 1.70). On the preservation of the Ascents of James in the
Recognitions, see Chapter 3 p. 74).
 Appendix 2 233

a traditional death by stoning, but Christian sources instead focus on a failed attempt to hurl
James from the temple, then a failed stoning, and then a successful death by clubbing.15
Finally, Josephus describes ‘others’ who were executed with James, but Christian tradition
says nothing about these people.16
Thirdly, the passage calls James the ‘brother’ of Jesus, even though almost all second-​
and third-​century Christians took pains to insist that James was not the physical brother
of Jesus, but only related to him some other way.17 Insofar as I am aware, the only firmly
dated second-​/​third-​century Christian source claiming that James was actually the physical
brother of Jesus is Hegesippus, though how to interpret his statement is not certain.18 The
only other candidates are the Gospel of the Hebrews and certain instances in the Clementine
literature, but these documents may not have been written in the second or third centuries.19
In any case, the Gospel of the Hebrews presents the resurrected Jesus greeting James as his

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

15 Josephus emphasizes that James was stoned to death, while Clement and Hegesippus (both in
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.1.4, 2.23.18–​19) claim that James was thrown from the pinnacle of the
temple and then killed with a club. The Second Apocalypse of James 61–​2 describes James being thrown
from the pinnacle of the temple and surviving, but then it cuts off before his death. The Ascents of James
does not speak of the execution of James but does describe him being beaten and thrown from the top of
the temple stairs where he is presumed dead (Recognitions of Clement, 1.70.6–​8). However, Hegesippus
and the Second Apocalypse of James also mention that James was stoned after being thrown from the
temple, so the reports are not irreconcilable with Josephus. Still, it is clear that early Christians empha-
sized other details than Josephus does, suggesting that the account was not interpolated by a Christian.
16 On this and other of the above arguments, see Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 2–​5.
17 The following early Christian sources deny that James was the physical brother of Jesus: Clement
of Alexandria, Hypotyposeis fragment 24.2 (from the Adumbrations of Cassiodorus; see Stählin,
Früchtel, and Ursula, Clemens Alexandrinus Band 3, 206–​7). Here, Clement strongly implies that James
was the son of Joseph, but not Mary. Origen (in Against Celsus 1.47; Commentary on Matthew 10.17;
Commentary on John 1.23) states that James was not the son of Mary, but perhaps a son of Joseph from
a previous marriage or a kind of spiritual brother. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History 2.1.2 claims that
James was the son of Joseph from a previous marriage. Hippolytus, On the Blessing of Moses §340–​2
claims that Jesus’ brothers came from the seed of Joseph, implying that they were not related to Jesus
biologically. The First Apocalypse of James 24–​6 specifically states that James was not the physical
brother of Jesus. The Second Apocalypse of James 44, 50 dwells on the subject of brotherhood at some
length and appears to make James a foster brother or cousin of Jesus. The Infancy Gospel of James 9.2
describes Joseph as having sons from a previous marriage; the sons presumably include James because
he seems to be portrayed in 25.1 as writing portions of the Gospel around the time of Jesus’ birth. The
Gospel of Philip 32 may imply that Jesus had a sister, but the text is corrupt and confused at this point.
Similarly in section 17b it may imply that Mary was perpetually a virgin, meaning that Jesus would not
have had a biologically related sister. The Gospel of Peter and the Book of James, according to Origen,
both claimed that the siblings of Jesus were by Joseph, not Mary; see Origen, Commentary on Matthew
10.17. The Book of Thomas 138 calls Thomas the twin of Jesus and also his brother, but it is unclear if
this is meant allegorically. The book rails against sexual intercourse, so it is difficult to imagine that
it would have portrayed Jesus as being a product of fleshly activity, but if so, it would mean Thomas,
the twin of Jesus, must have also been born of a virgin—​a possible, though strange belief. The Infancy
Gospel of Thomas 16.1 pointedly calls James the son of Joseph, and does not refer to him as the brother
of Jesus. It also calls Jesus a child, but does not name James as such, implying that James was older than
Jesus and the son of Joseph from a previous marriage. For further discussion, see Whealey, ‘Josephus,
Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 111–​14.
18 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.4. Hegesippus may not have meant that James was the actual
physical brother of Jesus because when discussing Jude, another brother, he says that Jude was only ‘said
to be his brother according to the flesh’ (κατὰ σάρκα λεγομένου αὐτοῦ ἀδελϕοῦ; Ecclesiastical History
3.20.1 in ed. Schwartz and Mommsen, Eusebius Werke 2.1–​3: Die Kirchengeschichte, vol. 1 p. 232
line 19).
19 It is possible that they stem from the first or the fourth century. On the dating of the pseudo-​
Clementines, see Paget, ‘Jewish Christianity’, 761–​3. For the dating of the Gospel of the Hebrews, see
Klijn, Jewish-​Christian Gospel Tradition, 27–​30.
234 Appendix 2

‘brother’ (frater), but the uncontextualized fragment documenting this statement does
not make it clear if spiritual brotherhood is meant.20 The Clementine literature does name
James as the ‘brother’ of Jesus, yet as far as I can tell, it always indicates this with the phrase
‘brother of the Lord’,21 whereas Josephus more mundanely states that James was the ‘brother
of Jesus’ thus dispensing with the honorific title of ‘Lord’ (κύριος). Hegesippus (c.175 ce)
does the same as the Clementine literature and uses the title ‘Lord’ (κύριος) so as to call
James the ‘brother of the Lord’.22
A remarkable observation about the above documents is that all of them—​Hegesippus,
the Gospel of the Hebrews, and the Clementine literature—​were written by Jewish-​
Christians, or by those who relied heavily upon Jewish tradition.23 From this, the conclusion
is unavoidable that whoever wrote the passage in Antiquities 20.200 about James being the
‘brother of Jesus’ was likely intimately engaged with Judaism and was probably Jewish him-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

self. What is more, the author does not seem to have been a Christian since he uses tradi-
tions and language not employed by Christians, as when he provides details about the death
of James that contradict Christian tradition, or when he says that Jesus was only ‘called’ the
Christ, or when he states that James was the brother ‘of Jesus’ not the brother of ‘the Lord’.
Josephus is consequently the most probable candidate for the source of the passage.24

Origen of Alexandria
However, the authenticity of the passage encounters some modest difficulties when the tes-
timony of Origen is considered.25 Origen first alludes to the passage in his apologetic work
Against Celsus (248 ce) where he writes that Josephus ‘is not far from the truth in saying
that these things befell the Jews in vengeance for James the Just, who was the brother of
Jesus who was called Christ (ἀδελϕὸς Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ), since they had killed
him who was most just’.26 Later on in the same work, Origen makes a similar statement that
Titus, the son of the Roman emperor Vespasian, ‘captured Jerusalem, as Josephus writes, on
account of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ (τὸν ἀδελϕὸν Ἰησοῦ
τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ), though truth would express it as on account of Jesus the Christ of
God’.27

20 This particular fragment from the Gospel of the Hebrews is quoted by Jerome, Illustrious Men 2.13
(ed. Richardson, ‘Hieronymus liber de viris inlustribus’, 8 line 21). Tertullian in Against Marcion 4.19
might argue that Jesus had biological brothers, but his overall point seems to be that Jesus had a family
from his youth and hence did not, as the Marcionites allegedly believed, suddenly appear full-​grown. In
any case, Tertullian is a representative of Latin tradition, not the Greek Christian tradition which would
have interpolated the Antiquities.
21 Recognitions of Clement 4.35.1 (lacobi fratris domini; Rehm, Die Pseudoklementinen, vol. 51 p. 164
line 3); Epistle of Clement to James 19.2 (lacobo fratri domini; Rehm, vol. 51 p. 386 line 22); Clementine
Homilies 11.4 (ἀδελϕῷ τοῦ κυρίου; Rehm, vol. 42 p. 171 line 15).
22 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.4, and also 3.20.1 (Schwartz and Monson vol. 1 p. 166 lines
9–​10, p. 232 line 18).
23 For Hegesippus and his relationship with Judaism, see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.22.7.
For a general overview of Jewish Christian texts, see Paget, Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in
Antiquity; Paget, ‘Jewish Christianity’.
24 Many of the above reasons pertaining to why a Christian would not have interpolated the passage
on James and Jesus are articulately presented by scholars cited above in n. 4.
25 For an overview of Origen and his use of Josephus, see n. 50.
26 Origen, Against Celsus 1.47 (ed. Marcovich, Origenes, 47 lines 11–​14).
27 Origen, Against Celsus 2.13 (ed. Marcovich, 92 lines 26–​8).
 Appendix 2 235

Origen may allude to the passage a third time in his Commentary on Matthew (248 ce),
written slightly after his Against Celsus:

This James was so eminent among the people for his righteousness that Flavius
Josephus, when writing the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, as he wished to
present the cause for which the people suffered so many things that even the temple
was destroyed, said that these things happened to them according to the vengeance
of God as payment for what they had dared to do to James the brother of Jesus, who
was called Christ (τὸν ἀδελϕὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ). It is amazing that al-
though he did not accept Jesus to be the Christ, nevertheless he testified to the great
righteousness of James. He says further that the people believed they had suffered these
things on account of James.28

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Origen’s citations about James are puzzling because in our manuscripts of the Antiquities
Josephus does not attribute the fall of Jerusalem to the death of James, nor does he call James
‘the Just’, nor does he allude to James’ righteousness. It would also be odd for Josephus, as a
non-​Christian, to say these kinds of things. To make matters more puzzling, Origen, three
times, portrays Josephus as calling James ‘the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ’ (τὸν
ἀδελϕὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ) which exactly matches the distinct phrasing of the
more modest account of James present in all manuscripts of Antiquities 20.200.

Criticisms Related to Origen

These facts led Schürer, with Hölscher following, to reject Antiquities 20.200, claiming that
Origen cited an already interpolated passage and that therefore the less extravagant passage
at Antiquities 20.200, while different from Origen’s citation and present in all extant manu-
scripts, must also be interpolated.29 This, though, does not logically follow. If one ancient
author quotes an extravagantly suspicious reading in a text, yet all later manuscripts of that
text have a different, more mundane reading, such does not imply that the later manuscripts
have also been interpolated. Otherwise, any suspicious misquotation from any ancient au-
thor would necessarily cause all later manuscript readings to be rejected, even if they are far
less doubtful. This is the case in the example of Antiquities 20.200 because Origen’s quota-
tions are highly implausible for Josephus to have made, whereas the extant manuscripts
offer a far more plausible reading. So why disqualify them?
One could instead take the force of Schürer’s argument to mean that because Origen
witnesses specifically to Christian interpolation in the Antiquities, we must accept that
Christians had a tendency to interpolate manuscripts of the Antiquities and hence we
should not trust the extant passage in Antiquities 20.200 even though it is a much more
sober account. However, as I explained above, Antiquities 20.200 does not seem like any-
thing a second-​ or third-​century Christian would purposefully or accidentally interpolate
into a manuscript: it contradicts Christian traditions about the death of James, it says in a
rather non-​Christian way that Jesus was only ‘called the Christ’, and it says that James was
the ‘brother’ of Jesus even though the great majority of Christians after Josephus did not be-
lieve that James was physically the brother of Jesus. And as far as those few Jewish-​Christians
who did believe that James was actually the biological half-​brother of Jesus, they did not call

28 Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17 (ed. Klostermann, Origenes Werke 10: Commentarius in
Matthaeum I, 22 line 6–​14).
29 Schürer, A History of the Jewish People, vol. 2 pp. 148–​9; Hölscher, ‘Josephus’, cols 1993–​4.
236 Appendix 2

James the ‘brother of Jesus’ but instead used the more decorous phrase ‘brother of the Lord’.
So even they are not likely candidates for interpolating the phrase into the Antiquities.
In regard to the above, it must be observed that Origen and his probable avenues for
obtaining a copy of the Antiquities are all unlikely to have interpolated the phrase. Origen’s
theological teacher, Clement of Alexandria,30 was no different from the Christian majority
and believed James was not actually the brother of Jesus.31 Clement also seems to have made
personal use of the Antiquities,32 which suggests that a likely path for Origen to gain access
to the Antiquities was via Clement’s circle. Adding to this is the fact that Origen also heard
Hippolytus of Rome preach and was requested by his patron to emulate Hippolytus’ scrip-
tural exegesis.33 Yet Hippolytus did not believe that James was physically the brother of Jesus
either.34 Hence, Origen’s contacts would not have been disposed to interpolate the phrase
‘the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ’, that is present in all manuscripts of Antiquities

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

20.200 because his theological forebears, Clement and Hippolytus, did not believe that
James was the brother of Jesus.
And the same can be said for Origen himself, for he too ardently believed that James was
not actually the physical brother of Jesus. He even points out his disagreement with what
Josephus said about James two of the three times he discusses Josephus’ account,35 empha-
sizing that Mary, the mother of Jesus, ‘did not know sexual union with a man’.36 Not only
this, but Origen was also known to obtain manuscripts from Jewish sources, and these of
course would also have had little reason to interpolate such a phrase.37 Putting the above to-
gether it is singularly unlikely that the extant passage at Antiquities 20.200 would have been
interpolated by Origen, or by his predecessors Clement and Hippolytus, or by any Jewish
sources Origen used to obtain manuscripts.
But aside from Origen’s citation of Josephus claiming James was the brother of Jesus,
what of Origen’s other claims that Josephus called James ‘the Just’ and that Jerusalem was
captured on account of his execution? Schürer maintains that in such things Origen wit-
nesses to Christian interpolation in the Antiquities. It is hard to imagine that anyone but
a Christian would have interpolated these. Should not these then make us suspicious that
Christians have added other material in and around Antiquities 20.200? I think the answer
to this is clearly no and for the simple fact that there is strong evidence that Schürer is incor-
rect in his assessment that Origen found such statements in manuscripts of the Antiquities.
To begin, no current manuscripts of the Antiquities contain such statements, and no an-
cient or medieval writer ever witnesses that they found such a passage in Josephus’ corpus.38

30 Eusebius says that Origen was Clement’s pupil. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.6, see also 6.14.7–​
9 and Jerome, Letter 84.8. For further discussion, see Crouzel, Origen, 7. Whether Clement and Origen
were both lecturers at a formal school is unclear, but that they knew one another is quite likely.
31 See n. 17.
32 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.21 [147.2]. On Clement using the Antiquities, see
Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-​Josephus-​Tradition, 71; Hardwick, Josephus as an Historical Source, 31–​2;
Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 8–​9.
33 Jerome, Illustrious Men 61.2–​3.
34 Hippolytus, On the Blessing of Moses §340–​2.
35 Origen, Against Celsus 1.47; Commentary on Matthew 10.17. For another denial that James was
Jesus’ brother and a critique of those who disagree, see Origen, Commentary on John 1.23.
36 μὴ . . . γνῷ κοίτην ἀνδρός. Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17 (ed. Klostermann, Origenes
Werke 10: Commentarius in Matthaeum I, 21 line 32).
37 On this, see Chapter 1 n. 5.
38 Olson tries to prove that the Paschal Chronicle quotes an interpolated manuscript of Josephus’
War, because the chronicle claims that Josephus mentions in book 5 of the War that James was thrown
down from the Temple. But Whealey has cogently shown that here the Paschal Chronicle is dependent
on Eusebius and has not examined manuscripts of Josephus directly. The chronicle seems have in
mind Hegesippus, whom in the fifth book of his work, claimed that James was thrown from the Temple
 Appendix 2 237

All this suggests that the Christian sounding assertions were never inserted into the
Antiquities and that Origen must have obtained them by another means. Secondly, two of
the three times Origen discusses these statements he also voices disagreement with the idea
that Jerusalem was destroyed because of James’ death,39 making it all the more unlikely that
he or his associates introduced the more extravagant statements into the works of Josephus,
whether wittingly or unwittingly. It has already been mentioned that Origen was known to
obtain manuscripts from Jewish contacts and of course these would also not have interpol-
ated anything pro-​Christian into the manuscripts of the Antiquities either.40
Additional evidence from Eusebius further points to the fact that the exaggerated state-
ments about James, to which Origen refers, were likely not in Origen’s manuscripts of the
Antiquities. This is because Eusebius appears to have followed Origen word for word in
reporting the very same statements by Josephus, that is, that James was extremely right-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

eous, was called the ‘Just’, and that his execution precipitated the destruction of Jerusalem.41
Notably, though, in this instance Eusebius departs from his standard practice and does not
give a book title and book number for the passage in Josephus’ corpus. This implies that
the passage was not actually in the manuscripts of Josephus that Eusebius had before him
(otherwise he would have cited where it could be found as he usually does) and that, there-
fore, Eusebius’ manuscripts of the Antiquities had not been interpolated.
It is likely then, as other scholars have argued, that Eusebius instead derived his quota-
tion of Josephus directly from Origen, which is why Eusebius follows him word for word.
This is significant because Eusebius inherited portions of Origen’s library and even had
manuscripts with Origen’s own handwriting.42 This means that the manuscripts of the
Antiquities to which Eusebius had access were in all likelihood the very same manuscripts
Origen used and, as I said, these do not seem to have been interpolated at Antiquities
20.200 since Eusebius does not give the title and book number where the suspicious read-
ings were located. By contrast, Eusebius quotes from the shorter and more modest ex-
tant passage in Antiquities 20.200, and with this he does give the proper title and book
number.43
When taken together, these observations affirm that the more sober extant passage was
present within Eusebius’ manuscript of the Antiquities, but that the Origen’s more extrava-
gant statements were not. By extension it follows that the extravagant statements were also
not present in the manuscript of the Antiquities to which Origen referred because Eusebius
likely used the same manuscripts and did not find the reading in them. Nor do any other
Christians provide good evidence that the suspicious statements were interpolated into

(Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.3). Therefore the Paschal Chronicle confuses the name Josephus
with Hegesippus, see Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum’,
108; Olson, ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 317–​18. George Syncellus in his Chronicle
§413 draws from Eusebius (who in turn draws from Origen) to run the passage about James together
with Antiquities 20.200–​3, George Syncellus does not however state where the passage may be found
in Josephus’ work and seems clearly cribbing off of Eusebius. In his study on the reception of Josephus,
Schreckenberg writes ‘Syncellus did not read Josephus himself ’ (Synkellos hat nicht Josephus selbst
gelesen), and goes on to observe that he may not have even read Eusebius directly, but perhaps was re-
liant on a source who read Eusebius. See Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-​Josephus-​Tradition, 110.

39 Origen, Against Celsus 1.47, 2.13.

40 On this, see Chapter 1 n. 5.
41 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.20. For a comparison of Origen’s words with Eusebius’, see
Appendix 1 pp. 216–7.
42 See p. 16.
43 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.21–​4.
238 Appendix 2

manuscripts of Josephus’ work.44 On balance then, one should not view Origen’s statements
as evidence that Christians were inserting interpolations into the Antiquities.

The Reason for Origen’s Misquotation

But there still remains the question of what caused Origen to make such a strange char-
acterization of Josephus’ passage about James. The most probable answer is that Origen
was incorrectly summarizing Josephus or was otherwise misremembering what Josephus
wrote. Origen may have been led to do this because shortly after Josephus speaks about the
death of James (Antiquities 20.200), he then says that ‘this was the beginning of greater evils’
(Antiquities 20.210) and ‘from that time our city grew weaker and all things became worse’

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

(Antiquities 20.214), something that would eventually lead to the downfall of Jerusalem.
Statements like these may have provided reason for Origen to claim that Josephus con-
nected James’ death to the destruction of Jerusalem. It is also possible that Origen mixed up
Josephus’ actual passage on James (Antiquities 20.200) with that of John the Baptist, whose
death, according to Josephus, caused the destruction of Herod’s Army (Antiquities 18.116–​
19). Support for this is that Origen mentions Josephus’ passage on John the Baptist in con-
junction with his mention of James.45 It is possible that after doing so Origen may have, via a
wayward memory, confusedly recollected that Josephus spoke about the execution of James
and the destruction of Jerusalem.46
None of these possibilities for Origen’s confusion are mutually exclusive, but a third, and
I think most likely, reason is that Origen conflated the account of the death of James given by
Hegesippus (Ἡγήσιππος) with that given by Josephus (Ἰώσηπος), whose similar-​sounding
names were often mistaken.47 Certain manuscripts of Origen even have an alternative
spelling for Josephus as Ἰώσηππος which is even more similar to the spelling of Hegesippus
(Ἡγήσιππος).48 Hegesippus is particularly likely to have been a source of confusion for
Origen because Hegesippus reports that Jerusalem was destroyed due to the execution of
James and he also claims that James was righteous, and that he was called the ‘Just’—​pre-
cisely the things Origen misattributes to Josephus.49 These points are further sharpened
by the character of Origen’s citations of Josephus elsewhere, which demonstrate that he
routinely recalls the statements of Josephus incorrectly, meaning that we should expect his
memory to be faulty where Josephus is concerned.50

44 See Appendix 1 pp. 216–7.

45 Origen, Against Celsus 1.47.
46 On the last two reasons for Origen’s confusion, see Whealey, ‘Josephus on Jesus: Evidence from the
First Millennium’, 290–​1; Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 17–​18; Baras, ‘Testimonium Flavianum’, 310–​11.
47 Several scholars have theorized this before, perhaps best by Whealey, ‘Josephus, Eusebius of
Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 108–​9. Paget notes this hypothesis and thinks it has
strength, but is not wholly convinced; see Paget, ‘Some Observations’, 550–​2 nn. 43–​4. Baras opts for
a middle road, whereby Origen was not misremembering what Hegesippus and Josephus said but was
making a kind of deductive conclusion from their words and presenting it as the intent of Josephus; see
Baras, ‘Testimonium Flavianum’, 311.
48 Mizugaki, ‘Origen and Josephus’, 328.
49 Baras believes Hegesippus was not the source of confusion, but that the source was a similar-​
sounding passage in Antiquities 11.297–​ 305; see Baras, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum and the
Martyrdom of James’.
50 For example, Origen seems to confuse Josephus’ statement in War 4.335 about a certain Zechariah
with Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist as portrayed in the Infancy Gospel of James 23.1–​3; on
this see Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 18. In another example, in his Against Celsus 4.11 Origen says that
Josephus only wrote two books in his Antiquities, though elsewhere he knows that Josephus actu-
ally wrote twenty books (Commentary on Matthew 10.17). In this instance he is probably confusing
 Appendix 2 239

So then, Origen’s incorrect statement about Josephus does not seem to be evidence that
manuscripts of the Antiquities were being interpolated by Christians. Rather, it is likely that
Origen simply confused Hegesippus with Josephus and thus fused together their accounts
about the death of James in his memory.51

Further Criticisms
There are, however, a few scholars who reject Antiquities 20.200 for reasons unrelated to
alleged interpolations in Origen’s manuscripts of Josephus. It will be helpful to respond to
their arguments as thoroughly as possible.52
Jean Juster argues that Josephus claimed it was the Pharisees who prevented the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Sadducees from being cruel (Antiquities 20.199), whereas Juster thinks the extant passage
(Antiquities 20.200–​1) portrays the procurator as being the moderating force.53 In actuality
though the passage says in Antiquities 20.201 that it was not the procurator who was the
moderate party, but rather it was those Jews who ‘seemed to be the most moderate of those
in the city and strictly observed precise laws’. These more moderate Jews were most prob-
ably Pharisees since their strict observance of the laws matches Josephus’ description of
Pharisees elsewhere.54
Juster also attempts to find another contradiction in that the passage implies that the
Jews did not have the right to carry out capital punishment whereas Juster believes that
Roman law did give them this right.55 Here Juster is incorrect. The power of capital punish-
ment was, according to Roman sources, reserved for high-​ranking Roman magistrates.56
Jewish sources themselves also state that the power to try criminal cases was removed from
them around 30 ce, just as, for example, the Jerusalem Talmud says ‘Forty years before
the Temple was destroyed, capital jurisdiction was taken away’.57 The Babylonian Talmud

Josephus’ Antiquities with his Against Apion, which did have two books. For many other errors of Origen
in regard to Josephus, see Hardwick, Josephus as an Historical Source, 59–​64, 107–​8. Schreckenberg
thought that the quality and accuracy of Origen’s citations of Josephus were so poor that he found it
most probable that Origen was using Josephus indirectly through an unreliable intermediate source;
see Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-​Josephus-​Tradition, 74. This may be possible, but faulty memory seems
the best explanation for the above instance where Origen confuses the Antiquities with Against Apion,
but then in another location gets it right. For another perspective, Mizugaki writes that ‘Origen gener-
ally makes faithful citations’ of Josephus; see Mizugaki, ‘Origen and Josephus’, 330.

51 Origen was known for having an extraordinary ability to memorize Scripture, but this likely came
from lengthy and daily repetition, not one-​off readings as presumably was the case as Origen read
Josephus. On Origen’s memorization and study of Scripture, see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.2.7,
6.3.9; Jerome, Letter 84.8.
52 In this I limit myself to arguments advanced by scholars over the past one hundred or so years.
In addition to the authors I discuss, Solomon Zeitlin also dismissed the passage on James, but gave no
reasons for doing so as far as I can tell; Zeitlin, ‘The Hoax of the “Slavonic Josephus” ’, 172.
53 Celui-​ci disait que c’étaient les pharisiens qui empéchaient les sadducéens d’etre sévères, et non les
procurateurs. Juster, Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain, vol. 2 pp. 140–​1.
54 See discussion on these being Pharisees above p. 232.
55 Juster, Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain, vol. 2 p. 141.
56 Garnsey, ‘The Criminal Jurisdiction of Governors’, 55.
57 (‫ )קודם לארבעים שנה עד שלא חרב הבית ניטלו ִדינֵ י נפשות‬Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 1.1.9 [1.1.II.2a
ed. Neusner]. Juster cites War 6.126 to show that the Jewish people had the authority of capital punish-
ment, but this passage rather shows that the Romans gave an extraordinary privilege of executing any
non-​Jews who transgressed the temple, so here Josephus has the future emperor Titus plead with Jewish
rebels in the temple, ‘have we not given you permission to kill all those who transgress [the temple]?’
(οὐχ ἡμεῖς δὲ τοὺς ὑπερβάντας ὑμῖν ἀναιρεῖν ἐπετρέψαμεν). This seems to imply that the more general
240 Appendix 2

concurs58 and Josephus himself all but explicitly says the same when he writes that the
Roman governor possessed ‘all power over the Jews’ (Ἰουδαίων τῇ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἐξουσίᾳ),59
and that the governor specifically ‘received the authority from Caesar to kill’ (τοῦ κτείνειν
λαβὼν παρὰ Καίσαρος ἐξουσίαν).60 Early Christian sources agree.61 This objection to the
authenticity of the passage therefore also does not stand.
Tessa Rajak maintains that Antiquities 20.200 and surrounding verses should be re-
jected because of their censure of the High Priest Ananus II and its ‘harsh criticism of the
Sadducees, and of the Sanhedrin’, all of which Rajak believes contradicts Josephus’ state-
ments elsewhere.62 Yet these criticisms match Josephus’ assessments quite well. For ex-
ample, he offers the same theme in Antiquities 13.293–​4 where a Sadducee urges the death
penalty for someone who simply vocalized criticism of another, whereas the Pharisees be-
lieved that such was too extreme a penalty. Josephus explains this by emphasizing that un-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

like Sadducees, ‘Pharisees by nature hold to mild punishments’ (ϕύσει πρὸς τὰς κολάσεις
ἐπιεικῶς ἔχουσιν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι).63 In War 2.166 Josephus also asserts that the Sadducees
were ‘more wild’ (ἀγριώτερον) with one another than the Pharisees and ‘harsh’ (ἀπηνεῖς).
Josephus could also criticize the Sanhedrin and does so just a few passages after discussing
James, the brother of Jesus, where he says that the Sanhedrin did ‘things contrary to the
ancestral laws’ (ἐναντία ταῦτα τοῖς πατρίοις νόμοις).64 This passage sounds much like
Antiquities 20.200 where the Sanhedrin also breaks laws in their execution of James. Lastly,
regarding Ananus II, it is true that Josephus does praise him in his early work War 4.316–​
21, but later on in his career (when he wrote the Antiquities) Josephus criticizes Ananus
II severely for taking bribes and betraying Josephus himself (Life 193–​6, 216, 309). In this
regard, the criticisms that Antiquities 20.199–​201 lodges at Ananus II, the Sadducees, and
the Sanhedrin all resonate with Josephus’ tendencies elsewhere and actually suggest that the
passage is authentic.65
Ken Olson has published an article in part devoted to the authenticity of Antiquities
20.200. He believes that Antiquities 20.199–​200 is ‘largely Josephan’,66 but that the phrase
referring to James as ‘the brother of Jesus who was called Christ’ was added by a later in-
terpolator. His reasons are as follows. Firstly, he believes the passage has poor manuscript
attestation since only three manuscripts of Antiquities 20 remain,67 but in this he ignores the
sixth-​century Latin translation of the Antiquities68 and several good-​quality Greek witnesses

prerogative of capital punishment was not given to them; in the very least the passage is ambiguous on
the matter.

58 Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 15a.9.

59 Antiquities 18.2.
60 War 2.117. Mason, Judaean War 2, 80–​1 n. 722. Later Jewish sources like the Babylonian Talmud
do describe the Sanhedrin as executing Jesus, but when read in light of the Gospels and Josephus, it is
clear that the Sanhedrin voted to put Jesus to death and then had to persuade the Roman governor to
carry the sentence out. In this view the Sanhedrin instigated the execution of Jesus, even if the Roman
governor had final approval. For these later Jewish accounts, see Chapter 3 pp. 93–4.
61 John 18:31. Niese is said by Winter, with Olson following, to have rejected the James passage, but
in my reading Niese seems to accept it or at least to not take a position; Niese, De testimonio, IX–​X .
62 Rajak, Josephus, the Historian and His Society, 131 n. 73.
63 Antiquities 13.294.
64 Antiquities 20.218.
65 In all of this it must be remembered that Josephus is well known for contradicting himself, for dis-
cussion on this topic see Mason, ‘The Writings of Josephus’, vol. 2 pp. 1681–​2.
66 Olson, ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 316.
67 Ibid., 315.
68 Cassiodorus supervised this Latin translation and at Antiquities 20.200, he and his team did not
consult Rufinus’ Latin translation of Eusebius, thus making Cassiodorus an independent witness.
 Appendix 2 241

in Eusebius, Photius, and John Zonarus.69 There are also several as of yet unedited Greek
manuscripts that contain this passage of the Antiquities, none of which Schreckenberg, who
cataloged them, suggests contain a substantially different reading at Antiquities 20.200.70
Secondly, Olson argues that the word ‘Christ’ (χριστός) is never used by Josephus and
hence the phrase in Antiquities 20.200 is likely not by him because it reflects vocabulary he
did not use.71 As I have argued in this book though, evidence shows that the TF is authentic
(with only two or three words missing in Greek manuscripts, but which are preserved in
other languages) and the word χριστός is deployed there. In addition to this, Josephus cer-
tainly uses χριστός in Antiquities 8.137 to refer to a building that was anointed or smeared
with a substance.72 This is very similar to the meaning of χριστός when used in reference to
Jesus in Antiquities 20.200, which can be understood as meaning Jesus ‘who was called the
anointed one’.73 But even if the lexeme χριστός was unique, Chapter 4 has demonstrated

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

that Josephus used a unique lexeme just about every eighty-​seven words and it so happens
that the passage that contains the story about James (Antiquities 20.200–​1) is exactly eighty-​
seven words long, meaning that no one should be surprised if the passage contains a unique
lexeme.
Thirdly, Olson contends that the phrase ‘who was called Christ’ (τοῦ λεγομένου
Χριστοῦ) was in fact used by Christians and therefore cannot have been viewed as being
irreverent, distant, skeptical, or what have you.74 Yet, the point is not that Christians never
used the phrase, but that without context the phrase is quite distant and possibly skeptical.
This is shown in the very passages that Olson cites to prove his own point. Thus, in Matthew
27:17 and 27:22 the phrase is used, but it comes from the highly skeptical Pontius Pilate. The
narrator in John 4:25 also deploys the phrase, but he only does so in a parenthetical note ex-
plaining that the Hebrew word ‘Messiah’ (Μεσσίας) in Greek is ‘called Christ’, showing that
the phrase in this instance is simply a detached way of explaining the definition of a word
and not as a way to assert that someone actually was the Christ.

Cassiodorus’ translation reads Et quosdam deducens ad semetipsum inter quos et fratrem Ihesu, qui
dicitur Christus, nomine Iacobum, quasi contra legem agentes acusans, tradidit lapidandos. Whereas,
Rufinus’ translation (Ecclesiastical History 2.23.22) reads et introducit in medium fratrem lesu, qui
dicitur Christus, Iacobum nomine, et alios quam plurimos, quos velut contra legem gerere incusans
tradidit lapidandos. For the text of these, see Levenson and Martin, ‘The Latin Translations of Josephus
on Jesus’, 44, 79.

69 See nn. 7–9 above for citations.

70 In Schreckenberg’s catalog I count about a half dozen additional Greek manuscript witnesses to
Antiquities 20.200 that were not considered by the previous editor Niese, but these do not include an
additional number of catena manuscripts; see Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-​Josephus-​Tradition, 13–​47.
Étienne Nodet had been working on a new critical edition of the Antiquities, but recently passed away.
71 Olson, ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 316. Wells makes the same point; Wells, Did
Jesus Exist?, 11.
72 See pp. 83–4.
73 The use of χριστός at Antiquities 8.137 also refutes Olson’s (and Wells’) argument that Josephus
was ‘not likely to have dropped the word “Messiah” casually into his text as a means of identifying a
minor character’. Olson, ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 315; Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, 11. It
is also not at all clear why Josephus would have been unwilling to make a simple statement that some
minor figure was called ‘Christ’ by some other people. Wells argues that there were many messianic
claimants that Josephus discussed, but never said that the word ‘Christ’ was applied to them; yet those
persons did not have a large group of people called ‘Christians’ growing in number during the time of
Josephus. It is understandable that Josephus would have felt the need to explain where the name of these
people came from, as he does in the TF. Logically, this would necessitate mentioning the word ‘Christ’.
74 Olson, ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 316.
242 Appendix 2

Olson also cites Origen, but in this instance Origen uses the phrase only as a way of ex-
plaining to his non-​Christian interlocutor that it is through the authority of ancient custom
that Jesus is ‘called Christ’. He writes, ‘Jesus, by a certain ancestral custom is in these words
said to be the Christ of God’.75 Again, this suggests that the phrase by itself is detached and
distant, and can only become more intimate and affirmative with further context, such as
Origen gives by specifying that Jesus is called the Christ, not just by anyone, but by a highly
authoritative source: his Christian tradition. Olson’s citation of Justin the Martyr is in the
same category. He specifies that Jesus ‘is called Christ by us’,76 once more providing context
for who is giving the name or title of Christ to Jesus, something that Antiquities 20.200 does
not do.
The best example that Olson can find is the Gospel of Matthew 1:16 which, at the end of
its introductory genealogy, says ‘and Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

was born Jesus who is called Christ’. Yet immediately afterward, in the very next verse, the
narrator specifies that Jesus is in fact the Christ (Matthew 1:17). He does so again in the next
verse (Matthew 1:18), and he even began the whole genealogy with the same assertion as
well (Matthew 1:1).77
What all these passages show is that the phrase ‘who was called Christ’ (τοῦ λεγομένου
Χριστοῦ) in Antiquities 20.200 is detached and even skeptical when used without context, as
its usage by Pilate and the Gospel of John demonstrate. It is hence rare for ancient Christians
to have used it to identify or affirm Jesus as the Christ, but on the infrequent occasion in
which they do, they always deploy it in a manner specifying that they were the ones who
actually call Jesus the Christ.78 Antiquities 20.200 of course does not provide any of this con-
text. This absence makes the passage detached, skeptical, and distant, strongly suggesting
that a Christian was not responsible for inserting it.
Fourthly, Olson tries to show that early Christians did call James ‘the brother of Jesus’ and
that therefore a Christian would have been tempted to interpolate the phrase into Antiquities
20.200. Olson’s argument is weak.79 It is true that New Testament texts, authored by Jewish-​
Christians, refer to James as being the brother of Jesus,80 but the real argument is whether
the same was done by non-​Jewish Christians after Josephus yet before Eusebius. This is the
only time when interpolations could have crept into the Antiquities since Eusebius (and
likely even Origen before him) quote from Antiquities 20.200. But I have shown above that
the majority of second-​/​third-​century Christians did not believe that James was the actual
brother of Jesus and that they also went to great lengths to clarify this.81 As a result they do

75 Ἰησοῦς, πατρίῳ τινὶ τοῖς λόγοις τούτοις συνηθείᾳ καὶ Χριστὸς εἶναι λεγόμενος τοῦ θεοῦ. Origen,
Against Celsus 4.28 (ed. Marcovich, Origenes, 241 lines 24–​5).
76 τὸν παρ’ ἡμῖν λεγόμενον Χριστόν. Justin, First Apology 1.30 (ed. Marcovich, Iustini Martyris
Apologiae Pro Christianis, 76 lines 1–​2).
77 See also n. 11 above.
78 If a passage ever were to come to light showing an ancient Christian deploying the phrase without
context, such would only show how rare it was for a Christian to do so, and would thus still suggest that
Christians tended to not use it.
79 For example, Olson incorrectly characterizes Eusebius as using the term ‘brother of Jesus’ re-
garding James in Ecclesiastical History 7.19, but here Eusebius states that James was simply ‘known
under the name (χρηματίσαι) of the brother of Jesus’ (ed. Schwartz and Mommsen, Eusebius Werke
2.1–​3: Die Kirchengeschichte, vol. 2 p. 674 line 3) and elsewhere Eusebius had specified that James was
not actually the physical brother of Jesus, see Ecclesiastical History 2.1.2; Olson, ‘Eusebius and the
Testimonium Flavianum’, 316–​17.
80 Matthew 12:46–​7, 13:55–​6; Mark 3:31–​2, 6:3; Luke 8:19; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19; 1 Corinthians
9:5; Acts 1:14. Of all these, Luke is the only non-​Jewish writer, but he of course was embedded within
Jewish tradition and culture, unlike practically all Christian writers of the second and third centuries.
81 See pp. 233–4.
 Appendix 2 243

not call James the ‘brother of Jesus’. The only Christian writers who say something similar to
this were a few Jewish-​Christians (or at least those steeped in Jewish tradition). Yet even here
they refrain from using the phrase ‘brother of Jesus’ and instead use the honorific ‘brother
of the Lord’, which Josephus does not use. All this suggests that Josephus is the most likely
candidate for the passage.
Fifthly, Olson believes that the difference between the account of James’ execution in
Hegesippus (c.180 ce) and that given about James in Antiquities 20.200, suggests that each
account refers to a different James. This must mean, according to Olson, that Josephus’ ac-
count pertains to a different James than the James who was the brother of Jesus.82 However,
disqualifying Josephus’ account because it differs from that of Hegesippus would only be
valid if Hegesippus’ account was accurate, thereby disproving Josephus’ different version.
Yet, I know of no scholars who find Hegesippus’ extravagant and much later version to be

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

reliable. Certainly, it is more logical to believe that Josephus’ earlier and far more mundane
account about James’ execution accurately reflects a mundane historical event that gave rise,
over the decades, to the more exaggerated account found in Hegesippus.83
Richard Carrier is the most recent scholar to claim that Antiquities 20.200 is interpolated.
He advances some of the same arguments already addressed in this appendix, so in what
follows I limit myself to his novel propositions.84 To weaken the textual history of Antiquities
20.200 Carrier begins by conjecturing that all extant manuscripts and all Greek quotations
of the Antiquities descend ultimately from Eusebius or at least from the very same manu-
script used by Eusebius;85 this would effectively limit the number of extant witnesses of
Antiquities 20.200 to only Eusebius.
In this though, Carrier neglects to consider the sixth-century Latin translation of
Cassiodorus, which also contains the extant reading. He also does not realize that the three
earliest manuscripts of Antiquities books 18–20 consistently differ from Eusebius’ quota-
tion of the TF in two locations, suggesting that that the extant manuscripts descend from
an exemplar different from that used by Eusebius and thus are also separate witnesses to
Antiquities 20.200. One of the variant readings actually seems to be the authentic variant,
giving yet another reason for considering that the three primary and earliest Antiquities
manuscripts are not dependent upon Eusebius, since if they were copied off of Eusebius—​or
even if they descended from a similar exemplar used by Eusebius—​then they would not
have contained the correct variant.86 Carrier also neglects to consider the fact that Photius
does not simply quote Antiquities 20.200, but extensively summarizes the contents of the
Antiquities, demonstrating that he was not cribbing off of Eusebius. Photius, as I argued in
Chapter 1, had a keen eye for interpolations and frequently consulted multiple manuscripts
of the same work,87 yet he treated Antiquities 20.200 as authentic.
Another argument of Carrier’s is that Origen never claimed Josephus mentioned James
in the Antiquities.88 Carrier then concludes that Origen is not a witness to Antiquities 20.200
and hence the verse must have been inserted into manuscripts of the Antiquities after Origen.

82 Olson, ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’, 317.

83 Olson also tries to find evidence that Josephus’ work had been interpolated with passages per-
taining to James, but does not succeed in doing so. On this, see p. 236 n. 38.
84 Carrier claims that many of his arguments are not vulnerable to a rebuttal which assumes that
Antiquities 20.200 was intentionally interpolated, though, as I have stated in this appendix, my rebut-
tals apply to accidental interpolations too, see pp. 232, 235, and further arguments on 246, and Carrier,
‘Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation’, 498, 503, 512–​14.
85 Carrier, ‘Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation’, 494.
86 See pp. 29–30.
87 See pp. 29–30.
88 Carrier, ‘Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation’, 499–​503.
244 Appendix 2

Yet this is an obvious misconstrual of what Origen reports. In his Commentary on Matthew,
Origen introduces the passage regarding James as follows, ‘Flavius Josephus, when writing89
the Jewish Antiquities in twenty books . . . said that these things happened to them according
to the vengeance of God as payment for what they had dared to do to James the brother
of Jesus, who was called Christ’.90 In the above Origen prefaces his remarks by mentioning
the Antiquities, and seemingly attributing to the work a statement (italicized above) that
matches Antiquities 20.200 in six consecutive words which are given by Origen not only in
the same order but in exactly the same case as Antiquities 20.200: τὸν ἀδελϕὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ
λεγομένου Χριστοῦ. According to the TLG database, the precise form of this phrase is used
nowhere else in all of Greek literature except by Josephus in Antiquities 20.200 and in quota-
tions of the same.
Carrier admits that the clause has ‘striking similarity’ to Antiquities 20.200,91 and he fur-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

ther thinks that Origen likely confused the name of Hegesippus with Josephus in his re-
port of the death of James. Despite this, he insists that it is ‘too complicated’ to imagine that
Origen merged the accounts of Hegesippus and Josephus together in his memory.92 But
surely such a solution is actually the simplest way to explain all of the above evidence, espe-
cially compared to Carrier’s theory (addressed below) which proposes a series of changes
to the Antiquities, none of which a Christian scribe would have been likely to accidentally or
intentionally make, while also chalking up Origen’s ‘striking similarity’ to Antiquities 20.200
to mere coincidence and happenstance.93
Carrier also tacitly assumes a particularly weak argument from silence by believing that
Origen would have mentioned the passage in Antiquities 20.200 if he had known it.94 But
this does not square with Carrier’s point that Origen confused Hegesippus with Josephus.
If Origen did confuse the two, why would he mention a mundane passage from Josephus
when he (mistakenly) thought there was a far more elaborate and useful passage on the
same subject which also was from Josephus (but which was, in actuality from Hegesippus)?
Either way though, Origen did mention the passage from Josephus’ Antiquities 20.200, as
I explained above.
Carrier also believes that Josephus surely would have given more details about the exe-
cution of James given that he belonged to the ‘hated and illegal Christian sect’.95 But by
Josephus’ day Christianity had not been declared illegal in the Roman Empire, and we have
no idea how many people at this time ‘hated’ Christians let alone whether Josephus and
his readership would have been among them—​and, if so, why would he be required to talk
about it? The emotions of people are quite fickle in any case, for Tacitus shows that, a short
time before Josephus wrote, Christians were hated in Rome and persecuted, but immedi-
ately thereafter were looked on with much sympathy.96
Carrier further argues that the Book of Acts made use of the Antiquities and thus it should
have mentioned the death of James, yet does not.97 It is tenuous to assert both that Acts was

89 Carrier wants this clause to say ‘who wrote’, but the Greek has no relative pronoun or definite art-
icle, suggesting that a relative clause is not the best way to translate the passage.
90 Φλάβιον Ἰώσηπον ἀναγράψαντα ἐν εἴκοσι βιβλίοις τὴν Ἰουδαϊκὴν ἀρχαιολογίαν . . . εἰρηκέναι
κατὰ μῆνιν θεοῦ ταῦτα αὐτοῖς ἀπηντηκέναι διὰ τὰ εἰς Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελϕὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου
Χριστοῦ ὑπ’ αὐτῶν τετολμημένα. Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17 (ed. Klostermann, Origenes
Werke 10: Commentarius in Matthaeum I, 22 lines 7–​8, 10–​11).
91 Carrier, ‘Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation’, 501.
92 Ibid., 509–​10.
93 On this, see further discussion below pp. 245–6.
94 Carrier, ‘Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation’, 502–​3.
95 Ibid., 497.
96 Tacitus, Annals 15.44.
97 Carrier, ‘Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation’, 505–​6.
 Appendix 2 245

written after the 93/​4 ce date of the Antiquities98 and that it also utilized the Antiquities.99 But
even if that is the case, Acts seems to close its narrative before the death of James anyway100
and it also does not mention the deaths of Peter and Paul, individuals with whom the text
is quite concerned, especially when compared with its concern for James. Acts also omits
many things of interest that are found in the Antiquities, like Caligula’s attempt to set up a
statue in the Jerusalem Temple.101 This makes any argument from silence regarding Acts
and the Antiquities especially unpersuasive.
The most novel proposition that Carrier proposes is also his most speculative. He be-
lieves that Antiquities 20.200 originally read ‘the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus,
whose name was James’. He conjectures that a Christian scribe must have left a marginal
or interlinear note as a readerly aid indicating that Jesus, son of Damneus was he ‘who was
called Christ’. This was later mistaken by a copyist as the words of Josephus who then duly

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

incorporated them into the main text of the Antiquities. The same scribe, or another, then
removed the phrase ‘the son of Damneus’, resulting in the passage we have today.102 Carrier
believes his proposed original reading is possible because a Jesus son of Damneus, is men-
tioned shortly afterward in Antiquities 20.203. This Jesus became High Priest after Ananus
II was deposed by the Roman procurator Albinus on account of Ananus’ illegal execution of
James. Carrier thus credits his conjectural emendation with the added benefit of providing
a rationale for why Jesus son of Damneus was chosen as High Priest (apparently in com-
pensation for the murder of his brother James) and that such a situation provides a good ex-
planation for why James was introduced as the ‘brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus, whose
name was James’ in Antiquities 20.200.103
Carrier’s argument has several points of weakness. Firstly, his proposal contravenes
the order of the Antiquities. The noted clause in Antiquities 20.200 begins by not actually
mentioning the name of James, but rather by naming Jesus first, as if Jesus had already
been introduced. Only after mentioning Jesus does Josephus provide the name of James,
saying ‘the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James’ (τὸν ἀδελϕὸν
Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ). This is suggestive that Josephus had
introduced Jesus before this point. Yet preceding Antiquities 20.200, Josephus had intro-
duced neither Damneus nor Jesus the son of Damneus, and, if the TF is accurate, the last
Jesus whom Josephus had mentioned was indeed Jesus of Nazareth in Antiquities 18.63–​4.
Before him, the next previously mentioned Jesus was the High Priest Jesus the son of Sie
(Antiquities 17.341). But Josephus cannot be referring to that Jesus because his father was
Sie, not Damneus. It makes much more sense therefore that the Jesus of Antiquities 20.200

98 Antiquities 20.267; see Mason, Life of Josephus, xxxi.

99 The major scholarly commentaries on Acts bear this out. For example, in Keener’s magisterial
work he writes that ‘the majority view’ dates that work between 70 and 90; he goes on to note that a first-​
century date for Acts ‘should be regarded as secure’; Keener, Acts, vol. 1 pp. 400–​1. In his Hermeneia
commentary Conzelmann writes ‘Dating the composition of Acts somewhere between 80–​100 ce best
fits all of the evidence’. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, xxxiii. Barrett thinks that by the middle of the
second century Acts was known not ‘as a recently produced work’, but is not more specific; Barrett, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, vol. 1 p. 48. Fitzmyer says ‘I should be
reluctant to date it in the second century’; Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I–​I X, 57. Only Pervo
is willing to say that Acts may be confidently dated to the second century, and settles on 115 ce; Pervo,
Acts: A Commentary, 5, 12. He further suggests that Luke may have used the Antiquities.
100 Keener writes that Paul’s arrival in Rome in the final chapter of the book of Acts ‘cannot easily be
dated later than 60’; Keener, Acts, vol. 4 p. 3746. One of the final verses of the book (Acts 28:30) closes by
saying that Paul spent two years in Rome, thus bringing the narrative up to 62 ce.
101 Antiquities 18.261–​301.
102 Carrier, ‘Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation’, 511–​13.
103 Ibid., 503–​5.
246 Appendix 2

refers back to the most recent Jesus already mentioned—​not to an as of yet unmentioned
Jesus or to his unmentioned father, Damneus—​and the only possible candidate is Jesus of
Nazareth.
Another chronological issue is that Carrier’s emendation would mean that the various
clans of High Priests were plotting to murder one another at the time when Ananus II had
James executed, yet Josephus implies shortly afterward that this kind of descent into inter-
necine conflict did not occur among the High Priests until several years later when Joshua
son of Gamaliel became High Priest. On account of his ascension, Josephus writes that a
‘sedition’ (στάσις) then arose between the High Priests (Antiquities 20.213).104
Thirdly, the concatenation of Carrier’s proposed series of scribal changes is unlikely
every link of the way. That a Christian would have identified Jesus the son of Damneus as
Jesus the Christ is highly improbable. That the same Christian would have then added a

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

marginal note into the Antiquities with the uncontextualized and therefore distant and pos-
sibly skeptical phrase ‘who was called Christ’ is also very unlikely.105 Carrier believes that
such a phrase follows the format of marginal notes which are often brief and incomplete
participial clauses,106 but if for some reason it was thought that a marginal note was in order,
why wouldn’t the Christian scribe write the even briefer and less skeptical participial phrase
‘who is the Christ’ (τοῦ ὄντος Χριστοῦ) or use the even shorter readerly label ‘Christ’ (τοῦ
Χριστοῦ)?
Then, Carrier’s theory requires another Christian scribe to once more implausibly identify
‘Jesus, the son of Damneus’ as Jesus of Nazareth and then to integrate the previous scribe’s
marginal note into the text of Antiquities 20.200, resulting in the unlikely and completely
non-Christian reading of ‘the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, the son of Damneus,
whose name was James’. Subsequently, yet another scribe (or perhaps the same one) must
have then improbably chosen to omit the phrase ‘the son of Damneus’107 while simultan-
eously not omitting the un-​Christian sounding ‘was called’ before ‘Christ’—​and all with the
resulting phrase coincidentally mimicking in case and order the six-​word phrase Origen had
previously used to characterize the wording of Josephus’ Antiquities τὸν ἀδελϕὸν Ἰησοῦ
τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, a phrase occurring nowhere else in all of Greek literature except
in Josephus and those quoting from Josephus.108 Then, this interpolation reached Eusebius
where it was propagated throughout all remaining manuscripts of the Antiquities even
though, as I have shown, Eusebius’ manuscript of the Antiquities does not seem to have been
an ancestor of the extant copies of the Antiquities.109 This is all very unlikely.
Not only this, but Carrier’s textual emendation is entirely conjectural and without any
support from the manuscript tradition or from later quotations and, further, has much evi-
dence against it. By logical consequence its evidentiary foundation is almost nothing. In

104 For an overview of this time period, see Schürer, A History of the Jewish People, vol. 2 pp. 186–​90;
Stern, ‘The Reign of Herod and the Herodian Dynasty’, vol. 1 pp. 370–​1.
105 Carrier tries to claim that Christians used this turn of phrase based on Matthew 1:16, but, as
I have shown above, such is to greatly misunderstand the evidence; see Carrier, ‘Origen, Eusebius, and
the Accidental Interpolation’, 496–​7, 500, 511.
106 Ibid., 495.
107 This omission cannot be due to dittography as Carrier suggests because the parallel phrase is sev-
eral lines away; ibid., 512.
108 Carrier speculates that Origen himself or a scribe inspired by Origen interpolated the phrase,
but this still relies on a great series of coincidences because, according to Carrier, Origen or the scribe
would only have added a marginal note saying ‘who was called Christ’ and then a later scribe or scribes
would have had to have come along and deleted information regarding Damneus and then inserted the
marginal note in such a way as to precisely follow Origen’s six-​word phrase.
109 See Appendix 1 pp. 229–30.
 Appendix 2 247

view of these things, the most reasonable conclusion is that the text of Antiquities 20.200 is
authentic and was actually written by Josephus.

Conclusion
The grounds for affirming the authenticity of Antiquities 20.200 are quite firm. It has unani-
mous manuscript support and is backed by reliable Greek quotations and a sixth-​century
Latin translation. It also does not sound like anything an ancient Christian would inter-
polate whether through purpose or accident. The corollary to this is that, if authentic,
Antiquities 20.200 suggests that Josephus had introduced Jesus ‘who was called Christ’
earlier in the Antiquities because it seems hardly reasonable that Josephus would identify

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

James by way of a Jesus whom he had said nothing about. The TF in Antiquities 18.63–​4
fulfills this expectation of a previous discussion quite well. In this way, Antiquities 20.200
witnesses that the TF, in at least some form, was originally written by Josephus somewhere
before Antiquities 20.200. It also suggests that the original wording of the Antiquities would
not have said that Jesus ‘was the Christ’ but that he was ‘called the Christ’ or some sort of syn-
onymous phrasing. As argued in Chapter 2, just such synonymous phrasing can be found
in ancient Latin and Syriac translations of the TF, with secondary Arabic and Armenian
translations concurring.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025
 APPENDI X 3

The Trial of Jesus and Passover

Chapter 6 has emphasized that Jesus was brought to trial on the evening of Passover, when
faithful Jews were to gather in the house of their father to partake of the Passover lamb. This
particular timing follows the chronology of the synoptic Gospels which each portray the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Passover lamb as being slaughtered on the afternoon of Thursday, Nisan 14.1 According to
the synoptics, Jesus partook of the Passover meal several hours later at nightfall. He was then
arrested and put on trial by the Sanhedrin that same night in the house of the High Priest
Caiaphas and, Luke may imply, the house of Ananus I too.2 On the following morning,
Friday, Nisan 15, Jesus was brought before the Sanhedrin again, and then also before Pontius
Pilate and Herod Antipas the Tetrarch. He was crucified that afternoon.3 This chronology
makes it very likely that some of Josephus’ acquaintances would have encountered Jesus at
his trial since one or two of them would have been in the house of their family patriarch at
the time when Jesus was brought there.4 Others would have been eating Passover with emi-
nent family members who were called to the trial. Some of these acquaintances could hence
have accompanied those family members to it.
In reply to this, the observant reader might make the objection that such a chronology
is contradicted by the Gospel of John which in five verses (13:1, 13:29, 18:28, 19:14, 19:36)
appears to claim that Jesus was actually interrogated the evening before Passover, not on the
evening of Passover. Thus, according to John, Jesus was not crucified on the afternoon of
Friday, Nisan 15, but on the afternoon of Friday, Nisan 14, exactly when the Passover lambs
were to be slaughtered. In this view, the Last Supper could not have been a Passover meal
because Jesus had already been crucified when the Passover meal was celebrated. The result
of such a chronology lessens the likelihood (if only slightly) that Josephus’ acquaintances
were partisans in the trial of Jesus since they would not have been celebrating Passover in
the houses of their family patriarchs when Jesus was put on trial. The present appendix will
discuss various ways that scholars have dealt with this chronological issue and then propose
a solution.

1 The synoptic Gospels clearly portray the Last Supper as the meal in which the Passover lamb was
eaten; see Matthew 26:2, 17–​20; Mark 14:1, 12–​17; Luke 22:1, 7–​14. Jesus was arrested just hours after-
ward, on that very night.
2 Only John specifically mentions that Jesus was brought to the residences of both Caiaphas and
Ananus I, though it is possible they lived in the same compound and that Jesus was brought to two
different places within the same large residence. In the synoptic Gospels, Matthew mentions only the
residence of Caiaphas while Luke and Mark mention the residence of a High Priest, but do not state his
name. Luke however may have considered the High Priest to have been Ananus I since he had men-
tioned him earlier in Luke 3:2. See Chapter 6 nn. 158 and 162.
3 See Chapter 6 pp. 182–4 for further discussion on the trial of Jesus.
4 This is especially true for the High Priest Ananus II, Josephus’ commander. It may also apply to the
High Priest Jonathan, whom Josephus may also have known, see Chapter 6.
250 Appendix 3

The Synoptic Gospels Are Correct

First, some scholars have simply argued that the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and
Luke are correct and that the Gospel of John is incorrect.5 John, according to this theory,
presents a different chronology because he desired to portray Jesus as the typological
Passover lamb whose crucifixion corresponded precisely with when the Passover lambs
were slaughtered.6 The upshot of this is that if the synoptic chronology is historically cor-
rect, then Jesus’ arrest would have occurred on the evening of Passover, just as Chapter 6 has
assumed.

The Gospel of John Is Correct

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Other scholars have instead argued that the Gospel of John is correct and the synoptic
Gospels incorrect.7 Were this to be the case however, such a revised timing would still
place all of Josephus’ acquaintances in Jerusalem when Jesus was interrogated. These ac-
quaintances would, after all, most likely have already arrived in Jerusalem for Passover
and most of them lived in Jerusalem anyway. And though these family members would not
have been celebrating Passover when Jesus was put on trial, they still would have been cele-
brating Passover with family members who just hours previously had attended Jesus’ trial.
Therefore, if John’s chronology is correct, it nevertheless places Josephus’ acquaintances
extremely close to the trial of Jesus, just not quite as close as the synoptic chronology. It is
hence still fair to conclude in this theory that some of Josephus’ acquaintances probably
would have observed portions of the trial given their close proximity to it.

Calendar Disagreement
Other scholars have theorized that the synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John are all
correct insofar as they each articulate the perspective of different Jewish groups who cele-
brated Passover on different days.8 This is plausible because evidence shows that in ancient
Judaism there was frequent disagreement on calendrical matters.9 Thus, various Jewish
groups differed over when a calendar day began,10 what calendar to use,11 how Passover
was to be celebrated,12 and what time of day it was allowable to sacrifice the Passover lamb.13

5 For example, Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 79–​83.

6 Ibid., 82–​3.
7 Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, §604–​13; Reicke, The New Testament Era, 176–​84.
8 Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, 76–​90; Humphreys, The Mystery of the Last
Supper, 167; Strack and Billerbeck, Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 2: Excursus: The Evidence
from the Four Gospels Concerning the Day of Jesus’ Death §H pp. 969–​75.
9 For example, Mishnah, Pesahim 4.5 speaks of different Passover practices involving the school of
Hillel vs. the school of Shammai and Galileans vs. Judaeans. The Tosefta, Rosh Hashanah 1.14 states that
when Pentecost (and probably by extension Passover) could be held was disputed by the Boethusians,
who are usually identified as Sadducees. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Essenes also had their own
peculiar Passover calendar; see Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, 291.
10 Stern, Calendar and Community, pp. 99, 112 n. 393; and Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ,
pp. 85–​6.
11 Certain Jews followed a lunar calendar and others a solar calendar; see Charlesworth, ‘The Dead
Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus’, 29.
12 Hints of this are in Mishnah, Pesahim 4.5.
13 Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim 108a.3.
 Appendix 3 251

Determining the start of the new moon, and from there the start of Passover, was also a
highly charged political decision which could cause great disagreement and even outright
fraud.14 There were even rabbis who considered it lawful to slaughter the Passover lamb a
day earlier, on Nisan 13, instead of on the biblically mandated Nisan 14.15 Those Jews who
slaughtered the lamb on Nisan 13 would therefore have partaken of the slaughtered lamb
twenty-​four hours earlier than others since biblical requirements prescribed that one must
partake of the slaughtered lamb immediately after sunset.16 Hence, certain Jews must have
at least occasionally celebrated the Passover meal on Nisan 14 instead of on the standard
Nisan 15.17
For these reasons, both the synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John may accurately re-
flect different Jewish practices and perspectives regarding when the Passover meal of 30/​33
ce was held. If this is so, some of Josephus’ acquaintances would likely have been celebrating

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

the Passover meal immediately before Jesus’ trial just as the synoptic Gospels describe.
But others would have waited to celebrate the Passover meal until immediately after Jesus’
execution, just as the Gospel of John apparently describes. The probability of all this is in-
creased by the fact that Josephus’ acquaintances represented several different Jewish schools
of thought—​from the Pharisaic family of Gamaliel,18 to the Sadducean family of Ananus I,19
to the royal family of the Herodians, to various members of the Essenes.20
The end result of this theory is that if some of Josephus’ acquaintances followed the
Passover understanding of the Gospel of John, then they can still be placed quite close to the
trial of Jesus, just as described in the section above. But if others of Josephus’ acquaintances
followed the Passover understanding of the synoptics, they would of course still have been
celebrating Passover when Jesus was brought to trial, just as Chapter 6 has articulated.

The Gospel of John Is Being Misunderstood

The above theory has much to commend it, but in my judgment the following theory is
the most plausible. This theory argues that the Gospel of John is being misinterpreted
and, when properly understood, it assumes a chronology that agrees with the synoptic
Gospels. The grounds for this are that, by the first century ce, Passover had come to in-
clude the seven-​day feast of unleavened bread that occurs immediately after Passover. This

14 Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 22b.7; Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 2.1–​9; Tosefta, Rosh
Hashanah 1.15.
15 For example, Tosefta, Pesahim 4.8. For slaughtering the Passover on Nisan 14, see Exodus 12:6;
Numbers 9:2.
16 Exodus 12:10.
17 It is not clear why certain rabbis deemed Nisan 13 valid for slaughtering the Passover, but it may
have been because when the 14th occurred on a Friday then the slaughtering of the lambs (which began
in the afternoon) may have risked continuing into the Sabbath at sunset; see Strack and Billerbeck,
Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 2: Excursus: The Evidence from the Four Gospels Concerning
the Day of Jesus’ Death §G. 3 pp. 967–​8. Hence, in order to avoid violating the Sabbath, the slaughter
may have been moved a day early. Another reason for the shift might have been due to the simple prac-
ticality of avoiding having so many hundreds of thousands of Jews in Jerusalem needing to slaughter a
Passover lamb on the same day, at the same time, in the same Temple. Josephus, for instance, reports
that one Passover required 156,500 sacrificial animals; see Josephus, War 6.424.
18 Life 190–​1; Acts 5:34, see pp. 172–6.
19 Antiquities 20.199; Acts 5:17 (this latter citation must refer to the high priestly family of Ananus
I since this family held the high priesthood throughout the 30s ce; see p. 182).
20 On the Herodians, see pp. 159–72; on the Essenes, see pp. 144, 148–9. On their Passover calendar,
see n. 9.
252 Appendix 3

transformed Passover from a one-​day feast into a seven-​day feast, meaning that one could
accurately speak of Passover as occurring over multiple days, not just one day.21
This way of speaking about Passover is so common that it can be found in almost con-
stant use. Josephus, for example, repeatedly includes the seven-day feast of unleavened
bread as actually encompassing ‘the Passover’ (τὸ πάσχα).22 Philo implies the same23 as
does Matthew.24 The Gospels of Mark25 and Luke26 are even more explicit in including
‘the Passover’ (τὸ πάσχα) as part of the seven-​day feast of unleavened bread. The Jewish
Mishnah also expressly states that the Passover runs for ‘seven’ days27 and so does the
Tosefta.28 This way of speaking of Passover as a seven-​day celebration goes back to ancient
times. Thus Ezekiel speaks of Passover this way29 and adds that throughout the seven-​day
Passover feast the priests were to also partake of special temple sacrifices each and every
day.30 Josephus agrees on this latter point31 and further describes the people as feasting too

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

throughout seven days.32 Even Deuteronomy 16:2–​3 indicates that the ‘Passover’ (‫)פסח‬
was eaten for ‘seven’ days.33 Deuteronomy is here not suggesting that the actual Passover
lamb was eaten for seven days, but rather that the additional sacrifices of the seven-​day feast
of unleavened bread were considered part of the general Passover sacrifice and that it was
these Passover sacrifices which were to be eaten.

The Five Verses in John

Treating Passover as a seven-​day feast is so common and so widespread that it forces one to
reinterpret John’s five statements about when Passover occurred. To begin, John 13:29 and
18:28 seem at first to indicate that the Passover lamb had not been sacrificed before Jesus
was crucified, but given the evidence above it is likely that these two verses are instead refer-
ring to one of the seven days of Passover sacrifices and not the specific sacrifice of the lamb
on Nisan 14 which initiated the weeklong festival.
Next is John 13:1 which states that ‘Before the festival of Passover’ (Πρὸ δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς
τοῦ πάσχα) Jesus knew his hour was coming and hence washed his disciple’s feet at the
Last Supper. In context, this verse is ambiguous and does not necessarily mean that the Last
Supper happened before Passover, but either that Jesus knew before the Last Supper that his
death was coming, or that at the beginning of the Last Supper (but before the lamb was con-
sumed) Jesus shockingly washed his disciples’ feet. If this latter view is correct, Jesus must
have washed his disciples’ feet before the Passover lamb was eaten, for one would hardly
wash another’s dirty feet in the middle of a meal, but when people have just entered the

21 The best articulations of this position can be found in Köstenberger, ‘Was the Last Supper a
Passover Meal?’; Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, 293–​6.
22 War 2.10; Antiquities 10.70, 14.21, 18.29, 20.106.
23 Philo, De specialibus legibus 2.150.
24 Matthew 26:17.
25 Mark 14:1, 12.
26 Luke 22:1, 7; Acts 12:1–​6.
27 Mishnah, Pesahim 9.5.
28 Tosefta, Pesahim 8.7h.
29 Ezekiel 45:21.
30 Ezekiel 45:22–​3. See also 2 Chronicles 30:13–​15. For sacrifices made during the feast of unleav-
ened bread, see Numbers 28:16–​25.
31 Antiquities 3.249.
32 Antiquities 11.110.
33 See also 2 Chronicles 30:22.
 Appendix 3 253

room in order to recline. But whatever the case, neither of the above interpretations indicate
that the Last Supper occurred before Passover and therefore neither contradict the synoptic
Gospels. On the contrary, both interpretations actually imply that Passover was about to
commence with the start of the Last Supper, as the synoptic Gospels state.
Some have also considered that John 19:36 portrays Jesus as the Passover lamb whose
bones were not broken per the instructions in Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12. Paul makes
a similar maneuver in 1 Corinthians 5:7 where he calls Jesus ‘our Passover, who was sacri-
ficed’. These verses are said to indicate that Jesus was crucified on Nisan 14, exactly when
the Passover lambs were slaughtered.34 But to interpret these passages in such a way is too
literal a reading of what appears to be typological content. For the same reason, one would
scarcely insist that Jesus was actually crucified on the Day of Atonement on account of
the fact that early Christians believed his crucifixion was a true fulfillment of the Day of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Atonement (Hebrews 9:6–​12). Hence, when John portrays Jesus as the Passover lamb, he is
merely showing that Jesus fulfilled the Passover spiritually just as one might say that Jesus
also fulfilled the Day of Atonement spiritually—​not that his death precisely coincided with
those specific festivals.
Lastly, John 19:14 is routinely understood to indicate that Jesus was crucified before the
Passover lambs had been consumed because John says that Jesus’ trial occurred on ‘the
preparation of Passover’ (παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα). However, the Greek term ‘preparation’
(παρασκευή) is simply shorthand for ‘the day of preparation for the Sabbath’ or ‘Friday’,
which is how John deploys it twice directly afterward35 and how it is used elsewhere in
Josephus36 and in the synoptic Gospels.37 I can find no example where the term is used to
refer to the day before Passover or the day before another Jewish festival. The phrase should
therefore be simply understood as meaning ‘the Friday of Passover’.38
But this then provides another clue that John must have been thinking of Passover as
occurring over a seven-​day period, otherwise the phrase ‘the Friday of Passover’ makes little
sense. One would hardly use such a turn of phrase to refer to a one-​day festival or even a
multi-​day festival—​unless the festival was precisely seven days in length with each day of the
festival corresponding to its own day of the week. Otherwise, the phrase would be as if today
someone puzzlingly spoke of the ‘Friday of Christmas’. This is a particularly good example
because in some traditions Christmas occurs on a single day and in others over twelve days.
But in either tradition, the statement would be confusing. If Christmas occurred on only
one day, then it would be far clearer to simply say ‘Christmas occurred on a Friday’. But if on
twelve days, it would still be far clearer to say ‘the first Friday of Christmas’ or ‘the second
Friday of Christmas’ depending on how the holiday fell on the calendar. Only if Christmas
were actually a seven-​day holiday would the phrase ‘the Friday of Christmas’ make good
sense.39

34 Exodus 12:6; Josephus, Antiquities 3.248.

35 John 19:31, 42.
36 Antiquities 16.163.
37 Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54.
38 Strack and Billerbeck argue strongly against this, but they can find no Greek evidence proving
their argument and instead point to the different Talmudic phrase ‘the eve of Passover’ (ʿrb psch), but
this does not translate into ‘the preparation of the Passover’ (παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα) as the Greek de-
mands; see Strack and Billerbeck, Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 2: Excursus: The Evidence
from the Four Gospels Concerning the Day of Jesus’ Death §D.1 pp. 956–​8.
39 Were Christmas always celebrated on a fixed day or days (perhaps the fourth Monday of
December) then it could make good sense to say something like ‘the Monday of Christmas’, but of
course Christmas and Passover are not fixed to a day of the week.
254 Appendix 3

Thus, a clear way of translating the phrase ‘the Friday of Passover’ in John 19:14 would be
‘the Friday of Passover week’. Understood in this way, John is here affirming that, already at
the early morning trial of Jesus, the seven-​day Passover Festival had begun since it was ‘the
Friday of Passover week’. The result is that if Friday morning was considered ‘the Friday of
Passover week’, then the night before, when Jesus held the Last Supper, would still have been
that very same Friday and hence would still have been the Passover. Such must be the case
because by Jewish reckoning calendar days typically began at nightfall.40 This then means
that according to John, the Last Supper could not have occurred before Passover and in-
stead must have occurred on at least some day during Passover week. But evidence already
discussed above from John 13:1 shows that John implies that Passover seems to have begun
at the commencement of the Last Supper. The synoptic Gospels corroborate this by clearly
indicating that the Last Supper was indeed the meal when the Passover lamb was eaten, and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

hence was the meal that commenced Passover week.

Conclusion
For the purposes of this book then, one can safely conclude that Jesus was arrested on the
evening of Passover, Nisan 15, and then brought to the houses of the High Priests Ananus
I and Caiaphas for interrogation.

40 Stern, Calendar and Community, 99, 112 n. 393.

 APPENDI X 4

Ananus II and the Trial of Jesus

There is one more intriguing piece of evidence regarding Josephus’ commander, Ananus
II, and his participation in the proceedings against Jesus. Eastern manuscripts of the Jewish
biography of Jesus, Toledot Yeshu, name a certain ‘Anani’ (‫ )ענני‬as one of two ‘leading men

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

from the lesser Sanhedrin’ (‫)חשובים םסנהדרי קטנה‬1 who were commissioned by the Great
Sanhedrin to lure Jesus to Jerusalem for trial and execution.2 This document should be
treated with care by the modern historian for it contains many medieval additions, yet it
also possesses very ancient traditions regarding Jesus, some dating back before the year 150
ce.3 Certain of these traditions have already been noted as corroborating Josephus’ account
of Jesus.4 It is notable, therefore, that Anani’s position as an important member of the lesser
Sanhedrin would be a fitting role for Ananus II to fill at that time, being as he was then, re-
spectively, the junior son and brother-​in-​law of the High Priests Ananus I and Caiaphas.5
On account of this, could ‘Anani’ (‫ )ענני‬be our ‘Ananus’ II ( Ἄνανος)?
In first-​century Palestine the spelling of names was not consistent nor were there hard and
fast rules for how one’s Semitic name was to correspond with one’s Greek name. A strong
tendency did exist, however, for a person’s Greek name to either be transliterated from their
Semitic name or for the Greek to somewhat approximate the audible sound of the Semitic.6
Such is evident in the closest example in ancient literature of the name ‘Anani’ (‫ )ענני‬being
translated directly into Greek. This occurs in Nehemiah 3:23, where the almost identical
name ‘Anania’ (‫ )ענניה‬is translated in the Septuagint as Ανανια.7 This spelling makes for a
very close parallel with Ανανος,8 which is how Josephus presents Ananus II’s name.9 Given
the inconsistent spelling conventions of the ancient world, the Hebrew ‘Anani’ (‫ )ענני‬is thus

1 Toledot Yeshu, Group III: Wagenseil 23v §8 (Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, vol. 1 p. 292
(English); vol. 2 p. 222 (Hebrew)). There is a textual variant in Group III: Slavic A1 7v §25 where in-
stead of the name ‘Anani’ (‫)ענני‬, there is written ‘Anita’ (‫ ;)אניתא‬see Meerson and Schäfer, vol. 1 p. 344
(English); vol. 2 p. 285 (Hebrew). This is clearly a scribal corruption since there are no other Jewish
names of that orthography on record; see Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names.
2 This lesser Sanhedrin was likely one of two additional Sanhedrins of twenty-​three members lo-
cated in Jerusalem that were subordinate to the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, which itself was made
up of seventy-​one members; see Mishnah, Sanhedrin 1.6, 11.2; Tosefta, Sanhedrin 7.1b-​I; Maimonides,
Mishna Torah, Sefer Shoftim: The Sanhedrin 1.3. The lesser Sanhedrin could try capital cases, but
not those involving a false prophet; see Mishnah, Sanhedrin 1.5; Maimonides, Mishna Torah, Sefer
Shoftim: The Sanhedrin 5.2.
3 See Chapter 3 p. 129 n. 42.
4 See Chapter 3 pp. 74, 80–2, 93–5, 131–2.
5 Certain scholars have posited that members of the Lesser Sanhedrin in Jerusalem were drawn from
the membership of the Great Sanhedrin; see Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin, 95.
6 Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 93. See also Chapter 6 n. 179.
7 The name is used again in the Hebrew Bible at Nehemiah 11:32, but in this verse the Septuagint
does not translate it.
8 I omit both the breathing mark and the accent since these would not have been found in most an-
cient manuscripts.
9 See, for example, Antiquities 20.199–​200.
256 Appendix 4

a good match for Ananus II’s Greek name of Ανανος. It is therefore plausible that the Toledot
Yeshu preserves a tradition regarding the junior Ananus and his role in the judicial proceed-
ings against Jesus.
However, the above evidence must be held with some circumspection both because the
story about ‘Anani’ (‫ )ענני‬being commissioned by the Sanhedrin may be a much later Jewish
tradition and because one cannot be sure that ‘Anani’ (‫ )ענני‬and Ananus II ( Ἄνανος) were
the same person on the grounds of a similar-​sounding name. Moreover, aside from the men-
tion of the name ‘Anania’ (‫ )ענניה‬in Nehemiah 3:23, there is no other record of a similar
name in the ancient world,10 and ‘Anania’ is not exactly the same anyway. Therefore it may
be best to view ‘Anani’ (‫ )ענני‬as a fictitious retrogression from the medieval time period.
Along with this, there are documented cases of the Greek name Ἄνανος corresponding with
the Hebrew name ‘Ḥanan’ (‫ )חנן‬not ‘Anani’ (‫)ענני‬.11

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

These are good cautionary objections, and the only thing I will say by way of reply is that
spelling practices in the ancient world could be extremely idiosyncratic and individualized,
which the Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity amply demonstrates.12 So it is at least
feasible, albeit debatable, that the ‘Anani’ (‫ )ענני‬of the Toledot Yeshu pertains to Ananus II
( Ἄνανος) and his role in the trial of Jesus.

10 One of the closest is ‘Anan’ (‫ ;)עננ‬see Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names, vol. 4 p. 117.
11 Ibid., 99.
12 Ibid., 99–​100.
 APPENDI X 5

The Great Sanhedrin and Its Records of the

Trial of Jesus

The evidence adduced in this book proposes that Josephus learned of Jesus from those

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

who attended his trial or from those who were otherwise directly connected to him. In this
appendix I highlight another avenue of information through which Josephus could have
been apprised of Jesus: the court documents produced by the Sanhedrin. Before turning to
that subject, I should first explain what is known of the Sanhedrin, especially regarding the
makeup of its membership in the first century and its judicial practices. This will help in-
form our understanding of Jesus’ trial.

Membership
Jewish tradition dates the formation of the Sanhedrin to the time of Moses,1 but the earliest
historical reference to the existence of such a governing body does not come until 57 bce
when Josephus says that the Romans set up five different ‘Sanhedrins’ (συνέδρια).2 It makes
sense that such judicial bodies were not constituted until sometime after the Greek conquest
in the fourth century bce since the term συνέδριον is Greek, not Hebrew. It is also obvious
that there were more than one Sanhedrin operating at a given time, as Josephus witnesses
in the above citation. The Mishnah and the Tosefta corroborate this by affirming the exist-
ence of multiple Sanhedrins, with one Sanhedrin in each Jewish city and three Sanhedrins
in Jerusalem.3
Yet, these same sources also specify that one of these three Jerusalem Sanhedrins
was the ‘Great Sanhedrin’ (‫)סנהדרי גדולה‬, made up of seventy-one members.4
When this kind of supreme court was first constituted is not known, but it defin-
itely was active in the first century ce. Its authority was enormous and extended to reli-
gious and political matters including interpreting Jewish law,5 overseeing military

1 Mishnah, Sanhedrin 1.6. However, this reference may not describe when the Sanhedrin originated,
but instead only justify why the Sanhedrin has seventy-​one members.
2 Antiquities 14.91. War 1.170 says the same except uses a different term, σύνοδος. Mantel,
‘Sanhedrin’, 21.
3 On the lesser Sanhedrins in Jerusalem, see Appendix 4 n. 2.
4 Mishnah, Sanhedrin 1.6, 11.2; Tosefta, Sanhedrin 7.1b. In the latter citation the number of
Sanhedrin members is said to be seventy, not seventy-​one. This may be due to whether the leader of the
Sanhedrin was counted as a member or not; see Mishnah, Sanhedrin 1.6.
5 The Mishnah says that from the Sanhedrin did ‘the law go forth to Israel’; see Mishnah, Sanhedrin
11.2 (trans. Danby p. 399; see also Tosefta, Sanhedrin 7.1q). Josephus also mentions that the entire ap-
paratus of state—​including the ‘care of the law’ and the judgment of criminal cases—​was entrusted to
the priests and the High Priest, see Apion 2.185, 187–​8. This passage must refer to the Great Sanhedrin
given that Josephus refers to the Sanhedrin elsewhere as an enormously powerful political body.
258 Appendix 5

engagements,6 establishing other lesser Sanhedrins in various cities,7 and holding trials
for the highest of crimes such as false prophecy.8 In the present book I refer to this ‘Great
Sanhedrin’ whenever I use the term ‘Sanhedrin’ unless the context indicates otherwise. In
this appendix, however, I will be a bit more specific in my language.
The membership of the Great Sanhedrin in first-century Jerusalem is not certainly
known, but Josephus explains that after the death of Archelaus (probably around 6 ce)9
‘the government became an aristocracy and the High Priests were entrusted with the
leadership of the people’.10 So it is probable that when Jesus was ministering most of
the Great Sanhedrin members were either aristocratic, or priests, or both. That high-​
ranking priests were members of the Sanhedrin is corroborated by the Babylonian
Talmud which describes priests from the Great Sanhedrin assisting with rituals involving
the Day of Atonement.11 The Gospels and Acts also associate chief priests with the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Sanhedrin.12 Jewish sources and the New Testament further indicate that the Great
Sanhedrin included both Pharisees and Sadducees13 with many of their students often in

6 Mishnah, Sanhedrin 2.4. While serving as a general in the Jewish war, Josephus stayed in com-
munication with the Sanhedrin (Life 62) and this seems to be the same authoritative body that had
appointed him to the rank of general (War 2.568).
7 Mishnah, Sanhedrin 1.5. Josephus received a military commission by the Sanhedrin (see n. 6
above) and used that authority to establish what appear to be Sanhedrins of seventy members in various
cities; War 2.570.
8 On false prophecy, see Mishnah, Sanhedrin 1.5 and Chapter 6 pp. 189–90. For another unspecified
serious crime prosecuted by what appears to have been the Great Sanhedrin, see Antiquities 20.200.
Scholars are quite divided over what the precise roles of the Great Sanhedrin were, but as the reader
can see in the above notes, there is basic agreement in the rabbinic and Hellenistic sources regarding
its general purview. For a discussion on various scholarly reconstructions of the Great Sanhedrin, see
Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin, 54–​101. Mantel claims that much of what I stipulate as
the prerogative of the Great Sanhedrin actually belonged to a separate, political Sanhedrin of twenty-​
three members. But this does not consider that this supposedly political Sanhedrin seems to be exactly
what is described in the Mishnah (n. 5) as having seventy-​one members and as having authority over
Jewish religious law. Josephus also corroborates this (nn. 5, 11). While an argument can be made that in
the first century the Great Sanhedrin played a largely political role; if so the overlap between civil and
religious matters could be quite extensive in the ancient world, thus making a distinction between ‘pol-
itical’ and ‘religious’ activity potentially anachronistic. For further plausible, though often speculative,
reconstructions of the Great Sanhedrin, see Reicke, The New Testament Era, 142–​52.
9 Josephus records that Archelaus was exiled around 5 or 6 ce and implies that he died shortly there-
after; see Antiquities 17.342–​4; War 2.111–​13.
10 Antiquities 20.251.
11 Mishnah, Yoma 1.3, 5. Josephus also describes the Great Sanhedrin as having oversight over
priestly matters; Antiquities 20.216–​18. According to the Tosefta, the Great Sanhedrin also validated the
genealogy of priests; see Tosefta, Sanhedrin 7.1v.
12 Matthew 26:59, 27:1; Mark 14:53–​5, 15:1; Luke 22:66; John 11:47; Acts 4:13–​23, 22:30.
13 In the 60s ce Rabbi Simon was the prince of the Great Sanhedrin, and Josephus tells us that he
was a Pharisee. His father Gamaliel also led the Sanhedrin and was also a Pharisee; on these two men
see Chapter 6 pp. 172–6. The High Priest Ananus II was a Sadducee and convened the Sanhedrin for
a capital case involving James, the brother of Jesus (Antiquities 20.198–​200). Jewish tradition reports
that in a capital case involving the daughter of a priest, the particular Sanhedrin that convicted her was
made up of Sadducees; see Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 52b.4. This Sanhedrin was likely the Great
Sanhedrin because, though it is nowhere explicitly stated, there is implication in the Mishnah that cap-
ital cases involved the Great Sanhedrin, though their quorum was only required to be twenty-​three not
seventy-​one except in major cases as with a false prophet. See, for example, a lengthy description of
what seems to be the Great Sanhedrin judging capital cases in Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4.3–​5, 6.1, 6.6, 7.1.
(For the quorum of the Great Sanhedrin and its treatment of false prophets, see pp. 189–90.) Lastly, the
New Testament repeatedly witnesses to both Pharisees and Sadducees as members of or at least associ-
ated with what appears to be the Great Sanhedrin; see John 11:47–​49; Acts 5:17–​34, 23:7.
 Appendix 5 259

attendance.14 The Gospels also imply that non-priestly members were aristocratic, or at
least wealthy.15
But, as far as the High Priest himself is concerned, the Mishnah explains that he had
the privilege of acting as a ‘judge’ in Great Sanhedrin trials, apparently referring to some
kind of prerogative to lead criminal proceedings.16 Similarly, the canonical Gospels, Acts,
and Josephus portray the High Priest as having immense sway over the Great Sanhedrin
with even the ability to convene the authoritative body.17 It is unclear if the High Priest
was counted a member of the Great Sanhedrin or had some other kind of de facto, super-
visory role. But whatever the case, the official leader of the Great Sanhedrin was not the
High Priest, and instead went by the title Nasi, or prince. Evidence suggests he was often a
Pharisee in the first century.18
Gathering all of this data together, a fair historical reconstruction would assume that

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

in the first century the Great Sanhedrin consisted of aristocrats drawn from Pharisees,
Sadducees, and priests with the High Priest possessing a powerful influence over the body—​
and this is much in line with what the canonical Gospels relate.

Judicial Practices
How did the Great Sanhedrin conduct trials? Our best evidence comes from the provisions
laid out in the Sanhedrin tractates of the Mishnah (third–​fourth century ce) and the Tosefta
(third–​fourth century ce). These record that, when interrogating an alleged false prophet,19
the seventy-​one members of the Great Sanhedrin were all to be in attendance20 and that two
or three scribes were to record various statements.21 Witnesses in the case were carefully
prepared22 and then examined to see if their testimony was consistent.23 The High Priest, as
mentioned above, was allowed to serve as a kind of judge of the proceedings.24 Elders also
seem to have been present whenever the Great Sanhedrin sat for court.25 Afterward, if a
guilty verdict was reached, it was recommended that an announcement be sent throughout
the land publicly naming the guilty party, stipulating the incriminating evidence, and

14 Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4.4. Acts records that the apostle Paul was a student of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3),
the leader of the Sanhedrin, and that Paul attended the Sanhedrin execution of Stephen; see Acts
7:58, 8:1.
15 The Gospels portray Joseph of Arimathea as being both rich and a member of the Sanhedrin;
see Matthew 27:57; Mark 15:43. Josephus implies that priestly members were aristocratic because, as
quoted above, he says that the government was led by an aristocracy; Antiquities 20.251.
16 Mishnah, Sanhedrin 2.1. The fact that the High Priest served as a judge cannot mean that the High
Priest had the sole prerogative of determining the outcome of court cases since each member of the
Great Sanhedrin could vote on the verdict; see Mishnah, Sanhedrin 5.5. Therefore ‘judge’ must refer to
some other position or act of authority.
17 Josephus, Antiquities 20.200. The Gospels also give the High Priest a leading role in the Sanhedrin;
see Matthew 26:59–​67; Mark 14:55–​65; John 11:47–​53; Acts 4:5–​15, 5:17–​28, 6:12–​7:1, 22:30–​23:2.
18 This is due to the fact that the pharisaic family of Hillel often served as Nasi; see p. 172.
19 On the Sanhedrin accusing Jesus of being a false prophet, see Chapter 6 n. 214.
20 Mishnah, Sanhedrin 1.5–​6. It appears to have been possible for the Great Sanhedrin to convene a
session without all members in attendance except at trials of false prophets and other serious crimes;
see Tosefta, Sanhedrin 7.1i–​k .
21 Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4.3. All of the injunctions described below applied to trials of false prophets,
though some of the injunctions applied to lesser crimes as well.
22 Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4.5.
23 Mishnah, Sanhedrin 5.1–​4.
24 Mishnah, Sanhedrin 2.1
25 Tosefta, Sanhedrin 8.1d.
260 Appendix 5

describing the capital sentence.26 The execution was to take place outside of the camp, that
is outside of the city.27 But in order to make this event as public as possible, there was a pref-
erence for it to be carried out during those festivals in which Jews were required to journey
to Jerusalem.28
In reviewing these particulars, I must say that they match the trial of Jesus in practically
every respect. The Gospels describe ‘the whole Sanhedrin’ as having been in attendance at
Jesus’ trial29 along with ‘scribes’ and ‘elders’.30 The High Priest interrogated Jesus directly,
apparently supervising the proceedings.31 Witnesses were also brought forth against Jesus,32
and they seem to have been examined since ‘their testimony did not agree’.33 The Gospels
further place the execution of Jesus as occurring on Passover when Jews were indeed re-
quired to be present in Jerusalem.34 Evidence also indicates that Jesus was executed immedi-
ately outside of Jerusalem.35

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Really, the only aspect of the trial of Jesus that may contradict Sanhedrin policy is chrono-
logical.36 The Gospels say that the trial of Jesus occurred on the day of Passover whereas the
Mishnah and the Tosefta maintain that no trials were to occur on a festival day or on the eve
of a Festival day.37 Capital trials also could not commence and conclude on the same cal-
endar day and were supposed to occur during daylight hours, not at night as with the trial
of Jesus.38 A reasonable solution to this is that the Great Sanhedrin may have considered
their earlier meeting several days before Jesus was arrested as constituting the beginning of
the trial of Jesus.39 This would mean that the verdict of Jesus was not given on the same day
the trial began. If the nighttime portion of the trial was considered to be a kind of unofficial
hearing, then the trial would not have occurred at night either.
There still remains the issue of holding the trial on a Festival day, but the Tosefta clari-
fies that, while a trial was not allowed on a Festival day, if such a trial occurred, then it
was still valid.40 Another passage gives allowance to bend the rules of capital trials when

26 Mishnah, Sanhedrin 11.4; Tosefta, Sanhedrin 11.7f; Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 11.4.1 (11.4h–​i
ed. Neusner).
27 Mishnah, Sanhedrin 6.1.
28 See especially Tosefta, Sanhedrin 11.7c–​e. But also Mishnah, Sanhedrin 11.4; Jerusalem Talmud,
Sanhedrin 11.4d–​f. In these passages Rabbi Judah disagrees and believes the perpetrator should be put
to death at once. Even so, the trial of Jesus had the unfortunate distinction of fulfilling both the prefer-
ence of being executed at a public feast and of being executed at once.
29 Matthew 26:59; Mark 14:55, 15:1. See also Chapter 6 pp. 183, 189–90.
30 Matthew 26:57; Mark 14:53, 15:1; Luke 22:66.
31 Matthew 26:59–​67; Mark 14:55–​65; John 18:19. See also Luke 22:54.
32 Matthew 26:59–​62; Mark 14:55–​60. See also Luke 22:71.
33 Mark 14:59. See also Matthew 26:59–​60; Mark 14:56.
34 See Chapter 6 p. 192 and Appendix 3.
35 Hebrews 13:12; John 19:20.
36 For an in-​depth discussion on how the trial of Jesus comported with rabbinic law, see Strack and
Billerbeck, Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 2: Excursus: The Evidence from the Four Gospels
Concerning the Day of Jesus’ Death when Considered in Relation to the Halakah. For a more skeptical
view, see Theobald, Der Prozess Jesu, 662.
37 Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4.1; Tosefta, Yom Tob 4.4j, m. These latter citations indicate that trials could
not be held on the Sabbath or on the eve of a Sabbath and that festivals were considered Sabbaths.
Therefore, trials could not be held on festivals or on the day immediately before festivals. See Appendix
3 for a discussion about whether the trial of Jesus occurred on the eve of Passover or on the Passover.
38 Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4.1. Another objection is that the trial of Jesus did not take place in the
Chamber of Hewn Stone, where the Great Sanhedrin was to meet; see Mishnah, Sanhedrin 11.2, per-
haps also War 5.144. However, the Gospels do not specify the location of the morning trial of Jesus, so it
is possible that the Sanhedrin did meet there at that time.
39 Matthew 26:3–​5; Mark 14:1–​2; Luke 22:1–​2.
40 Tosefta, Yom Tob 4.4j–​p.
 Appendix 5 261

extraordinary circumstances demand it.41 In line with this, the Gospels portray the Jewish
leadership as almost panicking when they realized how great the crowds were who followed
Jesus throughout the week before his crucifixion.42 It also could not have helped things that
during this last week the Gospels have Jesus attacking the authority of Jewish leadership,43
clearing the temple,44 and probably uttering his famous phrase ‘Destroy this temple and
in three days I will raise it up’45—​the very phrase that Matthew and Mark claim was used
against Jesus in his trial.46 All of this plausibly combines to have created a crisis situation for
the Jewish leadership, allowing them to skirt those few chronological rules that could be dis-
pensed with in emergencies, as when precisely a capital trial should be conducted.47

The Records of Jesus’ Trial

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

But what is important for our purposes is that, aside from chronological technicalities,
the Great Sanhedrin appears to have been following their own legal requirements when
trying Jesus.48 And given this, the conclusion should reasonably be made that the Great
Sanhedrin would have in all likelihood recorded the proceedings against Jesus and then
published the verdict abroad, just as their same legal provisions actually recommended
them to do. Corroborating this are the Gospel accounts which depict ‘scribes’ at the trial.49

41 Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 6.6.5 (ed. Neusner 6.6.2.1hh–​ii).

42 Matthew 21:15, 46; Mark 11:18, 12:12; Luke 19:39, 19:47–​8, 20:19; John 12:19.
43 Matthew 21:45; Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19.
44 Matthew 21:12–​16; Mark 11:15–​18; Luke 19:45–​8.
45 John 2:19.
46 Matthew 26:61, 27:40; Mark 14:58, 15:29. Matthew and Mark give versions of this phrase as being
used against Jesus during his trial, and the Gospel of John actually has Jesus say the phrase when he
clears the temple, though in John this occurs at the beginning of his ministry not at the end. It is possible
that John moved the timing of this phrase for theological reasons or that Jesus spoke the phrase multiple
times, as any traveling preacher might do and as Jesus tended to do with other of his teachings.
47 Another possibility is that the Great Sanhedrin may have felt that the trial of Jesus did not meet the
bar of being a capital trial since the Jewish leadership was not actually going to execute Jesus themselves
on account of the fact that the Romans had taken away their authority to carry out capital punishment;
see pp. 239–40. This would mean that the trial of Jesus could begin and conclude on the same day and
that it could take place on the eve of a festival day, which, if certain interpretations of John’s chronology
are correct, was when the trial Jesus was held; see Appendix 3. In this view, the only chronological
contradiction remaining is that the trial was to take place during the day, not at night. But it is possible
that the Great Sanhedrin did not consider its nighttime assembly to be official and hence waited to con-
vene the official session until the morning portion of the trial of Jesus. On this portion of the trial see
Chapter 6 pp. 183, 192–4.
48 Some may question if the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus had any ‘official’ component since Jewish lead-
ership at the time seems to have been beholden to Roman authorities (see Brown, Gospel According
to John, 792–​3; on the Romans depriving Jewish leadership of the right of capital punishment, see pp.
239–40). Others may question whether we can trust later rabbinic documents, like the Mishnah and
the Tosefta, to tell us how the first-​century Great Sanhedrin would have conducted Jesus’ trial since
rabbinic documents are often in conflict with Hellenistic sources; see Mantel, Studies in the History
of the Sanhedrin, 54. These both are perceptive questions, but my reply is to reiterate that what really
matters is that the Gospels describe the trial of Jesus in ways that align remarkably well with what the
Mishnah and the Tosefta describe as ought to happen to a false prophet when brought before the Great
Sanhedrin. This means that whether the trial of Jesus was ‘official’ or not is beside the point since the
Great Sanhedrin seems to have been following their official policies nonetheless. It also means that
though the Mishnah and the Tosefta may contain later anachronistic material that has no application to
the first-​century Great Sanhedrin, in the case of a false prophet these documents seem to preserve au-
thentic first-​century material, otherwise why would they so closely parallel what the canonical Gospels
relate?
49 Matthew 26:57; Mark 14:53, 15:1; Luke 22:66.
262 Appendix 5

The Babylonian Talmud also mentions the publicity surrounding Jesus’ trial when it says
that a crier went forth publicly announcing the accusation against Jesus of Nazareth and
soliciting evidence.50
The logical inference from the above is that Sanhedrin records of Jesus’ trial probably
existed. Therefore, as far as concerns Josephus’ acquaintances (who were discussed in
Chapter 6), it is not too much to say that some of them may well have been privy to these
documents regarding Jesus. This is particularly likely for Josephus’ fellow Pharisee, Simon
son of Gamaliel, who was prince of the Sanhedrin in the 60s ce. At this time Simon could
have consulted Sanhedrin documents pertaining to the trial of Jesus, or he may have seen
them in the decades previous when he would have been a junior member of the Sanhedrin,
or even when his father Gamaliel was prince of the Sanhedrin in the early 30s ce.51 This is
especially likely since both Simon and his father Gamaliel are known for publishing official

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

edicts to Jews throughout the land.52 So in all likelihood Simon had access to Sanhedrin
documents. These would have given Simon an extraordinary knowledge of Jesus’ trial.53
Moreover, Simon would have had great motive to consult these documents in 62 ce when
James, the brother of Jesus, was executed by the Sanhedrin right about when Simon was
leading the Sanhedrin.54
But Simon aside, Josephus also knew as many as five High Priests,55 each of whom were
probably also privy to the Sanhedrin archive, especially since the Sanhedrin gave them
permission to preside as judge in trials. Ananus II would be the most likely of these High
Priests to access such documents since he was the one who convened the Sanhedrin that
executed James the brother of Jesus. And of course, even if none of Josephus’ contacts actu-
ally read Jesus’ court documents directly, they could have learned of their contents through
any number of secretaries or intermediaries who undoubtedly were employed by their own
religious apparatuses.
Yet this is not all. It is also possible that Josephus’ contacts could have had access to
Sanhedrin documents concerning Jesus’ early followers. This possibility comes by reason
of the fact that the book of Acts describes the Great Sanhedrin as holding court over Peter,
John, Stephen, Paul, James, and the eleven apostles.56 If this is so, then at each of these trials
it is plausible that documents were produced since Sanhedrin requirements stipulated
doing so. As such, Josephus’ acquaintances could have read these and passed their infor-
mation on to Josephus, or Josephus could have learned of their contents through the social
circles he and his acquaintances shared.
The possibility should even be considered that Josephus himself read such Sanhedrin
documents given that he was, after all, an eminent and well-​connected Pharisee who was
interested in historical matters. He even requested that Emperor Titus allow him to gather

50 Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a.20.

51 On Gamaliel probably being leader of the Sanhedrin, see Chapter 6 p. 172.
52 See Chapter 6 pp. 172, 175.
53 This is in addition to any knowledge Simon may have gained from his own experience or from his
own father; see Chapter 6 p. 193.
54 Antiquities 20.200–​1. For discussion of Simon, see Chapter 6 pp. 174–6.
55 On these, see Chapter 6.
56 Acts 4:15 (Peter and John), 5:21, 26 (the 11 Apostles), 6:12–​15 (Stephen), 22:30, 23:1–​6 (Paul);
Antiquities 20.200 (James).
 Appendix 5 263

sacred books from Jerusalem before its destruction.57 So his interest in consulting docu-
ments is evident.
All that to say, it is credible that Sanhedrin documents recording the trial of Jesus ex-
isted and that Josephus could have learned of their contents. This is therefore yet an-
other reason why what Josephus says in the Testimonium Flavianum should be carefully
considered.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

57 Life 418. See also War 7.150, where a valuable Jewish scroll was preserved by the Romans, which
may have been done at the urging of Josephus. For discussion, see Hollander, Josephus, 172–​4.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025
 APPENDI X 6

Josephus’ Silence Regarding

Jesus in the War

The latter chapters of this book have argued that in the 50s and 60s ce Josephus had ample

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

opportunities to learn of Jesus from those who knew him directly, and from others who
were well informed about him. In response, an observant reader might wonder whether
Josephus actually knew of Jesus before he completed his War in 75 ce,1 since in this treatise
he makes no mention of ‘the one called Christ’ when he speaks of disturbances under the
governorship of Pontius Pilate in War 2.169–​77. This is puzzling because later on in 93/​4
ce, when Josephus was finishing his Antiquities, he reworks the above passage from the War
and chooses to insert some extra stories.2 This time though, he includes an account of Jesus
(the Testimonium Flavianum) found in Antiquities 18.63–​4. One could explain Josephus’
earlier omission of Jesus by theorizing that the Jewish historian must have first come across
information about Jesus only between 75 and 94 ce, causing him to discuss Jesus in the
Antiquities, but not in his earlier work, the War.3
This explanation, however, does not consider that Josephus must have known of Jesus far
earlier, no later in fact than 62 ce when the illegal execution of James, the brother of Jesus,
was carried out by Josephus’ future commander, Ananus II.4 This caused such outrage that
Ananus II was removed from the high priesthood by Josephus’ future friend, Agrippa II.5
There is every reason to think that Josephus would have known of this event when it oc-
curred, for how could an eminent priest like Josephus not know the circumstances behind
the public removal of the High Priest, especially when that High Priest would soon become
his own commander in the Jewish war?6
On this point alone Josephus must have been apprised of Jesus no later than 62 ce and
probably much earlier—​especially given that Christians were evidently such a burgeoning
threat that the High Priest had one of their leaders illegally executed, causing great scandal.
Josephus thus would likely have known of Christians at least several years before 62 ce
since Christians were of such influence that they attracted the attentions of the High Priest.
Moreover, as Chapter 5 shows, further grounds for concluding that Josephus would have had
early knowledge of Jesus is his close familiarity with the chief priests, Essenes, and Pharisees
throughout the 50s ce. Many of these men would have had good opportunity to know of
Jesus and even to have participated in his trial.7 By extension then, Josephus could not have
omitted Jesus from the War due to lack of knowledge. There must have been other reasons.8

1 On this date, see Chapter 6 n. 70.

2 Antiquities 18.55–​87. See p. 131 n. 51; for the date of Antiquities, see Chapter 7 n. 79.
3 Eisler, The Messiah Jesus, 63–​74.
4 Antiquities 20.200–​1.
5 For discussion, see Chapter 6 pp. 163, 186.
6 For Josephus’ great status at this time, see Chapter 5 p. 145.
7 See Chapter 5 pp. 143–7.
8 For various potential reasons, see Feldman, ‘Flavius Josephus Revisited’, 825–​6.
266 Appendix 6

These reasons become clear when assessing Josephus’ motives for writing his works.
First is the simple observation that Josephus’ earliest work, the War, primarily concerns the
Jewish war with Rome9 and hence Jesus may not have seemed a relevant figure to mention,
since he hardly had anything to do with the war. The Antiquities by contrast, covers Jewish
history more broadly,10 making Jesus much more relevant to discuss.
Secondly, as scholars have long known, Josephus endeavors in the War to insulate certain
Jewish leaders from criticism,11 criticism that Josephus freely makes in his later works, his
Antiquities and his Life, both of which were written two decades after the War.12 He, for ex-
ample, greatly praises Ananus II in the War,13 yet criticizes him in the Antiquities.14 Or, in
an example that is even more relevant, Josephus omits mentioning in the War that Ananus
II and the leader of the Sanhedrin, Simon son of Gamaliel, coordinated to betray him, but
he does mention them doing so in his Life where he claims he was keenly aware of the be-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

trayal while it was happening.15 Josephus probably made the choice to omit the betrayal in
the War because in 75 ce there were many around who would have objected to criticisms of
illustrious Jewish leaders like Ananus II and Simon son of Gamaliel. But not many of them
would have remained in 93/​4 ce, when Josephus completed his Antiquities and his Life.
And of course, as this book has shown, it was the fathers of Ananus II and Simon who
also had Jesus put on trial, a trial which Ananus II and Simon very likely attended. Josephus
probably did not want to call attention to such a messy business in his War for fear of alien-
ating erstwhile allies of the two Jewish leaders. But years later, when writing the Antiquities,
he would have been free to mention such a happening.
Thus, when writing the War, Josephus’ silence regarding Jesus is no evidence that he
was unaware of Jesus, just as his silence regarding his betrayal is no evidence that he was
unaware of his betrayal. This is especially true since Josephus’ initial silence on both mat-
ters concerns the questionable activities of the same famous Jewish leaders: Ananus II and
Simon son of Gamaliel.

9 War preface 1–​3.

10 Antiquities preface 1–​9.
11 For examples, see Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 236–​42; Mason, Life of Josephus, 99
nn. 858–​9.
12 The Life was written around the time of the Antiquities; see Mason, Life of Josephus, xv– xviii; on
the date of the Antiquities see Chapter 7 n. 79.
13 War 4.318–​25.
14 Antiquities 20.199–​201.
15 Life 190–​204. Josephus does not mention this betrayal in the parallel passage in War 2.626–​9. For
further criticism, see Life 216, 309.
 Bibliography

Adler, William, and Paul Tuffin, trans. The Chronography of George Synkellos: A Byzantine
Chronicle of Universal History from the Creation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Ainsworth, Janet, and Patrick Juola. ‘Who Wrote This? Modern Forensic Authorship Analysis
as a Model for Valid Forensic Science’. Washington University Law Review 96, no. 5
(2019): 1159–​87.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger,
eds. The Greek New Testament. 5th ed. revised, 3rd corrected printing. Stuttgart: German
Bible Society, 2016.
Allison, Dale C. Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark International, 2005.
Amidon, Philip R., trans. The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia: Books 10 and 11.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Armstrong, Jonathan J., trans. Eusebius of Caesarea: Commentary on Isaiah. Ancient Christian
Texts. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013.
Assemani, Giuseppe Simone. Bibliotheca orientalis. 3 vols. Rome: Sacra Congregationis de
Propaganda Fide, 1719–​28.
Assemani, Stefano Evodio. Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae et Palatinae codicum.
Florence, 1742.
Aucher (Awgerean), Jean-​ Baptiste (Mkrtich’), ed. Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis
Episcopi: Chronicum Bipratum. 2 vols. Venice, 1818.
Bammel, Ernst. ‘A New Variant Form of the Testimonium Flavianum’. The Expository Times 85,
no. 5 (1974): 145–​7.
Bammel, Ernst. ‘Zum Testimonium Flavianum (Jos Ant 18, 63-​ 64)’. In Josephus-​
Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament: Otto
Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet, edited by Otto Betz, Klaus Haacker, and Martin Hengel,
9–​22. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974.
Baras, Zvi. ‘Testimonium Flavianum: The State of Recent Scholarship’. In Society and Religion in
the Second Temple Period, edited by Michael Avi-​Yonah and Zvi Baras, 303–​13 (text), 378–​85
(notes). London: W. H. Allen, 1977.
Baras, Zvi. ‘The Testimonium Flavianum and the Martyrdom of James’. In Josephus, Judaism,
and Christianity, edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gōhei Hata, 338–​48. Detroit: Wayne State
University Press, 1987.
Barclay, John M. G. Against Apion. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 10.
Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Bardet, Serge. Le Testimonium Flavianum: examen historique, considérations historiographiques.
2nd ed. Josèphe et son temps 5. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2002.
Barkay, Gabriel. ‘The Garden Tomb: Was Jesus Buried Here?’ Biblical Archaeology Review 12, no.
2 (1986): 40–​53, 56–​7.
Barnes, T. D. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981.
Barnes, T. D. ‘The Editions of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History’. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine
Studies 21, no. 2 (1980): 191–​201.
Barnett, Paul. Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times. Lisle,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
Barrett, Charles Kingsley. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols.
International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994, 1998.
268 Bibliography

Bauckham, Richard J. ‘Gamaliel and Paul’. In Earliest Christianity within the Boundaries of
Judaism: Essays in Honor of Bruce Chilton, edited by Alan Avery-​Peck, Craig A. Evans, and
Jacob Neusner, 87–​106. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, eds. A Greek-​
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Baumbach, Günther. ‘The Sadducees in Josephus’. In Josephus, the Bible, and History, edited by
Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, 173–​95. Leiden: Brill, 1989.
Becker, Adam H, and Annette Yoshiko Reed, eds. The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and
Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.
Becker, Matthias. Porphyrios, ‘Contra Christianos’: Neue Sammlung der Fragmente, Testimonien
und Dubia mit Einleitung, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen. Texte und Kommentare 52.
Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015.
Beckwith, Roger T. Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian. Biblical, Intertestamental

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

and Patristic Studies. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Bedrosian, Robert, trans. Eusebius’ Chronicle. Long Branch, NJ, 2008. https://www.attalus.org/
armenian/euseb.html​.
Bell, Albert A., Jr. ‘Josephus the Satirist? A Clue to the Original Form of the “Testimonium
Flavianum” ’. Jewish Quarterly Review 67, no. 1 (1976): 16–​22.
Bermejo-​Rubio, Fernando. ‘Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a
“Neutral” Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on Antiquitates Judaicae 18.63–​64’.
Journal for the Study of Judaism 45, no. 3 (2014): 326–​65.
Betz, Otto. ‘Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus’. In Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity,
edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gōhei Hata, 212–​35. Detroit: Wayne State University
Press, 1987.
Boor, Carolus de, ed. Georgii monachi chronicon. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1904.
Brandt, Samuel, and Georgius Laubmann, eds. L. Caeli Firmiani Lactanti: Opera omnia. CSEL
19. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1890.
Bratke, Eduard. ‘Das sogennante Religionsgespräch am Hof der Sassaniden’. TU 19, no. 3a
(1899): 1–​305.
Briere, M, ed. Sancti Philoxeni Episcopi Mabbugensis Dissertationes decem de uno e sancta
Trinitate incorporato et passo. II, Dissertationes 3a, 4a, 5a. Vol. 38.3. Patrologia Orientalis.
Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 1977.
Bringel, Pauline. ‘Une polémique à la cour perse: le De gestis in Perside: Histoire du texte, édition
critique et traduction’. Thesis, Université Paris IV Sorbonne, 2007.
Broadhead, Edwin K. Jewish Ways of Following Jesus: Redrawing the Religious Map of Antiquity.
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 266. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2010.
Brock, Sebastian. ‘Josephus’. In Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage: Electronic
Edition, edited by Sebastian P Brock, Aaron Michael Butts, George Anton Kiraz, and Lucas
van Rompay. Gorgias Press; online ed. Beth Mardutho, 2011, 2008. https://​gedsh.bethm​ardu​
tho.org/​Josep​hus.
Brock, Sebastian. ‘Some Syriac Legends Concerning Moses’. Journal of Jewish Studies 33, no. 1–​2
(1982): 237–​55.
Brooks, E. W. ‘The Chronological Canon of James of Edessa’. Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenlāndischen Gesellschaft 53 (1899): 261–​327.
Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John, XIII–​X XI. The Anchor Bible.
New York: Doubleday, 1970.
Burgansky, Israel. ‘Simeon Ben Gamaliel I’. In Encyclopaedia Judaica: Second Edition, edited by
Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 18:595. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2007.
Burgansky, Israel. ‘Simeon Ben Gamaliel II (of Jabneh)’. In Encyclopaedia Judaica: Second Edition,
edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 18:595–​6. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2007.
Burgess, R. W. ‘The Dates and Editions of Eusebius’ Chronici Canones and Historia Ecclesiastica’.
Journal of Theological Studies 48, no. 2 (1997): 471–​504.
 Bibliography 269

Carean, A., ed. Patmut’iwn Eketec’woy Eusebiosi Kesrac’woy. Venice, 1877.

Carrier, Richard. ‘Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish
Antiquities 20.200’. Journal of Early Christian Studies 20, no. 4 (2012): 489–​514.
Bay, Carson. Biblical Heroes and Classical Culture in Christian Late Antiquity: The Historiography,
Exemplarity, and Anti-​Judaism of Pseudo-​Hegesippus. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2023.
Castelli, Silvia. ‘Riferimenti a Flavio Giuseppe nella letteratura siriaca’. Henoch 23, no. 2/​3
(2001): 199–​226.
Cernuda, Antonio Vicent. ‘El testimonio flaviano, alarde de solapada ironía’. Estudios Bíblicos 55,
no. 3, 4 (1997): 355–​85, 479–​508.
Chabot, Jean-​Baptiste, ed. Chronique de Michel Le Syrien. 4 vols. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1899–​1910.
Chadwick, Henry, trans. Origen: Contra Celsum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.
Charlesworth, James H. ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus’. In Jesus and the Dead Sea
Scrolls, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 1–​74. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Cheikho, Louis, ed. Agapius Episcopus Mabbugensis Historia Universalis. Corpus Scriptorum
Christianorum Orientalium/​ Scriptores Arabici 65/​ 10. Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste
L. Durbecq, 1954.
Chilton, Bruce D., and Craig A. Evans. The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early
Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Christensen, Torben. Rufinus of Aquileia and the Historia Ecclesiastica, Lib. VIII–​I X, of Eusebius.
Copenhagen: Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 1989.
Cohen, Shaye J. D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian.
Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Conrad, Lawrence I. ‘The Conquest of Arwad: A Source-​Critical Study in the Historiography
of the Early Medieval Near East’. In The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East: Papers of the
First Workshop on Late Antiquity and Early Islam, edited by Averil Cameron and Lawrence I.
Conrad, 317–​401. Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 1. Princeton: Darwin Press, 1992.
Conzelmann, Hans. Acts of the Apostles. Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the
Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.
Cook, John Granger. The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-​Roman Paganism.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002.
Cope, Glenn Melvin. ‘An Analysis of the Heresiological Method of Theodoret of Cyrus in
the Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium’. Washington, DC: Catholic University of
America, 1990.
Coüasnon, Charles. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1974.
Crouzel, Henri. Origen. Translated by A. S. Worrall. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989.
Cureton, William. Spicilegium Syriacum: Containing Remains of Bardesan, Meliton, Ambrose,
and Mara Bar Serapion. London, 1855.
Curran, John. ‘ “To Be or to Be Thought to Be”: The Testimonium Flavianum (Again)’. Novum
Testamentum 59, no. 1 (2017): 71–​94.
Cutler, Allan. ‘Does the Simeon of Luke 2 Refer to Simeon the Son of Hillel?’ Journal of Bible and
Religion 34, no. 1 (1966): 29–​35.
Dalaison, Julie. ‘L’atelier monétaire de Nicopolis en Arménie Mineure’. In Espaces et pouvoirs
de l’A natolie à la Gaule. Hommages à Bernard Rémy, edited by Julie Dalaison, 203–​37.
Grenoble: HAL Open Science, 2007.
Dalaison, Julie. ‘Qui était Salomé ?’ Revue des études anciennes 115, no. 2 (2013): 497–​507.
Daniélou, Jean. Origen. Translated by Walter Mitchell. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955.
Declerck, José H., ed. Anonymus dialogus cum iudaeis saeculi ut videtur sexti. Corpus
Christianorum: Series Graeca 30. Turnhout: Brepols, 1994.
Dekkers, Eligius, ed. Qvintus Septimius Florens Tertvlliani Opera, pars 1: Opera Catholica
Adversvs Marcionem. Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina 1. Brepols, 1954.
Deutsch, Yaacov. ‘The Second Life of the Life of Jesus: Christian Reception of Toledot Yeshu’.
In Toledot Yeshu (‘The Life Story of Jesus’) Revisited: A Princeton Conference, edited by Peter
270 Bibliography

Schäfer, Michael Meerson, and Yaacov Deutsch, 283–​95. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism
143. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Diez, Martino. ‘Les antiquités gréco-​romaines entre al-​Makīn Ibn al-​ʿAmīd et Ibn Ḫaldūn. Notes
pour une histoire de la tradition’. Studia graeco-​arabica 3, no. A (2013): 121–​40.
Diggle, James, ed. The Cambridge Greek Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.
Dindorf, Ludwig August. Chronicon paschale. 2 vols. Bonn: Weber, 1832.
Dindorf, Ludwig August, ed. Ioannis Zonarae: Epitome Historiarum. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Teubner, 1869.
Dubarle, André-​Marie. ‘Le témoignage de Josèphe sur Jésus d’après des publications récentes’.
Revue Biblique 84 (1977): 38–​58.
Dubarle, André-​Marie. ‘Le témoignage de Josèphe sur Jésus d’après la tradition indirecte’. Revue
Biblique 80 (1973): 481–​513.
Eisler, Robert. ‘Jésus d’après la version slave de Flavius Josèphe’. Revue de l’histoire des religions 93
(1926): 1–​21.
Eisler, Robert. The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist According to Flavius Josephus’ Recently

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Rediscovered ‘Capture of Jerusalem’ and the Other Jewish and Christian Sources. Translated by
Alexander Haggerty Krappe. New York: Lincoln Macveagh, 1931.
Évieux, Pierre. Isidore de Péluse. Lettres, Tome I: Lettres 1214–​1413. Sources chrétiennes 422.
Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1997.
Feldman, Louis H. ‘Flavius Josephus Revisited: The Man, His Writings, and His Significance’.
Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.21, no. 2 (1984): 763–​862.
Feldman, Louis H. Josephus: A Supplementary Bibliography. New York: Garland Publishing, 1986.
Feldman, Louis H. Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–​1980). Berlin: De Gruyter, 1984.
Feldman, Louis H., ed. Josephus Volume IX: Jewish Antiquities, Books 18–​19. Loeb Classical
Library 433. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965.
Feldman, Louis H., ed. Josephus Volume X: Jewish Antiquities, Book 20. Loeb Classical Library
456. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965.
Feldman, Louis H. ‘On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum Attributed to Josephus’.
In New Perspectives on Jewish-​Christian Relations: In Honor of David Berger, edited by
Jacob Schacter and Elisheva Carlebach, 13–​30. The Brill Reference Library of Judaism 33.
Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Feldman, Louis H. ‘The Testimonium Flavianum: The State of the Question’. In Christological
Perspectives: Essays in Honor of Harvey K. McArthur, edited by Robert F. Berkey and Sarah A.
Edwards, 179–​99, 288–​93 (notes). New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1982.
Ferrar, William John, ed. Eusebius: The Proof of the Gospel—​Being the Demonstratio Evangelica of
Eusebius of Cæsarea. 2 vols. London: SPCK, 1920.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke. 2 vols. Anchor Bible 28, 28A. Garden
City: Doubleday, 1981, 1985.
Foster, B. O., ed. Livy II: History of Rome Books 3–​4. Loeb Classical Library 133. Cambridge
MA: Cambridge University Press, 1967.
Fuller, Lois K. ‘The “Genitive Absolute” in New Testament/​Hellenistic Greek: A Proposal for
Clearer Understanding’. Journal of Greco-​Roman Christianity and Judaism 3 (2006): 142–​67.
Garnsey, Peter. ‘The Criminal Jurisdiction of Governors’. Journal of Roman Studies 58, no. 1–​2
(1968): 51–​9. https://​doi.org/​10.2307/​299​694.
Gebhardt, Oscar von, ed. ‘Hieronymus de Viris Inlustribus in Greichischer Übersetzung (Der
Sogenannte Sophronius)’. TU 14, no. 1b (1896): iii–​x xx, 1–​102.
Ginkel, Jan van. ‘Making History: Michael the Syrian and His Sixth-​Century Sources’. In
Symposium Syriacum VII, edited by René Lavenant, 351–​58. Rome: Pontificio Instituto
Orientale, 1998.
Ginkel, Jan van. ‘Michael the Syrian and His Sources: Reflections on the Methodology of Michael
the Great as a Historiographer and Its Implications for Modern Historians’. Journal of the
Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 6 (2006): 53–​60.
Goldberg, Gary J. ‘Josephus’s Paraphrase Style and the Testimonium Flavianum‘. Journal for the
Study of the Historical Jesus 20, no. 1 (2022): 1–​32.
 Bibliography 271

Goldberg, Gary J. ‘The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of
Josephus’. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 7, no. 13 (1995): 59–​77.
Goodwin, William Watson. A Greek Grammar. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1892.
Graf, Georg. Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. 5 vols. Vatican: Biblioteca apostolica
vaticana, 1944–​53.
Grant, Tim. The Idea of Progress in Forensic Authorship Analysis. Elements in Forensic Linguistics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022.
Gray, George Buchanan. Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925.
Gryson, Roger, and Robert Weber, eds. Biblia Sacra: iuxta vulgatam versionem. 4th ed.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.
Gwilliam, G. H., J. Pinkerton, and A. S. Tritton, eds. The New Testament in Syriac. London: British
and Foreign Bible Society, 1905–​20. http://​arch​ive.org/​deta​ils/​new​test​amen​tins​y00l​ond.
Halton, Thomas P. St. Jerome: On Illustrious Men. Fathers of the Church 100. Washington,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

DC: CUA Press, 1999.
Hansen, Chrissy. ‘Reception of the Testimonium Flavianum: An Evaluation of the Independent
Witnesses to Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum’. New England Classical Journal 51, no. 2
(2024): 50–​75.
Hansen, Günther Christian, ed. Sozomenus: Kirchengeschichte. 2nd ed. GCS NF
4. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1995.
Hansen, Günther Christian, ed. Theodoros Agnostes: Kirchengeschichte. 2nd ed. GCS NF
3. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995.
Hardwick, Michael E. Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius.
Brown Judaic Studies 128. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.
Harnack, Adolf. ‘Die griechische Übersetzung des Apologeticus Tertullian’s’. TU 8, no. 4
(1892): 1–​36.
Harrak, Amir. ‘Jacob of Edessa as a Chronicler’. In Studies on Jacob of Edessa, edited by Gregorios
Ibrahim and George Kiraz, 43–​64. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2010.
Heikel, Ivar A., ed. Eusebius Werke 6: Die Demonstratio Evangelica. GCS 23. Leipzig: J.
C. Hinrichs, 1913.
Helm, Rudolf, ed. Eusebius Werke 7.1: Die Chronik des Hieronymus: Hieronymi Chronicon. GCS
24. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1913.
Hendrickson, G. L., and H. M. Hubbell, trans. Cicero: Brutus; Orator. Loeb Classical Library 342.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.
Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion: In the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.
Henry, René, ed. Photius: Bibliothèque. 8 vols. Paris: Société d’édition les Belles lettres, 1959–​77.
Herrmann, Léon. Chrestos: témoignages païens et juifs sur le christianisme du premier siècle.
Collection Latomus, v. 109. Brussels: Latomus, 1970.
Hill, Robert C., ed. Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on Daniel. Writings from the Greco-​Roman
World 7. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Hoehner, Harold W. Herod Antipas: A Contemporary of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Academic, 1999.
Holladay, Carl R. Theios Aner in Hellenistic-​Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New
Testament Christology. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 40. Missoula: Scholars
Press, 1977.
Hollander, William den. Josephus, the Emperors, and the City of Rome: From Hostage to Historian.
Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed. Ada,
MI: Baker Academic, 2007.
Hölscher, G. ‘Josephus’. In Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 1934–​
2000. Band 9, Halbband 18. Stuttgart: Metzlersche, 1916.
Horsley, G. H. R. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. A Review of Greek Inscriptions
and Papyri Published in 1976. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.
272 Bibliography

Hoskier, H. C., ed. The Complete Commentary of Oecumenius on the Apocalypse. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1928.
Hostens, Michiel, ed. Anonymi Auctoris Theognosiae (saec. IX/​X ) Dissertatio contra Iudaeos.
Corpus Christianorum: Series Graeca 14. Turnhout: Brepols, 1986.
Hoyland, Robert G. Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish
and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam. Princeton: Darwin Press, 1997.
Hoyland, Robert G., ed. Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical
Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Translated Texts for Historians 57.
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011.
Ibrāhīm, Gharīghūriyūs Yūḥannā, ed. The Edessa-​A leppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael
the Great: A Publication of St. George Parish and the Edessan Community in Aleppo. Texts and
Translations of the Chronicle of Michael the Great. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009.
Ilan, Tal. Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. 4 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002–​12.
Inowlocki, Sabrina. Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Context. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 64. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Jackson, John, and Clifford Moore, eds. Tacitus. Vol. 111, 249, 312, 322. 4 vols. Loeb Classical
Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937.
Jacob, Walter, and Rudolf Hanslik, eds. Cassiodori-​Epiphanii: Historia Ecclesiastica Tripartita.
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 71. Vienna: Holder-​Pichler-​Tempsky, 1952.
Jaeger, Werner. Two Rediscovered Works of Ancient Christian Literature: Gregory of Nyssa and
Macarius. Leiden: Brill, 1954.
Jones, Arnold Hugh Martin, and T. C. Skeat. ‘Notes on the Genuineness of the Constantinian
Documents in Eusebius’s Life of Constantine’. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 5, no. 2
(1954): 196–​200.
Jones, F. Stanley. An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo-​
Clementine Recognitions 1.27–​71. Society of Biblical Literature: Texts and Translations.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1995.
Jones, Leslie Weber, trans. Cassiodorus Senator: An Introduction to Divine and Human Readings.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1946.
Jossa, Giorgio. ‘Josephus’ Action in Galilee during the Jewish War’. In Josephus and History of
the Greco-​Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (Studia Post-​Biblica), edited by
Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers, 265–​78. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Juster, Jean. Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain: leur condition juridique économique et sociale.
Paris: P. Geuthner, 1914.
Karst, Josef, ed. Eusebius Werke 5: Die Chronik. Aus dem armenischen Übersetzt. Mit textkritischem
Kommentar. GCS 20. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911.
Keener, Craig S. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2012–​15.
Kelley, Justin. The Archaeology and Early History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology, 2019.
Kittel, Gerhard, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey William Bromiley, ed. and tr. ‘Χρίω’. In
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
Kletter, Karen M. ‘The Christian Reception of Josephus in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages’. In
A Companion to Josephus, edited by Honora Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers, 368–​81.
Malden: Wiley Blackwell, 2016.
Klijn, Albertus Frederik Johannes. Jewish-​Christian Gospel Tradition. Supplements to Vigiliae
Christianae, v. 17. Leiden; New York: Brill, 1992.
Klostermann, Erich, ed. Origenes Werke 10: Commentarius in Matthaeum I. GCS 40. Leipzig: J.
C. Hinrichs, 1935.
Koetschau, Paul, ed. Origenes Werke 2: Buch V–​V III Gegen Celsus. Die Schrift vom Gebet. GCS 3.
Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899.
Kokkinos, Nikos. The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse. Sheffield: Sheffield
Press, 1998.
 Bibliography 273

Kruger, Michael J. ‘Early Christian Attitudes toward the Reproduction of Texts’. In The Early Text
of the New Testament, edited by Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger, 63–​80. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2012.
Lamoreaux, John C. ‘Agapius of Manbij’. In The Orthodox Church in the Arab World, 700–​
1700: An Anthology of Sources, edited by Alexander Treiger and Samuel Noble, 136–​59.
DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2014.
Lane, Edward William. Arabic–​English Lexicon. London: Williams & Norgate, 1863.
Langlois, Victor, trans. Chronique de Michel le Grand, patriarche des Syriens Jacobites; traduite
pour le premiere fois sur la version arménienne du Prêtre Ischôk. Venice, 1868.
Lawlor, Hugh Jackson, and John Ernest Leonard Oulton, eds. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea: The
Ecclesiastical History and the Martyrs of Palestine. 2 vols. London: SPCK, 1927–​8.
Lee, Samuel, ed. Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea on the Theophania. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1842.
Leoni, Tommaso. ‘The Text of the Josephan Corpus: Principal Greek Manuscripts, Ancient

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Latin Translations, and the Indirect Tradition’. In A Companion to Josephus, edited by Honora
Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers, 307–​21. Malden: Wiley Blackwell, 2016.
Levenson, David B., and Thomas R. Martin. ‘The Latin Translations of Josephus on Jesus, John
the Baptist, and James: Critical Texts of the Latin Translation of the Antiquities and Rufinus’
Translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History Based on Manuscripts and Early Printed
Editions’. Journal for the Study of Judaism 45, no. 1 (2014): 1–​79.
Lewis, Charlton T., and Charles Short, eds. A Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879.
Liddell, George, Robert Scott, Stuart Jones, and Maria Pantelia, eds. The Online Liddell-​Scott-​
Jones Greek-​English Lexicon. TLG Database, 2011. http://​www.tlg.uci.edu/​lsj/​.
Louth, Andrew. ‘The Date of Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica’. Journal of Theological Studies 41,
no. 1 (1990): 111–​23.
Mantel, Hugo. ‘Sanhedrin’. In Encyclopaedia Judaica: Second Edition, edited by Fred Skolnik and
Michael Berenbaum, 18:21–​3. New York: Thomson Gale, 2007.
Mantel, Hugo. Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1961.
Marcovich, Miroslav, ed. Iustini Martyris Apologiae Pro Christianis. Patristische Texte und
Studien 38. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005.
Marcovich, Miroslav, ed. Iustini Martyris: Dialogus cum Tryphone. Patristische Texte und Studien
47. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997.
Marcovich, Miroslav, ed. Origenes: Contra Celsum libri VIII. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae
54. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Martin, Iosephi, ed. Commodianus; Claudius Marius Victorius. Corpus Christianorum Series
Latina 128. Turnhout: Brepols, 1960.
Mason, Steve. Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-​Critical Study. Studia Post-​
Biblica 39. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Mason, Steve. Josephus and the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Hendrickson, 2003.
Mason, Steve. Judaean War 2. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 1b.
Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Mason, Steve. Life of Josephus. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 9.
Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Mason, Steve. ‘The Writings of Josephus: Their Significance for New Testament Study’. In
Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, edited by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter,
1639–​86. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Matassa, Lidia Domenica. ‘Magdala’. In Encyclopaedia Judaica: Second Edition, edited by Michael
Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 13:335. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2007.
Mazar, Amihai. ‘A Survey of the Aqueducts to Jerusalem’. In The Aqueducts of Israel, edited
by John Humphrey and Shari Satran, translated by Shari Satran, 46:210–​42. Journal of
Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series. Portsmouth: Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities, 2002.
274 Bibliography

Mazzola, Marianna. ‘A “Woven-​Texture” Narration: On the Compilation Method of the Syriac

Renaissance Chronicles’. Sacris Erudiri: Journal of Late Antique and Medieval Christianity 56
(2017): 445–​63.
Mealand, David L. ‘On Finding Fresh Evidence in Old Texts: Reflections on Results in Computer-​
Assisted Biblical Research’. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 74, no. 3 (1992): 67–​87.
Meerson, Michael, and Peter Schäfer, eds. Toledot Yeshu: The Life Story of Jesus: Two Volumes
and Database. Vol. I: Introduction and Translation. Vol. II: Critical Edition. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2014.
Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. 5 vols. New York: Doubleday,
1991–​2016.
Meier, John P. ‘Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal’. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52, no. 1
(1990): 76–​103.
Merrill, Elmer Truesdell. C. Plini Caecili Secundi Epistularum Libri Decem. Leipzig: Teubner, 1922.
Merz, Annette, and Teun L. Tieleman, eds. The Letter of Mara bar Sarapion in Context: Proceedings

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

of the Symposium Held at Utrecht University, 10–​12 December 2009. Culture and History of the
Ancient Near East 58. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,
Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Mizugaki, Wataru. ‘Origen and Josephus’. In Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, edited by Louis
H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, 325–​37. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987.
Moreschini, Claudio, and Enrico Norelli. Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature. Translated
by Matthew O’Connell. 2 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005.
Morin, D. Germanus, ed. Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri: Tractatus sive homiliae. Vol. 3.2.
Anecodota Maredsolana. Oxford: J. Parker, 1897.
Mosshammer, Alden A., ed. Georgius Syncelli: Ecloga Chronographica. Bibliotheca Scriptorum
Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Leipzig: Teubner, 1984.
Mras, Karl, ed. Eusebius Werke 8.1–​2. Die Praeparatio Evangelica. GCS, 43.1–​2. Berlin: Akademie-​
Verlag, 1954–​6.
Muraoka, Takamitsu. Classical Syriac: A Basic Grammar with a Chrestomathy. With a Select
Bibliography Compiled by S. P. Brock. 2nd, revised ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005.
Nautin, Pierre. Origène: Sa vie et son œuvre. Paris: Beauchesne, 1977.
Neusner, Jacob. The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (Parts I, II & III).
Leiden: Brill, 1971.
Neusner, Jacob, ed. The Jerusalem Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010.
Neusner, Jacob, ed. The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew. 6 vols. New York: Ktav Publishing
House, 1977–​81.
Niehoff, Maren R. ‘A Jewish Critique of Christianity from Second-​Century Alexandria: Revisiting
the Jew Mentioned in Contra Celsum’. Journal of Early Christian Studies 21, no. 2
(2013): 151–​75.
Niese, Benedikt. De testimonio Christiano quod est apud Iosephum antiq. Iud. XVIII 63 sq.
disputatio. Indices lectionum et publicarum et privatarum quae in Academia Marpurgensi . . .
habendae proponuntur. Marburg: Friedrich, 1893.
Niese, Benedikt. Flavii Iosephi Opera. 6 vols. Berlin: Weidmannos, 1888–​95.
Nodet, Étienne. Baptême et résurrection: le témoignage de Josèphe. Josèphe et son temps 2.
Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1999.
Nodet, Étienne. ‘Jésus et Jean-​ Baptiste selon Josèphe [pt. 1]’. Revue Biblique 92, no. 3
(1985): 321–​48.
Nodet, Étienne. ‘Jésus et Jean-​ Baptiste selon Josèphe [pt. 2]’. Revue Biblique 92, no. 4
(1985): 497–​524.
Nöldeke, Theodor. Compendious Syriac Grammar. Translated by James A. Crichton.
London: Williams & Norgate, 1904.
Norden, Eduard. ‘Josephus und Tacitus über Jesus Christus und eine messianische Prophetie’.
Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum 31 (1913): 637–​66.
 Bibliography 275

Olson, Ken. ‘A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum’. In Eusebius of

Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations, edited by Aaron P. Johnson and Jeremy M. Schott, 97–​
114. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013.
Olson, Ken. ‘Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 2
(1999): 305–​22.
Paget, James Carleton. ‘Jewish Christianity’. In The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume 3: The
Early Roman Period, edited by John Sturdy, W. D. Davies, and William Horbury, 3:731–​75.
The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Paget, James Carleton. Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity. Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 251. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
Paget, James Carleton. ‘Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity’. Journal of Theological
Studies 52 (2001): 539–​624.
Palmé, Victor, ed. Acta sanctorum. 68 vols. Paris: Palmé, 1863–​70.
Pearse, Roger, ed. Eusebius of Caesarea: Gospel Problems and Solutions Quaestiones Ad

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Stephanum et Marinum (CPG 3470). Translated by David Miller, Adam C. McCollum, and
Carol Downer. Ancient Texts in Translation 1. Ipswich: Chieftain Publishing, 2010.
Pearse, Roger. ‘Feldman, the Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius and the TLG’. Roger Pearse
(blog), September 13, 2013. https://​www.roger-​pea​rse.com/​web​log/​2013/​09/​13/​feld​man-​
the-​test​imon​ium-​flavia​num-​euseb​ius-​and-​the-​tlg/​.
Pearse, Roger, ed. ‘Religious Discussion at the Court of the Sassanids [Religionsgespräch Am Hof
Der Sasaniden /​De Gestis in Perside]’. Translated by Andrew Eastbourne, 2010. http://​www.
ter​tull​ian.org/​fath​ers/​anon​ymou​s_​re​ligi​onsg​espr​ach.htm.
Pearse, Roger. ‘Words, Words, Words: A Response to Richard Carrier on Feldman and Eusebius’.
Roger Pearse (blog), February 22, 2017. http://​www.roger-​pea​rse.com/​web​log/​2017/​02/​22/​
words-​words-​words-​a-​respo​nse-​to-​rich​ard-​carr​ier-​on-​feld​man-​and-​euseb​ius/​.
Pearse, Roger. ‘Eusebius the Liar’. Roger Pearse (blog), July 23, 2010. https://​www.roger-​pea​rse.
com/​web​log/​2010/​07/​23/​euseb​ius-​the-​liar/​.
Pervo, Richard I. Acts: A Commentary. Edited by Harold W. Attridge. Hermeneia: A Critical &
Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008.
Pines, Shlomo. An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications.
Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971.
Piovanelli, Pierluigi. ‘The Toledot Yeshu and Christian Apocryphal Literature: The Formative
Years’. In Toledot Yeshu (‘The Life Story of Jesus’) Revisited: A Princeton Conference, edited by
Peter Schäfer, Michael Meerson, and Yaacov Deutsch, 89–​100. Texts and Studies in Ancient
Judaism 143. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Pollard, R. M., J. Timmermann, J. di Gregorio, M. Lamprade, and J.-​F. Aubé-​Pronce, eds. Flavius
Josephus: Antiquities, 2013. https://​www.latinj​osep​hus.org/​.
Preuschen, Erwin. ‘Eusebius Kirchengeschichte Buch VI und VII aus dem Armenischen
übersetzt’. Texte und Untersuchungen 22, no. 3 (1902): iii–​x xii, 1–​109.
Quasten, Johannes. Patrology. 4 vols. Notre Dame: Christian Classics, 1950–​86.
Rajak, Tessa. ‘Ciò che Flavio Giuseppe vide: Josephus and the Essenes’. In Josephus and the History
of the Greco-​Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (Studia Post-​Biblica), edited by
Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers, 141–​60. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Rajak, Tessa. Josephus, the Historian and His Society. 2nd ed. Midsomer Norton,
Avon: Duckworth, 2002.
Ramelli, Ilaria. ‘The Pseudepigraphical Correspondence between Seneca and Paul: A
Reassessment’. In Paul and Pseudepigraphy, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Gregory P. Fewster,
illustrated edition., 319–​36. Pauline Studies 8. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Rehm, Bernhard, ed. Die Pseudoklementinen. 2 vols. GCS 42, 51. Berlin: Akademie Verlag,
1992–​4.
Reicke, Bo. The New Testament Era: The World of the Bible from 500 B.C. to A.D. 100.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968.
Reinach, Théodore. ‘Le mari de Salomé et les monnaies de Nicopolis d’Arménie’. Revue des Études
anciennes 16, no. 2 (1914): 133–​58.
276 Bibliography

Richardson, Earnest Cushing, ed. ‘Hieronymus liber de viris inlustribus’. TU 14, no. 1a (1896): ix–​
lxxii, 1–​56.
Rolfe, John Carew, ed. Quintus Curtius: History of Alexander. Loeb Classical Library 368.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1946.
Rolfe, John Carew. Suetonius. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library 31, 38. New York: Heinemann, 1914.
Romeny, Bas ter Haar, ed. Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day. Monographs of the
Peshitta Institute 18. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Rompay, Lucas Van. ‘Theophilos of Edessa’. In Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac
Heritage: Electronic Edition, edited by Sebastian P. Brock, Aaron Michael Butts, George Anton
Kiraz, and Lucas van Rompay. Gorgias Press; online ed. Beth Mardutho, 2011, 2018. https://​
gedsh.bethm​ardu​tho.org/​The​ophi​los-​of-​Ede​ssa.
Roth, Cecil. ‘Gamaliel, Rabban’. In Encyclopaedia Judaica: Second Edition, edited by Michael
Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 7:364–​6. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2007.
Safrai, S, and Menahem Stern, eds. The Jewish People in the First Century. Historical

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions. 2 vols.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974, 1976.
Sanders, E. P. Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE–​66 CE. Second Impression with Corrections.
London; Philadelphia: UNKNO, 1992.
Schäfer, Peter. ‘Agobard’s and Amulo’s Toledot Yeshu’. In Toledot Yeshu (‘The Life Story of Jesus’)
Revisited: A Princeton Conference, edited by Peter Schäfer, Michael Meerson, and Yaacov
Deutsch, 27–​48. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 143. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Schäfer, Peter. Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.
Schmidt, Andrea Barbara. ‘Manuscrits arméniens de la chronique du michel le syrien dans le
fonds patriarcal de jérusalem’. In La Méditerranée des Arméniens (XIIe–​XVe siècle), edited by
Claude Mutafian, 181–​90. Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 2014.
Schmidt, Andrea Barbara. ‘The Armenian Versions I and II of Michael the Syrian’. Hugoye: Journal
of Syriac Studies 16 (2013): 93–​128.
Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, ed. New Testament Apocrypha. Translated by Robert McLachlan
Wilson. 2 vols. London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.
Scholten, Clemens, ed. Theodoret: De Graecarum affectionum curatione: Heilung der griechischen
Krankheiten. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 126. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Schreckenberg, Heinz. Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus. Leiden: Brill, 1968.
Schreckenberg, Heinz. Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus: Supplementband mit Gesamtregister.
Leiden: Brill, 1979.
Schreckenberg, Heinz. Die Flavius-​ Josephus-​Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter.
Leiden: Brill, 1972.
Schreckenberg, Heinz. Rezeptionsgeschichtliche und textkristische Untersuchungen zu Flavius
Josephus. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Schürer, Emil. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark, 1924.
Schwartz, Daniel R. Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990.
Schwartz, Daniel R. ‘Reinach and Stephanus, Philo and Josephus. A Note on the Testimonium
Flavianum’. In Essays on Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity in Honour of Oded Irshai, edited
by Brouria Bitton-​A shkelony and Martin Goodman, 40:205–​18. Cultural Encounters in Late
Antiquity and the Middle Ages 40. Turnhout: Brepols, 2023.
Schwartz, Daniel R. Judaean Antiquities, Books 18–​20. Flavius Josephus: Translation and
Commentary 8. Leiden: Brill, 2025.
Schwartz, Eduard, and Theodor Mommsen, eds. Eusebius Werke 2.1–​3: Die Kirchengeschichte.
GCS 9. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1903.
Schwartz, Seth. Josephus and Judaean Politics. Leiden: Brill, 1990.
Schwartz, Seth. ‘Josephus in Galilee: Rural Patronage and Social Breakdown’. In Josephus and
History of the Greco-​Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (Studia Post-​Biblica),
edited by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers, 290–​306. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
 Bibliography 277

Sefaria. ‘The William Davidson Digital Edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with Commentary
by Rabbi Adin Even-​Israel Steinsaltz’. Electronic Database. Talmud Bavli: William Davidson
Talmud, n.d. https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud.
Sepp, Johann Nepomuk. Thaten und Lehren Jesu: mit ihrer weltgeschichtlichen
Beglaubigung: unter eingehender Beziehung auf die jüngsten Werke von Renan und Strauss. Fr.
Hurter’sche Buchhandlung, 1864.
Smith, J. Payne. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903.
Smyth, Herbert Weir, and Gordon Messing. Greek Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1956.
Sokoloff, Michael. ‘The Date and Provenance of the Aramaic Toledot Yeshu on the Basis of
Aramaic Dialectology’. In Toledot Yeshu (‘The Life Story of Jesus’) Revisited: A Princeton
Conference, edited by Peter Schäfer, Michael Meerson, and Yaacov Deutsch, 13–​26. Texts and
Studies in Ancient Judaism 143. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Spilsbury, Paul. The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus’ Paraphrase of the Bible. Texte und

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Studien zum Antiken Judentum 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.
Stählin, Otto, Ludwig Früchtel, and Treu Ursula, eds. Clemens Alexandrinus Band 3: Stromata.
Buch VII und VIII, Excerpta ex Theodoto—​Eclogae propheticae quis dives salvetur—​Fragmente.
2nd ed. GCS 17. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1970.
Stein, Alla. ‘Gaius Julius, an Agoranomos from Tiberias’. Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie Und
Epigraphik 93 (1992): 144–​8.
Stern, Ephraim, ed. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 5 vols.
Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 1993–​2008.
Stern, Menahem. ‘The Reign of Herod and the Herodian Dynasty’. In The Jewish People in the
First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life
and Institutions, edited by S. Safrai and Menahem Stern, 216–​307. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1974.
Suggit, John N., trans. Oecumenius: Commentary on the Apocalypse. Fathers of the Church 112.
Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006.
Swanson, Mark. ‘Maḥbūb Ibn Qustantīn Al-​ Manbijī’. In Christian-​Muslim Relations: A
Bibliographical History, edited by David Thomas and Alexander Mallett, 241–​5. Christian-​
Muslim Relations 11, 14, 15, 17, 20. Leiden: Brill, 2009–​13.
Ta-​Shma, Israel Moses. ‘Judah (Nesiah)’. In Encyclopaedia Judaica: Second Edition, edited by
Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 11:478. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2007.
Takahashi, Hidemi. ‘Excerpts from the Chronicle of Patriarch Michael I in Mss. Berlin Sachau
81 and Yale Syriac 7’. In The Edessa-​A leppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great,
edited by Gharīghūriyūs Yūḥannā Ibrāhīm, xxxiii–​xxxvii. Texts and Translations of the
Chronicle of Michael the Great 1. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009.
Taylor, Joan E. The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Thackeray, Henry, ed. Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, Volume IV: Books 1–​4. Loeb Classical Library
242. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930.
Thackeray, Henry, ed. Josephus: The Life, Against Apion. Loeb Classical Library 186.
London: Heinemann, 1926.
Thackeray, Henry. Josephus: The Man and the Historian. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1967.
Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Berlin: De Gruyter, n.d. https://​www.thesau​rus.badw.de/​das-​proj​
ekt.html.
Thurn, Ioannes, ed. Ioannis Malalae: Chronographia. Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 35.
Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000.
Tear’n Mixaye’li Patriark’i Asorwots’ Zhamanakagrut’iwn [The Chronicle of Lord Michael,
Patriarch of the Syrians]. Jerusalem, 1870.
Ussani, Vincentius. Hegesippi qui dicitur historiae libri V. 2 vols. CSEL 66. Vindobonae: Holder-​
Pichler-​Tempsky, 1932.
VanderKam, James. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis: Augsburg
Fortress Publishers, 2004.
278 Bibliography

Vasiliev, Alexander, ed. Agapius episcopus Mabbugensis historia universalis. PO, 5.4, 7.4, 8.3, 11.1.
Paris: Firmin-​Didot, 1910.
Victor, Ulrich. ‘Das Testimonium Flavianum ein authentischer Text des Josephus’. Novum
Testamentum 52 (2010): 72–​82.
Voorst, Robert Van. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Wahlgren, Staffan, ed. Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon. 2 vols. Corpus Fontium
Historiae Byzantinae 44. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006.
Wells, George A. Did Jesus Exist? Revised ed. London: Pemberton, 1986.
Weltecke, Dorothea. ‘Michael I Rabo’. In Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac
Heritage: Electronic Edition, edited by Sebastian P. Brock, Aaron Michael Butts, George Anton
Kiraz, and Lucas van Rompay. Gorgias Press; online ed. Beth Mardutho, 2011, 2018. https://​
gedsh.bethm​ardu​tho.org/​entry/​Mich​ael-​I-​R abo.
Weltecke, Dorothea. ‘The World Chronicle by Patriarch Michael the Great (1126–​1199): Some

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Reflections’. Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 11.2 (1997): 6–​30.
Whealey, Alice. ‘Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic
Context. By Sabrina Inowlocki’. Journal of Theological Studies 59, no. 1 (2008): 359–​62.
Whealey, Alice. ‘Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum’. In Josephus
und das Neue Testament: wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: II. Internationales Symposium zum
Corpus Judaeo-​Hellenisticum, 25.-​28. Mai 2006, Greifswald, edited by Christfried Böttrich, Jens
Herzer, and Torsten Reiprich, 73–​116. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
Whealey, Alice. ‘Josephus on Jesus: Evidence from the First Millennium’. Theologische Zeitschrift
51, no. 4 (1995): 285–​304.
Whealey, Alice. Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity
to Modern Times. Studies in Biblical Literature 36. New York: Peter Lang, 2003.
Whealey, Alice. ‘The Testimonium Flavianum’. In A Companion to Josephus, edited by Honora
Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers, 345–​55. Malden: Wiley Blackwell, 2016.
Whealey, Alice. ‘The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic’. New Testament Studies 54,
no. 4 (2008): 573–​90.
Whiston, William, trans. The Works of Flavius Josephus, Complete and Unabridged: New Updated
Edition. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987.
Will, Ernest. ‘Un Vieux Problème de La Topographie de La Beqā’ Antique: Chalcis Du Liban’.
Zeitschrift Des Deutschen Palästina-​Vereins 99 (1983): 141–​46.
Williams, Peter J. Early Syriac Translation Technique & the Textual Criticism of the Greek Gospels.
Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2004.
Wilmshurst, David, ed. Bar Hebraeus: The Ecclesiastical Chronicle. Piscataway: Gorgias
Press, 2016.
Winter, Paul. ‘Josephus on Jesus’. In The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ
(175 B.C.–​A .D. 135), edited by Emil Schürer, Géza Vermès, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black,
1:428–​41. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973.
Winter, Paul. On the Trial of Jesus. Edited by T. A. Burkill and Geza Vermes. 2nd ed. Studia Judaica
1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1974.
Witakowski, Witold. ‘The Magi Syriac Tradition’. In Malphono w-​R abo d-​Malphone: Studies
in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock, edited by George Anton Kiraz, 809–​43. Piscataway: Gorgias
Press, 2008.
Witakowski, Witold. ‘The Chronicle of Jacob of Edessa’. In Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture
of His Day, edited by Robert Bas ter Haar Romeny, 25–​48. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
Wright, William. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year
1838. 3 vols. The British Museum, 1838–​72.
Wright, William, Norman Maclean, and Adalbert Merx, eds. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius
in Syriac. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1898.
 Bibliography 279

Yechezkel, Azriel, Yoav Negev, Amos Frumkin, and Uzi Leibner. ‘The Shaft Tunnel of the Biar
Aqueduct of Jerusalem: Architecture, Hydrology, and Dating’. Geoarchaeology 36, no. 6
(2021): 897–​924.
Zeitlin, Solomon. ‘Josephus on Jesus’. Jewish Quarterly Review 21, no. 4 (1931): 377–​417.
Zeitlin, Solomon. ‘The Christ Passage in Josephus’. Jewish Quarterly Review 18, no. 3
(1928): 231–​55.
Zeitlin, Solomon. ‘The Hoax of the “Slavonic Josephus” ’. Jewish Quarterly Review 39, no. 2
(1948): 171–​80.
Zeitlin, Solomon. ‘The Slavonic Josephus and Its Relation to Josippon and Hegesippus’. Jewish
Quarterly Review 20, no. 1 (1929): 1–​50.
Zhamanakagrut’iwn tear’n Mixaye’li asorwots’ patriark’i [The Chronicle of the Patriarch of the
Syrians, Lord Michael]. Jerusalem, 1871.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025
 Introduction to the Manuscript Images

The manuscript images in this volume were selected for their great importance in
understanding the textual history of the Testimonium Flavianum. They include the
following:

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

• The three earliest manuscripts of book 18 of the Antiquities, wherein the TF
is found (#1–​3). Note that #1 is the earliest manuscript of the Antiquities con-
taining book 18.
• The two earliest Greek manuscripts that excerpt the TF (#4–​5).
• The earliest Greek manuscript of Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (#6). Note
that this is the only known Greek witness of the TF that contains the variant
‘certain’ (τις).
• The earliest Latin manuscript of Jerome, Illustrious Men (#7). Note that this
contains the important TF variant ‘was believed to be the Christ’ (credebatur
esse Christus).
• The earliest Syriac manuscripts of the TF (#8–​11). Note that manuscripts #8
and 9 contain, respectively, the earliest and second earliest dated colophons in
literary manuscripts of any language.
• A Syriac version of the TF (#12). Note that this contains the important TF
variant ‘was thought to be the Christ’ (‫)ܡܣܬܒܪܐ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ‬.
• An Armenian version of the TF (#13).
• An Arabic version of the TF (#14). Note that this contains the important TF
variant ‘perhaps he was the Christ’ (‫)�لعله هو المس�يح‬.
‫ف‬

For further manuscript images of the Testimonium Flavianum, see the book web-
site Josep​husa​ndJe​sus.com.

Images

Below are the manuscript images printed in this volume. Each entry begins with
the manuscript shelf mark number, then the folio number, column (if any), line
number, and contents of the manuscript image. The entry concludes with the date
of the manuscript in parentheses. Below this is presented the licensing information
that the rights holder of the manuscript has specified (if any).
 newgenrtpdf

1. Biblioteca Ambrosiana F 128, f. 274r line 27–​274v line 8 containing the Testimonium Flavianum at Antiquities 18.63–​4
(eleventh century).
a. Public domain. First published in Eisler, Robert. Iesous basileus ou basileusas. Heidelberg, 1929.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

 newgenrtpdf

2. Vat.gr.984, f. 152v lines 27–​31 containing the Testimonium Flavianum at Antiquities 18.63–​4 (1354 ce).
a. Reproduced by permission of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, with all rights reserved.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

284 Manuscript Images

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

3. BML.Plut 69.10, f. 360v left column lines 9–​24 containing the Testimonium
Flavianum at Antiquities 18.63–​4 (fourteenth/​fifteenth century).
a. MS BML.Plut 69.10 f. 360v lines 9–​24 reproduced by permission of the Biblioteca Medicea
Laurenziana, Florence and courtesy of the Italian Ministry of Culture.
 newgenrtpdf

4. Vat.gr.148, f. 214v lines 3–​13 containing an excerpt of the Testimonium Flavianum (tenth–​eleventh century).
a. Reproduced by permission of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, with all rights reserved.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

 newgenrtpdf

5. Vat.gr.342, f. 282v lines 11–​24, containing an excerpt of the Testimonium Flavianum (1087–​8 ce).
a. Reproduced by permission of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, with all rights reserved.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

 newgenrtpdf

6. BnF Grec 1430, f. 26v lines 2–​15, containing a quotation of the Testimonium Flavianum in Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7–​8 (tenth century).
a. Image published with permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

288 Manuscript Images

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

7. Vat.Reg.lat.2077, f. 15r left column line 7–​right column line 11, containing a Latin
translation of the Testimonium Flavianum in Jerome, Illustrious Men 13.5–​6 (sixth–​
seventh century).
a. Reproduced by permission of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, with all rights reserved.
 Manuscript Images 289

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

8. BL.Add.12150, f. 232v column 2 lines 1–​29, containing a quotation the

Testimonium Flavianum from the Syriac translation of Eusebius, Theophany 5.44
(411 ce).
a. Reproduced by permission of the British Library Board 25/​11/​2021.
290 Manuscript Images

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

9. NLR Siriyskaya novaya seria 1, f. 16r column 1 line 25–​column 2 line 20,
containing a quotation of the Testimonium Flavianum in the Syriac translation of
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7–​8 (462 ce).
a. Reproduced by permission of the National Library of Russia.
 Manuscript Images 291

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

10. BL.Add.14639, f. 14v column 2 line 28–​15r column 1 line 26, containing a
quotation of the Testimonium Flavianum from the Syriac translation of Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7–​8 (sixth century).
a. Reproduced by permission of the British Library Board 25/​11/​2021.
292 Manuscript Images

11. BL.Add.12154, f.151r line 18–​151v line 6, a florilegium containing a quotation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025
of the Testimonium Flavianum excerpted from the Syriac translation of Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7–​8 (eighth/​ninth century).
a. Reproduced by permission of the British Library Board 25/​11/​2021.
 Manuscript Images 293

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

12. Archdiocese of Aleppo MS 250 S, f. 50r left column lines 15–​27 (f. 47r in print
edition), containing a Syriac quotation of the Testimonium Flavianum from Michael
the Syrian, Record of Times 5.10 (1598 ce).
a. Reproduced by permission of the Archdiocese of Aleppo and the Hill Museum & Manuscript
Library (HMML), Collegeville, MN.
 newgenrtpdf

13. Mechitaristarum Vindobonensis 49 (70 C), f. 15r line 21–​15v line 4, containing a quotation of the
Testimonium Flavianum from the Armenian translation of Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7–​8 (1695 ce).
a. Reproduced by permission of the Mechitaristenkongregation, Vienna, Austria and the Hill Museum & Manuscript Library
(HMML), Collegeville, MN.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

 Manuscript Images 295

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

14. BML.Or. 323, f. 6v line 11–​7r line 2, containing an Arabic quotation of the
Testimonium Flavianum from Agapius, Book of History (1288 ce).
a. MS BML.Or. 323 f. 6v reproduced by permission of the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence
and courtesy of the Italian Ministry of Culture.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025
 Ancient Sources Index

For the benefit of digital users, terms that are indexed as spanning two pages (e.g., 52–​53) may, on occasion,
appear on only one of those pages.

Tables, figures, and boxes are respectively indicated by an italic t, f, and b following the page number.

ʿAbdishoʿ bar Brīkā (EbedJesus), 57–​58n.133 Hypotyposeis, 233n.17

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Abgar, King of Edessa, 50, 58 Stromata, 70n.53, 83n.161, 236n.32
Acta Sanctorum Donati et sociorum, 32, Clement of Rome
33nn.162–​163, 33n.167, 45n.55 First Epistle, 210n.77
Acts of John, 100n.276 Clement, Pseudo-​, 233–​34
Agapius of Manbij, 48–​55, 62, 90 Recognitions, 74n.83, 148nn.62–​64, 149n.68,
as source for Michael the Syrian, 51–​54, 55 149n.72, 232nn.14–​15, 234n.21
Book of History, 48–​50 Homilies, 234n.21
sources of, 55–​56, 57–​58 Epistle of Clement to James, 234n.21
Al-​Makīn Ǧirǧis ibn al-​ʿAmīd, 48–​49, 90n.198 Commodian, 131–​32
Ambrose, 26n.95 Song of the Two Peoples, 132n.54
Annianus of Alexandria, 57n.130, 57n.132 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, 223n.66, 229
Apocalypse of James, First, 233n.17 On Virtues and Vices, 25n.91, 229n.106
Apocalypse of James, Second, 233n.15, 233n.17
Aquila, 14n.5 Dead Sea Scrolls, 207n.52, 250n.9
Aristeas, Letter of, 141n.2, 219n.34 Demosthenes
Arnobius In Midiam, 97n.252
Against the Nations, 74n.85 Dialogue with the Jews, 32, 32nn.158–​159,
Ascents of James, 73–​74, 148–​49, 232nn.14–​15 33nn.162–​163, 33n.167, 37, 45n.55
Athanasius, Pseudo-​ Dissertatio contra Judaeos, 22, 25n.92, 33–​34,
Sermo de descriptione deiparae, 106n.324 202n.23, 223n.66
Augustine Diognetus, Epistle to, 105n.322
City of God, 2n.4, 70n.47, 72n.67, 83n.161 Dionysius bar-​Salibi, 57n.130
Epistle, 83n.161 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 97
Epistula ad Pompeium Geminum, 97n.254
Bar Hebraeus Dionysius of Tel-​Mahre, 55n.118, 57n.131
Ecclesiastical Chronicle, 50n.89
Bishop Agobard EbedJesus, see ʿAbdishoʿ bar Brīkā
De Judaicis superstitionibus, 131–​32n.53 Epiphanius
Ancoratus, 100n.277
Cassiodorus, 42–​45, 62, 81, 98–​99, 202n.23, Panarion, 69n.41, 129–​30n.47, 130n.48,
240–​41n.68 146n.54, 148nn.62–​65, 149n.72
Adumbrations, 233n.17 Weights and Measures, 14n.5
Institutions, 42n.38, 43nn.46–​47 Eusebius of Caesarea, 16–​19, 25n.92, 33–​34, 71–​
Josephus' Antiquities, 44–​45, 81nn.148–​149, 72, 73n.75, 75, 78–​79, 91n.206, 103n.297,
98n.261, 99n.269, 231–​32, 243 106, 126–​27, 135–​36n.68, 202n.23, 215–​30,
Tripartite Ecclesiastical History, 42n.38, 42n.40 231–​32, 237–​38, 240–​41, 242–​43, 246
Cassius Dio Chronicon, 53–​54n.114, 56, 57–​58, 218nn.21–​22
Roman History, 163n.23, 163n.26, 170n.70 Commentary on Isaiah, 226
Cicero, 39 Commentary on the Psalms, 226
Orator, 39n.21 Demonstration, 16, 17n.35, 18–​19, 33n.165,
Clement of Alexandria, 14n.5, 70, 233n.15, 46n.56, 46, 72n.67, 75n.91, 78, 79n.126,
233n.17, 236 83n.161, 218, 220, 223, 225–​27
298 Ancient Sources Inde x

Eusebius of Caesarea (cont.) Infancy Gospel of Thomas, 233n.17

Ecclesiastical History, 14n.5, 16, 17n.29, Irenaeus, 70
17n.31, 17–​18, 21n.60, 25n.94, 26, Against Heresies, 70n.53
27nn.111–​112, 36n.4, 37n.9, 39n.18, 41n.30, Isidore of Pelusium, 19–​20, 223n.66, 229
41n.34, 43n.44, 46–​48, 52–​53, 58n.136, 68, Letter, 20n.50, 33n.164
85n.180, 86n.184, 135, 215–​17, 217nn.16–​
18, 218–​19, 220–​22, 223, 224n.73, 224n.75, Jacob of Edessa, 35, 55–​63, 68, 86, 87–​88, 89,
225–​27, 229–​30, 232n.7, 232n.11, 232n.12, 90, 134, 135–​36, 135–​36n.68, 203–​4,
232nn.14–​15, 233nn.17–​18, 234n.22, 228, 229
234n.23, 236n.30, 236–​37n.38, 239n.51, Chronicle, 53–​54n.114, 55–​58, 59–​60,
242n.79 61n.151, 62
Ecclesiastical History (Syriac), 46–​48, 58–​63, James, Book of, 233n.17
85n.180, 135 Jerome of Stridon, 23n.76, 35, 37–​41, 41n.34,
42, 44n.47, 45, 51–​52, 55, 57–​58n.133,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Ecclesiastical Theology, 71n.62
Gospel Problems and Solutions, 218n.23 58–​59, 62, 63, 78, 86, 87, 89, 134, 135–​36,
Life of Constantine, 217n.15, 218nn.24–​25, 226 203–​4, 228
Onomasticon, 133n.59 Commentary on Isaiah, 40n.25
Preparation of the Gospel, 26n.102, 77, 219, Commentary on Matthew, 40n.26
219n.34, 220 Illustrious Men, 22–​23, 37–​41, 234n.20,
Theophany, 16, 17n.35, 19, 33n.165, 46–​48, 236n.33
218, 226 Letters, 236n.30, 43n.46, 239n.51
Euthymius Zigabenus Tractatus de Psalmo, 74n.83
Panoplia Dogmatica, 22n.63 John of Kaisoum, 57n.130
John of Antioch, 57n.131
George Cedrenus, 23–​24, 25n.91, 33n.167, John Chrysostom, 21, 26n.95, 229
45n.55, 91n.206 John Zonarus, 23–​24, 223n.66, 231–​32, 240–​41
Compendium Historiarum, 25n.94 Epitome Historiarum, 24n.82,
George Syncellus, 27 157n.141, 232n.9
Chronicle, 2n.4, 27nn.116–​117, 236–​37n.38 Jonathan, Pseudo-​
George the Monk, 21 Targum on Exodus, 191n.226
Chronicon, 25n.91, 25n.94 Julius Africanus, 2n.4, 57n.130, 224n.75
Gospel of the Ebionites, 69, 129, 129–​30n.47, 130, Justin Martyr, 67–​68, 70
148–​49, 148nn.62–​65, 149n.72 Dialogue, 68n.31, 70n.53, 74n.77, 93n.221,
Gospel of the Hebrews, 233–​34 93–​94n.224, 100n.277, 105n.316
Gospel of Judas, 129n.42 First Apology, 93–​94n.224, 242n.76
Gospel of Nicodemus, 67–​68, 172n.79
Gospel of Peter, 233n.17 Lactantius, 70
Gospel of Philip, 233n.17 Institutes, 70n.48, 74n.84
Livy
Hegesippus, 53, 57n.130, 232n.12, History, 39n.21
232nn.14–​15, 233–​34, 236–​37n.38, 238–​39, Longinus, 50, 52–​53, 57n.129, 57n.132, 58
243, 244 Lucian
Hegesippus, Pseudo-​, 35–​37, 38, 39, 42, 45, 51–​ Death of Peregrinus, 70n.48
52, 62, 63, 78–​79, 86, 90, 134, 203, 228
On the Ruin of the City of Jerusalem, 38n.15, Maimonides
79n.125, 90n.199, 103n.296, 132n.55 Mishna Torah, Sefer Shoftim, 255n.2
Hippolytus of Rome, 236 Malalas, John, 31–​32
On the Blessing of Moses, 233n.17, 236n.34 Chronicle, 33n.163, 33n.165
Manetho, 71n.60, 218
Ignatius of Antioch, 70 Mara bar Serapion, 2n.4, 70, 206n.41
Letter to the Ephesians, 70n.53 Letter of Mara bar Serapion, 70n.46
Letter to the Romans, 210n.77 Maronite Chronicle, 52–​53, 57n.129
Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 210n.77 Martyrdom of Ignatius, 106
Ignatius Bishop of Melitene, 57n.130 Melito of Sardis
Infancy Gospel of James, 233n.17, 238–​39n.50 On the Passover, 93–​94n.224
 Ancient Sources Inde x 299

Michael Glycas, 31–​32, 37, 45n.55 Plato, 74–​75, 96, 219, 220n.38
Annales, 31nn.151–​152, 32n.160, 33n.162, Phaedo, 97n.252
33n.165, 33n.167 Republic, 96n.248
Michael the Syrian, 35, 48–​58, 59, 62–​63, 68, Statesman, 74n.88
86, 87–​88 Pliny the Younger, 83, 91–​92
Chronicle, see Record of Times Letter, 83n.161, 224n.74
Record of Times, 52n.100, 59n.139, 59–​62, Plutarch, 97
68n.37, 86 Pericles, 97n.255
Midrash Rabbah, 73n.73, 74n.80, 146n.54 Polycarp
Midrash Tannaim, 175n.108 Letter to the Philippians, 210n.77
Mishnah, 150, 172, 173–​74, 175n.107, 175–​76, 177, Porphyry, 70, 72, 73–​74, 83, 91–​92, 206n.41
178, 183n.167, 184, 189–​90, 191, 191nn.226–​ Against the Christians, 83n.161
227, 193, 199–​200, 250n.9, 250n.12, 251n.14, Philosophy from Oracles, 83n.161
252, 255n.2, 257–​61, 261n.48

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Quran, 229n.105
Nicephoras Callistus, 24 Quintus Curtius
Ecclesiastical History, 24, 25n.94, 169n.69 History of Alexander, 39n.21

Oecumenius, 20, 223n.66 Religious Discussion at the Court of the Sassanids,

Commentary on Revelation, 20, 33n.164 20–​21, 25n.91, 33n.165
Origen of Alexandria, 2–​3, 13–​16, 39n.18, 71–​72, Rufinus of Aquileia, 41–​42, 52n.97, 62, 78, 106
85, 90–​91, 96, 216–​17, 234–​39, 242–​44, 246 Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, 41–​45,
Against Celsus, 3n.9, 13–​14, 73n.73, 74n.76, 86n.184, 106n.330, 225n.80, 240–​41n.68
82n.155, 85n.178, 91n.205, 93n.222,
129n.40, 132nn.56–​57, 212n.83, 216–​17, Saliba of Melitene, 57n.130
233n.17, 234, 236n.35, 237n.39, 238n.45, Seneca
238–​39n.50, 242n.75 de Ira, 2n.4
Commentary on John, 233n.17, 236n.35 de Superstitione, 2n.4
Commentary on Matthew, 3n.9, 13–​14, 73n.73, Septuagint, 78, 255–​56
85n.178, 91n.205, 233n.17, 235, 236nn.35–​ Shepherd of Hermas, 97–​98
36, 238–​39n.50, 243–​44 Parable 8.3, 98n.259
First Principles, 71n.62 Simeon Magister Logothete, 91n.206
On Prayer, 96n.249 Chronicle, 23–​24
Socrates, 42n.38, 57n.131
Palladius Sophocles
Historia Lausiaca, 14n.5 Philoctetes, 67n.27
Paschal Chronicle, 27, 53–​54n.114, 236–​37n.38 Sophronius, Pseudo-​, 22–​23, 33n.167, 45n.55,
Peshitta, 47–​48, 86n.186, 90–​91 223n.66
Philo, 13–​14, 97–​98, 157, 207n.52, 252 Jerome's Illustrious Men, 25n.94, 33n.165
De agricultura, 220n.41 Sozomen, 30–​31, 31n.151, 32n.155, 33–​34, 37,
De Confusione Linguarum, 97nn.256–​257 45, 57n.131, 106
De opificio mundi, 220n.41 Ecclesiastical History, 28, 30, 31n.146, 32n.161,
De plantatione, 220n.47 33n.165, 42–​43, 103n.296, 106n.328
De providentia, 220n.41 Suda, 23, 25n.94, 33n.167, 45n.55
De specialibus legibus, 220n.41, 252n.23 Suetonius, 39, 83, 91–​92, 106–​7, 110,
De Vita Mosis, 72n.69 224n.76, 225
Hypothetica, 148n.57 On Rhetoricians, 39n.21
In Flaccum, 166n.39 The Twelve Caesars, 83n.161, 106n.329,
Legatio ad Gaium, 166n.39, 220n.43 110n.14, 110n.18, 225n.79
Quaestiones in Genesim, 220n.42 Symmachus, 14n.5
Philoxenus, 47–​48
Dissertations, 48n.77 Tacitus, 67–​68, 83, 91–​92, 93–​94, 110, 229, 244
Phlegon, 50, 53–​54n.114, 58 Histories, 68n.30
Photius, 28–​30, 231–​32, 240–​41, 243 The Annals, 83n.161, 94n.227, 229n.106,
Library, 28, 232n.8 244n.96
300 Ancient Sources Inde x

Talmud, Babylonian, 73n.73, 73–​74, 82, 93, 129, Cure for Greek Maladies, 26n.102
132, 150, 172, 174, 175, 186, 191nn.226–​ Ecclesiastical History, 26n.100
227, 201–​2, 239–​40, 250nn.13–​14, 258–​ Theodotion, 14n.5
59, 261–​62 Theognosia, 21–​22, 22n.64, 25n.92
Talmud, Jerusalem, 73–​74, 191n.227, 239–​40, Theophilus of Edessa, 48n.81, 55–​56, 57n.131,
260n.26, 260n.28, 261n.41 63n.155
Tertullian, 50, 58, 106, 129n.42 Chronicle, 55n.119
Against Praxeas, 93–​94n.224 Thomas, Book of, 233n.17
Against Marcion, 234n.20 Thucydides, 217n.15
Against the Jews, 93–​94n.224 Peloponnesian War, 81n.147
Apology, 93–​94n.224, 224–​25 Toledot Yeshu, 73–​74, 80, 81, 82, 93–​94, 95, 129,
De baptism, 224n.75 131–​33, 193n.236, 201–​2, 255–​56
De corona, 224n.75 Tosefta, 74n.80, 146, 175–​76, 186n.186, 190n.216,
De virginibus velandis, 224n.75 191nn.226–​227, 250n.9, 251nn.14–​15, 252,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 93–​94n.224 255n.2, 257–​61, 261n.48
Thallus, 2n.4 Tripartite History, 25n.91
Theodoret of Cyrus, 26, 57n.131
Commentary on Daniel, 17n.30, 26n.97, Ursinus, 50, 58
26n.99, 26n.104
Compendium of Heretical Fables, 26n.100 Zosimus, 57n.131
 Biblical Sources Index

For the benefit of digital users, terms that are indexed as spanning two pages (e.g., 52–​53) may, on occasion,
appear on only one of those pages.

Exodus 7:61–​4, 190n.219

6:14, 190n.219 11:32, 255n.7

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

12:3, 190n.218, 191n.221 Ezekiel
12:4, 190n.219, 191–​92n.228 45:21, 252n.29
12:5, 190n.219 45:22–​3, 252n.30
12:6, 251n.15, 253n.34 Matthew
12:7, 191n.223, 191n.226 1:1, 242
12:10, 190n.219, 251n.15 1:16, 242, 246n.105
12:13, 191n.223 1:17, 242
12:21, 190n.220 1:18, 242
12:22, 191n.223, 191n.226 1:20, 39n.22
12:23, 191n.223 2:1, 17n.31, 217n.18
12:46, 191n.222, 253 2:1–​18, 161n.2
13:8, 191n.224, 193n.237 2:7, 39n.22
Leviticus 2:13, 39n.22
25:49, 190n.220 3:1–​3, 129n.46
Numbers 3:1–​17, 129n.45
8:24, 143n.13 4:12–​17, 129n.45
9:2, 251n.15 4:13, 146n.44
9:12, 190n.219, 253 4:23, 162n.16, 166n.42
17:1–​3, 190n.219 4:25, 80n.142, 146n.51, 162n.12, 197n.250
28:16–​25, 252n.30 6:18, 97n.258
Deuteronomy 8:5–​13, 80n.139
12:5–​7, 191n.227 8:28, 146n.45
16:2, 190n.218 9:34, 74n.78
16:2–​3, 252 10:6, 80n.137
16:4, 190n.219 10:25, 72n.66, 74n.78, 206n.44
16:5–​6, 190n.218 11:19, 206n.40
26:13, 175n.108 11:21, 162n.14
Joshua 11:25, 70n.52, 207n.54
22:14, 190n.219 12:23, 207n.47
1 Kings 12:24, 74n.78
9:3, 191n.227 12:42, 206n.40
1 Chronicles 12:46–​7, 242n.80
4:38, 190n.219 13:54, 70n.50, 206nn.39–​40
23:27, 143n.13 13:54–​7, 207n.47
2 Chronicles 13:55–​6, 242n.80
30:13–​15, 252n.30 14:1, 167n.51
30:22, 252n.33 14:1–​12, 167n.49, 168n.58, 195n.244
Ezra 14:1–​13, 129n.45
2:59–​60, 190n.219 14:3, 161n.3
Nehemiah 14:6, 169n.69
3:23, 255–​56 14:11, 168n.59
302 Biblical Sources Inde x

Matthew (cont.) 27:12–​13, 183n.169

14:13–​21, 146n.51, 197n.250, 207n.49 27:15–​24, 184n.171, 190n.217
14:34, 146n.50 27:17, 232n.11, 241
15:16, 207n.53 27:22, 232n.11, 241
15:21, 162n.10 27:24, 67n.23
15:21–​8, 80n.141 27:36, 208n.61
15:24, 80n.137 27:40, 100n.278, 261n.46
15:32–​9, 146n.51, 197n.250, 207n.49 27:52, 53–​54n.114
16:13–​18, 162n.10, 165n.38 27:54, 80n.139
16:21, 100n.277 27:56, 146n.48
17:3, 47n.71, 48n.78 27:57, 259n.15
17:23, 100n.277 27:62, 253n.37
20:19, 100n.277 27:63, 82n.156, 189n.214, 208n.56
27:64, 100n.278

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

20:20–​8, 207n.55
21:12–​16, 261n.44 28:1, 146n.48
21:15, 184n.176, 261n.42 28:7, 100n.272
21:23, 184n.176 28:10, 100n.272
21:45, 184n.176, 261n.43 28:17, 95n.238
21:46, 261n.42 Mark
22:16, 168n.56 1:1–​14, 129n.45
22:17, 47n.75 1:2–​4, 129n.46
22:23–​33, 149n.68 1:39, 162n.16, 166n.42
23:5–​7, 149n.71 1:40–​2, 191–​92n.228
23:14, 149n.71 2:1, 146n.44
23:23–​34, 149n.71 2:24–​6, 191–​92n.228
23:28, 48n.76 3:6, 168n.56
24:26, 88n.193 3:8, 80n.142, 146n.51, 162n.12, 197n.250,
26:2, 249n.1 207n.49
26:3–​5, 182n.156, 260n.39 3:21, 210n.73
26:5, 67n.23 3:22, 74n.78
26:17, 192n.229, 252n.24 3:31, 210n.73
26:17–​20, 249n.1 3:31–​2, 242n.80
26:31, 95n.236 4:13, 207n.53
26:33, 210n.72 5:1–​20, 80n.140, 146n.45, 165n.38
26:35, 210n.72 5:20, 162n.12
26:56, 95n.236, 210n.72 5:25–​34, 191–​92n.228
26:57, 150n.75, 178n.131, 260n.30, 261n.49 5:41, 191–​92n.228
26:57–​8, 183n.162, 192n.232 6:2, 70n.50
26:59, 173n.93, 178n.129, 183n.163, 184n.174, 6:3, 210n.73, 242n.80
189n.213, 192n.234, 199n.9, 258n.12, 260n.29 6:14–​5, 207n.47
26:59–​60, 260n.33 6:14–​29, 168n.58
26:59–​62, 189n.214, 260n.32 6:14–​30, 129n.45, 167n.50
26:59–​67, 259n.17, 260n.31 6:17, 161n.3
26:60–​3, 189n.214 6:20, 167n.50, 168n.62
26:61, 100n.278, 261n.46 6:21, 166n.43, 206nn.39–​40
26:66, 88n.193 6:21–​9, 167n.49, 195n.244
26:67–​8, 189n.214 6:22, 168n.59, 169, 169n.69
26:69, 192n.232 6:31–​44, 146n.51, 197n.250, 207n.49
26:69–​75, 95n.237 6:45, 162n.14
27:1, 150n.74, 151n.86, 178n.130, 180n.139, 6:53, 142n.5
183n.166, 184n.173, 187n.194, 199n.9, 258n.12 7:18, 207n.53
27:1–​2, 183n.168 7:24, 162n.10
27:11, 208n.61 7:24–​30, 80n.141
27:11–​26, 93–​94n.224 7:31, 162n.12
 Biblical Sources Inde x 303

7:31–​8, 165n.38 15:39, 80n.139

8:1–​9, 146n.51, 197n.250, 207n.49 15:40, 146n.48
8:22, 162n.14 15:42, 253n.37
8:27, 162n.10 15:43, 259n.15
8:27–​8, 207n.47 15:47, 146n.48
8:27–​30, 165n.38 16:1, 146n.48
8:27–​38, 165n.38 16:9, 39n.22, 47n.71, 100n.272
8:31, 100n.278 16:11, 95n.238
9:4, 47n.71, 48n.78 16:12, 100n.272
9:31, 100n.278 16:13–​4, 95n.238
10:34, 100n.278 16:14, 47n.71, 100n.272
10:42, 90–​91 Luke
11:15–​8, 261n.44 1:3, 47n.74
11:18, 184n.176, 261n.42 2:1, 17n.31, 217n.18

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

11:27, 184n.176 2:40, 70n.49
12:12, 261nn.42–​3 2:52, 70n.49
12:13, 168n.56 3:1–​2, 206n.37
12:18–​27, 149n.68 3:1–​4, 129n.46
12:27, 88n.193 3:1–​22, 129n.45
14:1, 249n.1, 252n.25 3:2, 182–​83n.157, 183n.162, 249n.2
14:1–​2, 182n.156, 260n.39 3:19–​20, 168n.58
14:2, 67n.23 3:23, 90–​91
14:12, 192n.229, 252n.25 4:14–​15, 129n.45
14:12–​7, 249n.1 4:31, 146n.44
14:15, 191–​92n.228 5:1, 146n.49
14:27, 95n.236 5:26, 74–​75, 75n.89, 127n.37
14:29, 210n.72 6:17, 80n.142, 146n.51, 162n.12, 197n.250,
14:50, 95n.236, 210n.72 207n.49
14:53, 150n.74, 151n.86, 178nn.130–​131, 7:1–​10, 80n.139
180n.139, 183n.164, 184n.173, 187n.194, 7:35, 206n.40
192n.235, 199n.9, 260n.30, 261n.49 8:2, 146n.48
14:53–​54, 183n.162, 192n.232 8:3, 168n.55
14:53–​5, 189n.213, 258n.12 8:19, 242n.80
14:55, 150n.76, 173n.93, 178n.129, 183n.163, 8:26, 146n.45
184n.174, 199n.9, 260n.29 8:26–​39, 80n.140
14:55–​65, 259n.17, 260n.31 9:7–​8, 207n.47
14:55–​60, 260n.32 9:7–​9, 168n.58
14:56, 260n.33 9:9, 129n.45, 167n.52
14:56–​60, 189n.214 9:10, 162n.14
14:57–​62, 189n.214 9:12–​7, 146n.51, 197n.250, 207n.49
14:58, 100n.278, 261n.46 9:18–​9, 207n.47
14:59, 260n.33 9:22, 100n.277
14:65, 189n.214 9:54–​5, 207n.55
14:66–​8, 192n.232 10:13, 162n.14
14:67–​72, 95n.237 10:21, 70n.52, 207n.54
15:1, 173n.93, 178n.129, 178n.131, 183n.163, 11:15, 74n.78
183n.165, 183n.168, 184n.174, 199n.9, 11:31, 206n.40
258n.12, 260nn.29–​30 11:39–​44, 149n.71
15:1–​15, 93–​94n.224 11:49, 206n.40
15:2, 208n.61 12:1, 197n.250
15:3–​4, 183n.169 13:31, 167n.53, 171n.77
15:8–​15, 184n.171, 190n.217 16:16, 86n.186
15:26, 208n.61 16:19–​31, 186n.187
15:29, 100n.278, 261n.46 18:33, 100n.277
304 Biblical Sources Inde x

Luke (cont.) 2:11, 146n.47

19:39, 261n.42 2:12, 146n.44, 242n.80
19:45–​8, 261n.44 2:19, 261n.45
19:47, 184n.176 2:19–​20, 100n.278
19:47–​48, 261n.42 3:28, 129n.45
20:1, 184n.176 4:1–​2, 208n.57
20:19, 184n.176, 261nn.42–​43 4:24, 168n.58
20:27–​40, 149n.68 4:25, 241
22:1, 249n.1, 252n.26 4:29, 207n.47
22:1–​2, 182n.156, 260n.39 4:46, 146n.47
22:7, 192n.229, 252n.26 4:46–​54, 168n.55
22:7–​14, 249n.1 6:1, 146n.49, 166n.42
22:12, 191–​92n.228 6:1–​14, 146n.51, 197n.250, 207n.49
6:23, 146n.46, 166n.42

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

22:33, 210n.72
22:50–​1, 207n.55 6:59, 146n.44
22:54, 192nn.231–​232, 260n.31 7:5, 210n.73
22:54–​5, 183n.162 7:11–​3, 207n.46
22:56–​62, 95n.237 7:12, 82n.156, 208n.56
22:59, 88n.193 7:15, 207n.54
22:63–​4, 189n.214 7:25–​31, 207n.46
22:66, 150n.75, 178n.131, 183n.167, 7:40–​52, 207n.46
184nn.173–​174, 258n.12, 260n.30, 261n.49 7:47, 82n.156, 208n.56
22:71, 260n.32 7:52, 208n.56
23:1, 183n.168 9:17, 88n.193
23:1–​5, 183n.169, 208n.59 10:13, 88n.193
23:1–​25, 93–​94n.224 11:46–​53, 182n.155
23:2, 82n.156, 208n.56 11:47, 38n.13, 258n.12
23:2–​5, 208n.61 11:47–​9, 258n.13
23:4, 184n.171, 190n.217 11:47–​53, 259n.17
23:5, 82n.156 11:49, 184n.177
23:6–​12, 150n.77, 171n.75, 171n.77, 184n.170 12:9–​11, 184n.176
23:6–​15, 168n.57, 195n.243 12:19, 80n.143, 184n.176, 208n.58, 210n.74,
23:7–​12, 168n.63 261n.42
23:8, 167n.54 12:20–​2, 80n.142
23:10, 150n.75 12:21, 162n.13
23:14, 208n.59 12:42, 184n.176
23:15, 171n.77 13:1, 249, 252–​53, 254
23:47, 80n.139 13:29, 249, 252
23:48, 184n.171, 190n.217 13:37, 210n.72
23:54, 253n.37 16:32, 95n.236, 210n.72
24:7, 100n.277 18:10–​11, 207n.55
24:10, 146n.48 18:13, 182–​83n.157, 183n.159, 206n.37, 231
24:11, 47n.73, 95n.238, 142n.4 18:13–​5, 192n.231
24:20, 151n.87, 171n.77 18:15, 183n.160
24:21, 100n.278 18:17, 95n.237
24:25, 95n.238, 142n.4, 207n.53 18:19, 260n.31
24:34, 100n.272 18:24, 182–​83n.157, 183n.161, 183n.162,
24:41, 95n.238 192n.232, 206n.37
24:46, 100n.277 18:25–​7, 95n.237
John 18:28, 183n.162, 183n.168, 192n.232, 249, 252
1:15, 129n.45 18:28–​32, 206n.37
1:21–​5, 73n.73 18:29–​32, 183n.169
1:30, 129n.45 18:31, 240n.61
1:44, 162n.13 18:33, 208n.61
 Biblical Sources Inde x 305

19:12–​6, 93–​94n.224 9:1–​2, 185n.183

19:14, 249, 253, 254 9:17, 47n.71
19:19–​22, 208n.61 9:22, 91n.202
19:20, 184n.177, 260n.35 9:36–​43, 146n.55
19:25, 146n.48 10:36–​43, 141n.1
19:31, 253n.35 10:37, 129n.45
19:36, 249, 253 10:40, 100n.277
19:42, 253n.35 11:16, 129n.45
20:1, 146n.48 11:26, 110n.12, 208n.64
20:18, 146n.48 12:1–​5, 166n.40, 186n.184, 210n.76
20:28, 206n.43 12:1–​6, 252n.26
20:31, 91n.202 12:17, 210n.73
20:24–​9, 95n.238 12:19–​23, 17n.29, 217n.17
21:1, 146n.49 12:20–​3, 166n.39

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

28:28, 195n.242 12:23, 218n.28
Acts 13:1, 168n.55
1:5, 129n.45 13:23–​31, 141n.1
1:13–​4, 191–​92n.228 13:24–​5, 129n.45
1:14, 242n.80 13:31, 100n.272
1:22, 129n.45 13:46, 80n.138
2:22, 75n.90 15:13, 210n.73
2:22–​32, 141n.1 16:22–​4, 210n.76
3:13, 93–​94n.224 17:3, 91n.202
3:13–​15, 141n.1 20:22–​4, 210n.76
4:5–​6, 184n.178 21:17–​8, 165n.36
4:5–​15, 259n.17 21:18, 141n.1, 210n.73
4:6, 182–​83n.157, 185n.179, 185n.180, 22:3, 172n.84, 173n.91, 174n.101, 175n.105,
187n.192, 188, 206n.37 259n.14
4:13, 207n.54 22:5, 174n.103, 185n.183
4:13–​23, 258n.12 22:30, 174n.103, 258n.12, 262n.56
4:15, 262n.56 22:30–​23:2, 259n.17
4:18–​21, 210n.76 23:1–​6, 174n.103, 262n.56
4:27, 93–​94n.224, 150n.77, 171n.77, 206n.37 23:6–​8, 149n.68
5:17, 251n.19 23:7, 258n.13
5:17–​28, 259n.17 24–​6, 210n.76
5:17–​34, 258n.13 24:22, 164n.33
5:17–​42, 185n.181 24:23, 165n.36
5:21, 262n.56 24:24, 164n.31
5:26, 262n.56 24:24–​7, 195n.244
5:27–​33, 210n.76 24:26, 164n.32
5:30, 173n.89, 173n.94, 200n.11 25–​6, 163
5:30–​2, 141n.1 25:13–​22, 163n.20
5:34, 172n.84, 173n.90, 251n.18 25:13–​27, 195n.244
5:40–​2, 210n.76 25:19, 67–​68, 206n.38
6:12, 185n.182, 188n.206 26, 165n.36
6:12–​7:1, 259n.17 26:16, 100n.272
6:12–​5, 262n.56 26:26, 163n.21
6:15, 185n.182, 188n.206 26:28, 110n.12, 164n.28, 208n.64
7:1, 185n.182 26:31, 164n.28
7:2, 47n.71 27:1, 165n.36
7:26, 47n.71 28:30, 245n.100
7:54–​60, 210n.76 Romans
7:58, 259n.14 1:16, 80n.138
8:1, 259n.14 2:9, 80n.138
306 Biblical Sources Inde x

1 Corinthians Philippians
1:18–​25, 70n.51, 206nn.39–​40 1:21, 210n.76
5:7, 253 2:6, 206n.43
9:5, 210n.73, 242n.80 Hebrews
12:22, 91n.204 1:8, 206n.43
15:4, 100n.277 9:6–​12, 253
15:7, 210n.73 13:12, 260n.35
15:5–​8, 100n.272 James
15:9, 210n.73 1:1, 210n.73
2 Corinthians 1 Peter
2:12, 75n.90 2:9, 105nn.322–​323
10:9, 91n.204 4:16, 110n.12, 208n.64
11:23–​7, 210n.76 1 John
Galatians 2:22, 91n.202

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

1:13, 210n.73 5:1, 91n.202
1:19, 210n.73, 242n.80 Jude
2:6, 91n.204 1:1, 210n.73
2:9, 91n.204, 210n.73, 214n.88 Revelation
2:12, 210n.73 5:6, 190n.219
 Josephan Sources Index

For the benefit of digital users, terms that are indexed as spanning two pages (e.g., 52–​53) may, on occasion,
appear on only one of those pages.

Tables, figures, and boxes are respectively indicated by an italic t, f, and b following the page number.

Apion (Against Apion), 153n.102, 238–​39n.50 2.232, 152n.93, 156n.131

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

1.1, 64n.5, 152n.94 2.239, 92n.211
1.12, 76n.98, 98n.264 2.269, 79n.132
1.36, 155n.119 2.271, 152n.90
1.38, 152n.94 2.277, 152n.90
1.48, 155n.123 2.287, 152n.90
1.48–​51, 163n.25 Antiquities (Antiquities of the Jews)
1.50, 64n.5, 165n.35 Preface. 1–​9, 266n.10
1.50–​1, 163n.23 1.4, 153n.102
1.50–​2, 170n.72, 181n.152 1.5, 153n.101
1.51, 156n.130, 163n.24, 170n.70, 170n.73 1.8–​9, 153n.102
1.54, 144n.27 1.9, 153n.102, 156n.131
1.55, 152n.93 1.11, 155n.119
1.69, 101n.283 1.35, 103n.301
1.82, 71n.60 1.79, 84n.167
1.109, 93n.217, 152n.98 1.90, 94n.230
1.154, 152n.98 1.92, 103n.301
1.162, 152n.91 1.123, 105n.313
1.168, 98n.263 1.125, 103n.301
1.169–​70, 98n.264 1.126, 84n.176
1.171, 101n.283 1.131, 103n.301
1.215–​8, 153n.102 1.132–​3, 122n.27
1.287, 99n.271 1.133, 84n.175
1.289, 99n.271 1.160, 103n.301
1.290, 122n.28 1.161, 101n.283
1.293, 99n.271 1.163, 101n.283
2.2, 153n.102 1.193, 100n.273
2.25, 72n.64 1.203, 103n.302
2.41, 71n.60, 123n.30 1.204, 103n.301
2.84, 153n.102 1.207, 81n.151
2.124, 152n.91, 156n.131 1.212, 103n.301
2.127, 105n.315, 105n.318 1.213, 66n.18, 66n.20
2.134, 155n.126, 170n.73 1.263, 81n.146
2.136, 156n.128 1.337, 103n.297, 103n.302
2.145, 153n.102 2.4, 66n.19
2.150, 152n.90 2.35, 99n.267
2.155, 76n.98 2.72, 100n.273
2.180, 152n.94 2.80, 77n.115
2.181, 152n.91 2.104, 103n.298
2.185, 257n.5 2.129, 103n.298
2.187–​8, 257n.5 2.161, 103n.298
2.189, 78n.117 2.173, 81n.146
308 Josephan Sources Inde x

Antiquities (Antiquities of the Jews) (cont.) 7.153, 157n.135

2.175, 103n.298 7.159, 105n.312
2.186, 89n.194 7.194, 79n.127
2.229, 84n.167 7.212, 89n.195
2.285–​6, 70n.45, 72n.72, 75n.92 7.378, 103n.302
2.306, 105n.315, 105n.320 7.383, 103n.298
2.313, 103n.302 8.23, 77n.110, 78n.121
2.323, 103n.304 8.34, 72n.69
3.29, 105n.312 8.46, 93n.217, 93n.219, 153n.101
3.31, 103n.302 8.53, 69n.42
3.38, 98n.264 8.113, 93n.217, 152n.95
3.74, 77n.110, 78n.122 8.117, 153n.101
3.134, 66nn.18–​19, 66n.21 8.137, 90–​91, 110n.16, 241, 241n.73
8.145, 103n.305

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

3.172, 152n.92
3.180, 72n.69 8.154, 103n.301
3.216, 101n.287 8.174, 103n.301
3.248, 93n.217, 152n.92, 253n.34 8.177, 89n.197
3.249, 252n.31 8.200, 84n.167
3.290, 100n.273 8.243, 101n.286
3.299, 103n.302 8.254, 80n.133
3.304, 103n.305 8.280, 153n.101
3.308, 77n.110, 78n.122 8.281, 103n.301
3.318, 72n.70, 152n.98 8.294, 79n.130
3.320, 72n.71, 153n.108, 179n.134, 180n.140 8.355, 69n.39
4.14, 68n.29 8.370, 94n.228
4.21, 92n.214 8.420, 98n.261
4.39, 103n.305 9.85, 79n.130
4.48, 98n.264 9.138, 84n.167
4.66, 94n.232 9.246, 89n.196
4.84, 84n.173 9.266, 94n.228
4.137, 103n.298 9.290, 103n.301
4.140, 92n.214 10.14, 92n.212
4.180, 103n.298 10.27, 103n.305
4.219, 77n.110, 78n.122 10.35, 72n.69, 101n.285, 101n.288, 152–​53
4.299, 75n.97 10.70, 252n.22
4.327, 84n.173 10.124, 104n.307
5.33, 68n.29 10.208–​10, 101n.288
5.96, 80n.133, 152n.93 10.237, 69n.43
5.105, 92n.211 10.267, 103n.301, 152n.94
5.112, 104n.307 10.276, 101n.288
5.125, 103n.302 11.29, 80n.133
5.126, 84n.167 11.107, 152n.91
5.174, 94n.231 11.110, 252n.31
5.226, 103n.305 11.141, 157n.134
5.252, 92n.212 11.198, 156n.132
5.276, 69n.40 11.297–​305, 238n.49
5.327, 100nn.273–​274 11.322, 79n.132
6.20, 103n.301 11.337, 89n.196
6.174, 100n.275 12.6, 85n.182
6.200, 99n.271 12.96–​7, 141n.2
6.211, 92n.214 12.119, 103n.301
6.287, 100n.273 12.143, 103n.298
6.291, 104n.307 12.171, 84n.167
7.1, 100n.273 12.173, 96n.245
 Josephan Sources Inde x 309

12.225, 153n.104 14.367–​71, 170n.70

12.238, 84n.170 14.455, 89n.195
12.264, 153n.106 15.2, 105n.312
12.266, 84n.173, 153n.107 15.8, 29n.130
12.268, 153n.106 15.12–​3, 170n.70
12.270, 153n.107 15.37, 103n.299
12.277, 152n.91 15.50, 152n.91, 152n.99
12.287, 79n.131 15.61, 79n.130
12.321, 153n.105 15.237, 170n.70
12.333, 153n.105 15.259, 152n.91
12.335, 153n.105 15.265, 94n.228
12.350, 153n.105 15.296, 79n.130
12.373, 79n.131 15.320–​2, 177n.117
12.401, 79n.130 15.341, 77n.109

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

12.424, 104n.307 15.342, 162n.15
13.46, 67nn.25–​26 15.371, 93n.218, 148n.60, 152n.92
13.49, 103n.299 15.373–​9, 101n.289, 154n.113
13.101, 80n.133 15.379, 154n.111
13.115, 76n.102 15.419, 89n.194
13.119, 84n.175 16–​19, 92
13.120, 84n.175 16.6, 162n.15
13.128, 103n.305 16.18, 79n.131
13.167, 93n.217, 153n.103 16.21, 98n.262
13.169, 155n.116 16.136, 162n.15
13.171, 67n.26 16.163, 253n.36
13.177, 89n.196 16.177, 152n.90
13.268, 84n.175 16.234, 79n.130
13.271, 84n.167 16.262, 92n.210
13.285, 84n.175 16.355, 92nn.210–​211
13.293–​4, 232n.13, 240 17–​19, 65n.6, 75–​77, 92–​93
13.294, 240n.63 17.7, 92n.214
13.298, 144n.25 17.12–​22, 166n.44, 196n.247
13.306, 92n.209, 110n.19 17.14, 66n.18
13.311, 154n.113 17.19, 67n.26
13.351, 67n.26 17.22, 170n.70
13.367, 84n.173 17.41, 144n.26, 149n.70, 202n.21
13.382, 101n.281 17.47, 103n.298
13.430, 105n.321 17.67, 104n.307
14.3, 77n.110, 77n.116, 78n.122 17.78, 177n.117
14.21, 157n.138, 252n.22 17.81, 92n.214
14.91, 257n.2 17.86, 104n.307
14.106, 152n.92 17.94, 75n.97
14.115, 105n.317 17.110, 89n.195
14.125, 94n.228 17.160, 157n.137
14.130, 77n.109 17.168–​70, 43n.44
14.154, 99n.271 17.181, 71
14.163, 157n.137 17.189, 165n.38
14.165, 157n.133 17.221, 92n.212
14.166, 89n.196 17.234, 98n.265
14.187, 152n.94 17.235, 98n.266
14.188, 103n.302 17.254, 85n.182
14.194, 103n.304 17.311, 71
14.302, 157n.137 17.325, 76n.103
14.361, 80n.133 17.327, 82n.152
310 Josephan Sources Inde x

Antiquities (Antiquities of the Jews) (cont.) 18.65–​84, 66n.16

17.329, 77n.107, 77n.109, 82n.153 18.66–​80, 67n.24
17.332, 101n.282 18.67–​8, 117n.24, 119n.25
17.339, 177n.121 18.68, 92n.210, 92n.211
17.341, 245–​46 18.70, 77n.107, 77n.112
17.342, 92n.214, 157n.136 18.72–​7, 202n.21
17.342–​4, 258n.9 18.80, 67n.26
17.345–​8, 154n.113 18.81–​2, 202n.21
18–​20, 65n.9 18.81–​4, 66n.16, 67n.24, 130
18, 3n.11, 44n.47, 75–​77, 79, 85, 92–​93, 103–​4, 18.85, 131n.50
127, 229–​30, 281 18.85–​7, 66n.16, 130
18.1, 43n.44, 60–​61n.150 18.90, 96n.246
18.1–​2, 17n.31, 217n.18 18.91, 86n.183, 86–​87
18.92–​3, 220n.45

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

18.2, 240n.59
18.3, 84n.167, 177n.120 18.95, 14n.8, 186n.188
18.6, 77n.107, 77n.109, 77n.112 18.99, 92nn.214–​215
18.7, 92n.214 18.106, 168n.60, 169n.64
18.9, 71 18.107, 92n.210
18.11, 104n.307 18.116, 84n.174
18.14, 148n.67 18.116–​7, 220n.46
18.15, 75n.97, 144n.25 18.116–​9, 14n.4, 15, 36n.4, 43n.42, 43–​44,
18.16, 76n.104 44n.47, 60–​61n.150, 129n.44, 202n.25,
18.17, 144n.25 209n.65, 238
18.18, 148n.67 18.117, 31n.150, 148n.61, 149n.73
18.18–​22, 144n.26 18.119, 102
18.19, 148n.61 18.121, 92n.214, 96n.246
18.21, 75n.97 18.122, 102
18.22, 75n.97 18.123, 186n.188
18.26, 17n.31, 217n.18 18.128, 71
18.29, 252n.22 18.130–​1, 170n.70
18.33, 221n.57 18.130–​42, 166n.44, 196n.247
18.33–​5, 26, 27n.111, 60–​61n.150, 221n.57 18.132, 166n.44
18.34–​5, 43n.43, 43n.44, 43–​44, 180n.142, 18.134, 169n.65
220n.44 18.136, 161n.3
18.35, 14n.8, 221n.57 18.136–​7, 168n.58, 170n.74
18.39, 67n.26 18.137, 84n.164, 161nn.3–​4, 168n.60,
18.44, 104n.307 169nn.64–​65
18.55, 75n.97 18.147–​9, 167n.45
18.55–​9, 66n.16, 130, 220n.43 18.149, 166n.41
18.55–​62, 131n.51 18.150, 166n.41, 167n.46
18.55–​87, 130–​31, 265n.2 18.160, 162n.15
18.59, 77n.107, 78n.117 18.183, 92n.210
18.60, 95n.241, 131–​32n.53 18.202, 101n.282
18.60–​2, 66n.16, 130, 131–​32 18.236, 77n.107
18.62, 94n.233 18.237–​8, 162n.15
18.63, 157 18.240, 84n.169
18.63–​4, 1n.1, 1, 15, 36n.4, 43n.42, 43–​44, 18.252–​5, 167n.48
44n.47, 66n.16, 84–​85, 119n.25, 129n.44, 18.255, 92n.210
209n.65, 220n.48, 245–​46, 247, 265, 281; 18.256, 202n.21
see also Testimonium Flavianum 18.257, 157
18.64, 180n.140 18.257–​60, 43n.44, 60–​61n.150
18.65, 66n.16, 67n.24, 131n.50, 131n.52 18.259, 157n.139
18.65–​6, 117n.24, 119n.25 18.261–​301, 245n.101
18.65–​80, 36n.4, 66n.16, 130, 131n.51, 132 18.266, 103n.300, 104n.308, 104n.310
 Josephan Sources Inde x 311

18.278, 94n.228 20.126, 104n.307

18.304, 103n.298 20.132, 84n.167
18.310, 66n.11, 66nn.14–​15 20.138, 162n.11, 169n.65
18.314, 75n.97 20.140, 170n.73
18.333, 77n.107, 94n.228 20.142, 202n.21, 212n.81
18.345, 103n.300, 104n.308, 104n.310 20.142–​3, 164n.31
18.349, 104n.307 20.142–​4, 165n.35
18.351, 92nn.210–​211 20.145, 84n.167, 161n.6
18.353, 79n.130, 92n.214 20.147, 170n.73
18.361, 95n.242 20.158, 169n.65
18.372, 79nn.129–​130 20.162–​4, 186n.191
18.376, 92n.214 20.167–​72, 101n.290, 202n.21, 212n.81
18.379, 157, 157n.140 20.173, 66n.11, 66n.14
19–​20, 153n.101 20.177, 79n.130, 79n.131

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

19.71, 75n.97 20.179, 84n.167, 179n.137, 196n.248
19.113, 92n.209, 110n.19 20.180, 157n.141
19.127, 77n.107 20.183, 84n.167
19.133, 102n.294 20.185, 186n.191
19.141, 101 20.190–​5, 179n.133
19.171, 104n.307 20.193–​5, 144n.29
19.172, 76n.105 20.194, 150n.80
19.185, 77nn.107–​108 20.196, 180n.141, 180n.143, 189n.208
19.202, 92n.210 20.197, 216
19.217, 75–​76 20.197–​8, 182–​83n.157, 189n.212
19.257, 84n.173 20.197–​99, 231
19.274–​5, 166n.39 20.198, 93n.218, 155n.118, 158n.142,
19.291, 100n.273 182n.154, 183n.158
19.297, 177n.118 20.198–​200, 258n.13
19.313, 186n.189 20.199, 155n.122, 202n.21, 231n.1, 232n.13,
19.343–​50, 17n.29, 217n.17 239, 251n.19
19.343–​53, 166n.39 20.199–​200, 240–​41, 255n.9
19.345, 104n.307 20.199–​201, 202n.26, 240, 266n.14
19.346, 218n.28 20.199–​203, 216
19.350–​1, 162n.15 20.200, 1n.1, 14n.5, 14, 15, 84–​85, 84n.177,
19.354, 161n.5, 162n.15, 166n.44 86–​87, 90n.201, 110n.16, 134n.64, 137,
19.355, 170n.73 141n.1, 145nn.30–​31, 145n.33, 163n.27,
19.360, 162n.15 174n.104, 203n.30, 205n.35, 216, 231–​47,
20, 157n.141, 231–​32 258n.8, 259n.17, 262n.56
20.7, 80n.133 20.200–​1, 14n.4, 186n.185, 210n.77, 212n.84,
20.12, 156n.130 239, 241, 262n.54, 265n.4
20.13, 196n.248 20.200–​3, 188n.205, 236–​37n.38
20.13–​6, 196n.248 20.201, 231n.2, 232n.13, 239
20.16, 180n.143 20.201–​3, 231n.3
20.41, 71 20.203, 183n.158, 245
20.51, 66n.19 20.205–​7, 202n.21
20.71, 103n.305, 152n.95 20.208, 84n.167
20.76, 66n.11 20.210, 238
20.78, 80n.133 20.213, 178n.125, 183n.158, 245
20.81, 84n.167 20.214, 145n.35, 238
20.97–​9, 101n.290, 202n.21, 212n.81 20.216–​8, 152n.93, 258n.11
20.103, 180n.143 20.218, 240n.64
20.104, 169n.65, 170n.73 20.223, 178n.125
20.106, 252n.22 20.230, 66n.19
20.118, 66n.11, 66n.14 20.247–​9, 220n.45
312 Josephan Sources Inde x

Antiquities (Antiquities of the Jews) (cont.) 86, 146n.47

20.251, 258n.10, 259n.15 92, 146n.46
20.264, 152n.91 94, 146n.46
20.267, 211n.79, 245n.98 96, 146n.48
through Cassiodorus 127, 146n.48
1.207, 44n.52, 81n.149 132, 146n.48
2.35, 44n.53, 99n.269 136–​46, 152n.93
2.223, 44n.49 150, 212n.81
2.267, 44n.49 156–​9, 146n.48
2.345, 44n.49 164, 146n.46
5.33, 44n.48 167, 146n.46
9.182, 44n.49 169, 92n.214, 146n.46
17.327, 44n.51, 81n.148 177, 84n.167
188, 146n.46

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

17.329, 44n.50
20.200, 240–​41n.68 190, 182–​83n.157
Government of the Jews, 50, 60, 62 190–​1, 251n.18
Life (Life of Flavius Josephus) 190–​2, 174n.95
1, 93n.217, 152n.91 190–​204, 266n.15
1–​8, 142n.10 191, 84n.171, 172n.84
2, 142n.9, 142n.11, 151n.85 191–​2, 174n.99
4, 85n.181, 151n.85 192, 175n.109
5, 142n.7, 143n.12, 170n.73 193, 143n.18, 178n.125, 181n.146
7, 142n.7, 150n.84, 152n.97, 152n.100 193–​4, 199n.7
8, 143n.12 193–​6, 240
8–​9, 143n.16 194, 143n.19, 150n.82, 187n.198, 188n.201
9, 143n.12, 143n.17, 143n.20, 150n.81, 195–​204, 188n.202
188n.199, 199nn.6–​7 196, 178n.127
10, 144n.22, 155nn.121–​122 198, 142n.7
10–​12, 154n.114 202, 143n.18
11, 144n.23, 148nn.58–​60 202–​4, 142n.8
12, 142n.8, 144n.24, 144n.25, 155n.122 204, 178n.125, 178n.126, 194n.239
13–​16, 144n.28 204–​5, 143n.15
14, 148n.60 205, 142nn.7–​8
16, 144n.29, 153n.102 205–​308, 188n.203
17, 145n.35 216, 240, 266n.15
20–​1, 188n.199 217, 146n.42, 199n.6
21, 145n.36, 150n.81, 155n.122, 199nn.6–​7 230, 146n.55
23, 145n.34 235, 146n.43
28–​9, 145n.38, 199n.6 262, 77n.110, 78n.122
30, 155n.124 266, 92n.214
31, 146n.46 275, 152n.91
32–​4, 155n.124 280, 146n.46
42, 79n.132, 146n.45 309, 174n.95, 182–​83n.157, 240, 266n.15
43, 155n.124 309–​10, 188n.204
44, 146n.45 310, 146n.56, 199n.6
46, 155n.124 322–​3, 146n.46
62, 146n.42, 174n.98, 258n.6 326, 146n.46
64, 146n.46 340, 72n.65
68, 146n.46 359, 170n.72, 181n.152
74, 80n.136 362, 170n.72, 181n.152
79, 155n.124 362–​6, 163n.24
80, 145n.38 363, 163n.25
82, 146n.45, 146n.46 364, 161n.7
84, 155n.125 365–​6, 161n.8
 Josephan Sources Inde x 313

366, 162n.9 2.94–​5, 161n.3

367, 156n.130 2.111–​3, 154n.113, 258n.9
373, 84n.167 2.117, 240n.60
403, 146n.44 2.119–​61, 144n.26
407–​8, 155n.124 2.121–​3, 148n.59
416–​23, 163n.25 2.126, 148n.59
417–​21, 181n.151 2.129, 148n.58, 148n.60
418, 143n.15, 263n.57 2.130–​4, 148n.60
420, 152n.93 2.137, 148n.59
422–​3, 163n.23, 165n.35 2.137–​8, 154n.114
428, 163n.25 2.138, 148n.58
428–​9, 165n.35 2.141, 96n.245
Testimonium Flavianum, see Antiquities 2.151, 148n.57
18.63–​4 2.159, 154

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

full text of different versions, 1, 6, 48–​49, 2.162, 232n.13
50–51, 126t, 137–​38, 204, 282–95 2.166, 144n.26, 202n.21, 232n.13, 240
War (The Jewish War) 2.167, 161n.3
Preface.1–​3, 266n.9 2.169–​70, 220n.43
1.3, 64n.5, 142n.10, 144n.27, 221n.52 2.169–​77, 131n.51, 265
1.5, 79n.131 2.171, 92n.213
1.16, 71n.57, 71n.59, 77n.110, 78n.122, 2.175, 92n.213, 131–​32, 131–​32n.53
152n.93 2.181, 165n.37
1.17, 103n.299 2.183, 92n.211
1.18, 94n.234 2.220, 166n.44
1.22, 103n.305 2.221, 169n.65, 170n.73
1.45, 66n.11 2.223, 169n.65
1.68–​9, 101n.289 2.243–​6, 186n.190
1.78–​80, 154n.113 2.247, 162n.11, 169n.65
1.86, 66n.11, 79n.131 2.252, 169n.65
1.99, 66n.11, 66n.13 2.254, 186n.191
1.128, 66n.11 2.256, 186n.191
1.157, 101 2.258–​63, 101n.290, 202n.21, 212n.81
1.170, 257n.2 2.268, 80n.135
1.171, 95nn.244–​245 2.301, 195n.242
1.189, 66n.19 2.355, 104n.309
1.231, 67n.22 2.361, 101n.281
1.243, 157n.137 2.366, 71n.59, 105n.315, 105n.318
1.248, 84n.167 2.374, 105n.315, 105n.318
1.274–​5, 170n.70 2.379, 105n.318
1.292, 66n.11 2.381, 105n.318
1.392, 104n.309 2.397, 105n.315, 105n.317
1.407, 105n.313 2.433, 68n.29, 69n.44, 84n.173
1.482, 105n.312 2.450, 84n.167
1.487, 92n.212 2.555, 145n.34
1.499, 66n.19 2.556, 84n.167
1.517, 66n.11, 66n.14 2.563, 187n.196, 187nn.197–​198
1.557, 166n.44 2.566, 187n.198
1.562–​5, 166n.44, 196n.247 2.566–​8, 145n.39
1.568, 66n.11, 66n.14 2.567, 181n.145
1.623, 103n.303 2.567–​8, 155n.122
1.648, 66n.11 2.568, 145n.37, 157n.137, 187n.198, 258n.6
1.668, 161n.3 2.570, 150n.79, 190n.215, 258n.7
2.10, 252n.22 2.573, 146n.55
2.57, 68n.29 2.576, 145n.41
314 Josephan Sources Inde x

War (The Jewish War) (cont.) 5.97, 71n.57

2.626–​9, 266n.15 5.114, 163n.25
2.626–​31, 188n.202 5.137, 84nn.167–​168
3.113, 79n.131 5.144, 183n.167, 260n.38
3.138, 157n.137 5.162, 105n.313
3.229–​34, 152n.93 5.166, 105n.313
3.320–​2, 152n.93 5.171, 105n.313
3.351–​4, 154n.115 5.325, 163n.25
3.352, 101n.289, 144n.27, 153n.102 5.419, 142n.8, 143n.15, 152n.93
3.354, 105n.315, 105n.317 5.420, 152n.93
3.377, 152n.91 5.429, 152n.93
3.391, 71n.55, 71n.59 5.455, 79n.132
3.408, 163n.25 5.461, 71n.59
5.527, 84n.167, 177n.122

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

3.438, 77n.110, 78n.122
3.450, 67n.28 5.533, 142n.8, 143n.15
3.463–​4, 146n.49 6, 86n.186
3.506–​15, 146nn.49–​50 6.89, 92n.212
3.515, 105n.311 6.102, 154n.112
3.519, 146n.44 6.109, 101n.288, 153n.102
4.14–​5, 156n.127 6.113–​4, 180n.144, 181n.150
4.76, 66n.11, 66n.14 6.114, 179n.136, 180n.140, 189n.208, 197n.249
4.147–​9, 159n.1 6.126, 239–​40n.57
4.151, 189n.207 6.132, 86n.186
4.159, 174n.95, 182–​83n.157 6.267, 103n.305
4.160, 178n.125 6.269, 152n.98
4.164, 189n.210 6.299, 39n.19, 220n.41
4.208, 66n.11, 66n.14 6.300, 39n.19
4.238, 178n.128, 181n.147, 189n.209 6.300–​9, 101n.289
4.316–​8, 189n.211 6.309, 61n.151
4.316–​21, 240 6.403, 78n.124
4.318, 183n.158 6.423, 190n.219
4.318–​22, 156n.129 6.424, 251n.17
4.318–​25, 266n.13 7.150, 263n.57
4.326–​9, 152n.93 7.153–​4, 84n.172
4.335, 238–​39n.50 7.158, 170n.70
4.336, 157n.137 7.164, 80n.133, 81n.150
4.385, 152n.93 7.216, 84n.167
4.387, 101n.288, 153n.102 7.226, 169n.65
4.416, 84n.167 7.327, 105n.315, 105n.317
4.460, 84n.167 7.417, 71n.56, 71n.59
4.503, 175n.110 7.432, 101n.288, 153n.102
4.542, 79n.132 7.444, 76n.106
4.577, 175n.111 7.454, 64n.5
4.622–​9, 154n.115 Slavonic Jewish War
4.624–​9, 152n.93 2.7.2b, 148n.60
4.654, 79n.128 2.9.1f, 148n.60
5, 236–​37n.38 2.9.3, 229n.106
 Subject Index

For the benefit of digital users, terms that are indexed as spanning two pages (e.g., 52–​53) may, on occasion,
appear on only one of those pages.

Tables, figures, and boxes are respectively indicated by an italic t, f, and b following the page number.

Entries for words and phrases include minor variations of wording, conjugation, and declension.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

‘a certain Jesus’ (Ἰησοῦς τις), 16–​17, 41–​42, 135–​36, 203–​4, 205, 208; see also ‘he was
44–​45, 47, 67–​69, 93, 124t, 130, 135, the Christ’
198, 217–​18 ‘called’ (λεγόμενος), 85–​88, 89–​92, 133–​34,
‘a wise man’ (σοϕὸς ἀνήρ:), 31, 54, 203–​4, 241–​42, 265
66–​67, 68, 69–​72, 75, 112t, 124t, 198, ‘thought to be’ (mestabrā itaw), 5, 85–​92, 133–​
205, 206 34, 135–​36, 137–​38, 203–​4, 205, 228, 229, 281
‘accusation’ (ἔνδειξις), 92, 110–​11, 112t, 126 ‘believed to be’ (credebatur esse), 5, 22n.71,
‘among us’(παρ’ ἡμῖν), 6, 93, 124t, 151–​58, 38, 85–​92, 133–​34, 135–​36, 137, 203, 205,
170n.73, 171, 179, 180, 199–​200 228, 281
‘appeared’ (ϕαίνω), 31n.151, 39, 40, 44–​45, 47–​ ‘perhaps he was’ (‫)�لعله هو المس�يح‬,
‫ف‬
48, 54–​55, 96–​100, 102–​3, 112t, 124t, 198, 48–​49, 54–​55, 62, 90, 281
204n.33, 205, 213 ‘called Christ’ (in Antiquities 20.200), 14, 84–​
‘appeared to them alive’, see ‘appeared’ 85, 86–​87, 134, 216, 232, 234–​39, 240–​41,
‘brought over’ (ἐπηγάγετο), 16–​19, 36–​37, 38, 242–​44, 245–​46, 247
41–​42, 44–​45, 47, 79–​83, 95–​96, 112t, 124t, ‘he was the Christ’ (ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν), 2–​3,
128, 129, 136–​37, 198, 201n.19, 202n.22, 4n.14, 5, 13–​14, 14n.8, 15, 20–​21, 22, 22n.71,
205, 208, 217–​18 23–​24, 25, 30, 32, 33–​34, 35, 36, 37, 45,
‘certain’ (τις), 5, 41n.34, 47, 67–​69, 84–​85, 49–​50, 54, 62, 63, 73n.73, 83–​92, 86n.185,
85n.180, 109n.10, 112t, 120t, 124t, 130, 135–​ 133–​34, 203, 205 see also ‘he was called the
36, 135–​36n.68, 137, 201n.19, 224n.71, 229, Christ’
281; see also ‘a certain Jesus’ ‘led’ or ‘misled’, see ‘brought over’
‘Christ’ (χριστός), 83–​92, 110, 111, 112t, 122–​23, ‘miraculous deeds’ (παράδοξα), 16–​17, 18–​19,
124t, 203–​4, 241 30–​32, 33–​34, 36–​37, 38, 41–​42, 44–​45, 46–​
‘Christian’ (χριστιανός), 105–​7, 110, 111–​17, 47, 72, 73–​76, 112t, 124t, 127–​28, 136–​37,
112t, 122–​23, 124t, 208 154, 198, 201n.19, 202nn.22–​23, 204, 205,
‘doer of incredible deeds’ (παραδόξων ἔργων 206, 217–​18, 225n.82, 226–​27
ποιητής), 18, 73–​76, 127–​28, 136–​37, 205, ‘seemed’, see ‘appeared’
206, 225–​27 ‘the tribe of the Christians’ (τῶν Χριστιανῶν . . .
‘first men’ (πρώτων ἀνδρῶν), 6, 92–​93, 126, 143–​ τὸ ϕῦλον), 36–​37, 105–​7, 110, 124t, 141,
44, 145–​46, 149–​51, 165, 166, 171n.77, 178, 198, 224–​25, 227
186–​87, 192–​93, 199–​200 ‘truths’ or ‘truisms’ (τἀληθῆ), 2, 19–​20, 30–​31,
‘first men among us’ (πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ 33–​34, 36–​37, 47, 76–​79, 82, 112t, 124t,
ἡμῖν), 6, 151–​58, 159, 161, 171, 172, 174–​76, 136–​37, 141, 198, 207
177, 180, 182, 184, 186, 187–​88, 189–​90, ‘until now’ (εἰς [ἔτι] τε νῦν), 52n.97, 103–​4, 107,
199–​200, 208 124t, 126–​27, 135, 223–​24, 227, 229–​30
‘he was called the Christ’ (in the TF), 2–​3, 4n.14, ‘with pleasure’ (ἡδονῇ), 16–​17, 20, 25n.91, 38,
5, 15, 22n.71, 23n.76, 35, 37, 38, 49–​50, 41–​42, 44–​45, 47, 76–​79, 82, 112t, 124t,
51–​52, 54–​55, 58–​59, 62–​63, 84–​92, 133–​34, 136–​37, 141, 198, 201n.19, 207, 217–​18
316 Subject Inde x

Albinus, 231, 245 Gamaliel, 172–​76, 176f, 193, 200–​1, 202, 251,
Ananus I, 7, 176f, 182–​83, 184–​85, 186, 189–​90, 258n.13, 259n.14, 262
192–​93, 200–​1, 206, 211, 231, 249, 266 Gennesaret, 145–​46, 147f
Ananus I, Family of, 155, 159, 176f, 182–​90,
201n.15, 212n.84, 251 Herod (son of Aristobulus & Salome), 160f,
Ananus II, 7, 141n.1, 145, 145n.40, 163, 174, 170–​71, 196
175n.110, 176f, 178, 185–​86, 187–​90, Herod Agrippa I, 28–​29, 160f, 162n.15, 165–​66,
192–​93, 200, 201n.15, 202, 212n.84, 231, 167, 171, 172, 185–​86, 195–​96, 217–​19
232n.13, 240, 245, 249n.4, 255–​56, 258n.13, Herod Agrippa II, 7, 17n.29, 141n.1, 145,
262, 265, 266 153n.101, 155–​56, 158, 160f, 161–​65,
Annas, see Ananus I 166n.44, 167–​68, 169n.65, 170, 171, 179,
Antipater, 89, 98 188, 195n.244, 195–​96, 201n.15, 202,
Archelaus, 98, 160f, 170n.73, 258–​59 210n.76, 265
Aristobulus (rebel), 95–​96 Herod Antipas, 84, 93–​94n.224, 102, 150, 160f,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

Aristobulus of Chalcis, 160f, 161, 168–​72, 196, 161, 166, 167–​68, 169n.69, 170–​72, 183–​84,
201n.15 194–​96, 200–​1, 206, 211, 238, 249
Herod Philip, 160f, 161
Banas, 144, 148n.58, 148n.60, 154n.114 Herod of Chalcis, 160f, 161, 171, 196n.248
Berenice, 141n.1, 160f, 161–​64, 165n.36, 165, Herod the Great, 52–​53, 98, 159–​61, 160f,
166n.44, 167–​68, 170n.73, 171, 195n.244, 161n.3, 162n.15, 170n.70, 177
195–​96, 201n.15 Herodian family, 159–​72, 194–​96, 201, 251
Bethsaida, 147f, 161–​62 Herodias, 160f, 161, 167–​68, 169n.69,
Boethus, Family of, 159, 176f, 177–​78, 180n.143, 195n.244, 196
186n.184 Hillel, Family of, 159, 172–​76, 176f, 177, 259n.18

Caiaphas, 7, 14n.8, 43–​44, 176f, 182–​90, 192, Ishmael, son of Phiabi, 143n.19, 144, 153–​54,
193, 200–​1, 200n.13, 206, 211, 231, 249, 176f, 179–​80, 185, 189n.208, 194
254, 255
Camith, Family of, 159, 176f, 180–​82 James, brother of Jesus, 7, 14, 15–​16, 22–​23, 24,
Cana, 145–​46, 147f 27–​29, 38–​39, 53, 65n.9, 141n.1, 145, 163,
Capernaum, 145–​46, 147f 174, 185–​86, 188, 201, 202, 209–​11, 212–​13,
Caesarea Philippi, 147f, 162n.10, 165n.38 214, 216, 231–​47, 258n.13, 262, 265
Cestius Gallus, 145n.34 Jerusalem, 27, 38–​39, 53, 102, 131–​33, 142–​44,
Chalcis, 147f, 161–​62 145–​46, 150–​51, 152–​53, 157–​58, 167,
Cypros, 160f, 165–​66, 167, 195–​96 174–​75, 178, 184, 186–​88, 190, 191, 197,
199–​200, 201, 215, 232–​33, 234, 235, 236–​
Decapolis, 147f, 162n.11 37, 238, 250, 255, 257, 260
Drusilla, 160f, 164–​65, 166n.44, 167n.48, 171, Jesus, son of Damneus, 245–​46
195n.244 Jesus of Nazareth, 1, 2, 25, 69, 71–​73, 101–​3, 108,
110, 128–​29, 131–​33, 138, 141, 142, 145–​47,
Eliezer, 176f, 184–​85, 189 148–​49, 190n.219, 191–​92n.228, 198–​99,
Essenes, 93, 144, 148–​49, 152n.92, 154, 155–​56, 201–​14, 217–​18, 233–​34, 242, 245–​46,
250n.9, 251, 265 247, 265–​66
and Josephus’ sources, 141, 142, 145–​47, 148–​
Felix, 144n.29, 160f, 164–​65, 171, 186–​87, 49, 159, 161–​64, 165–​66, 167–​68, 170–​72,
195n.244, 210n.76 173, 174–​76, 177, 178, 180, 182–​90, 192–​97,
Festus, 67–​68, 144n.29, 145n.30, 163, 186n.191, 199–​201
210n.76, 231 beliefs about, 25, 198–​99, 201–​5, 206–​8, 209–​
Flaccus, 166n.41 11, 212–​14
Flavius Josephus, see Josephus divinity or messianic status, including the
appelation Christ, 25, 71–​73, 83, 84–​85, 86–​
Galilee, 145–​46, 149, 150–​51, 155–​56, 161–​63, 87, 90–​92, 133–​34, 198–​99, 208, 229, 242
164, 166, 168–​69, 172, 188, 194–​95, 197, followers, 25, 79–​83, 95, 136–​37, 167–​68, 198–​
201, 250n.9 99, 207–​8, 209–​11
 Subject Inde x 317

miracles, 25, 73–​75, 127–​28, 136–​37, 167–​68, Magdala, 145–​46, 147f

198–​99, 206 Mariamne, 160f, 166n.44, 170n.73
resurrection, 25, 96, 198–​99, 212–​14 Menahem, 67–​68, 69–​70, 84–​85, 183n.162
teachings, 25, 78–​79, 136–​37, 198–​99,
206, 207 Nazareth, 146, 147f
trial and death, 25, 93–​94, 142–​43, 150, 159,
173, 174–​76, 177, 178, 180, 182–​90, 192–​97, Paul the Apostle, 2n.4, 7, 35–​36, 70, 141n.1, 149,
200–​1, 208, 249–​54, 255–​56, 257–​63 163–​65, 172n.84, 173, 174, 185, 195n.244,
wisdom of, 70, 198–​99, 206 201, 206n.40, 209–​11, 212–​13, 214, 244–​45,
Jewish War, 145–​46, 152n.93, 170, 175, 179–​82, 253, 259n.14, 262
197n.249, 199–​200, 258n.6, 265, 266 Paneas, 147f, 165–​66
John the Baptist, 15–​16, 20–​21, 23n.76, 24, 27–​ Passover, 93, 142–​44, 150, 167, 182–​83, 190–​96,
29, 31n.150, 36n.4, 38–​39, 42–​43, 43n.44, 200–​1, 215, 249–​54, 260
44n.47, 65n.9, 84–​85, 129, 132–​33, 142, 144, Peter the Apostle, 35–​36, 146, 162n.13, 165–​66,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025

148–​49, 166, 167–​68, 169n.69, 195, 198, 202, 173, 183n.160, 185–​87, 188, 201, 210–​11,
209–​11, 228, 238, 238–​39n.50 212–​13, 214, 244–​45, 262
Jonathan, son of Ananus I, 143n.19, 176f, 182, Pharisees, 23n.76, 38–​39, 40, 80, 144, 145, 148–​
184–​85, 186–​87, 194, 201n.15, 249n.4 49, 155–​56, 172–​76, 182, 202n.21, 232–​33,
Jonathan Apphus, 153, 155 239, 240, 251, 258–​59, 262–​63, 265
Joppa, 146, 147f Phasael, 170n.70
Joseph, father of Jesus, 90–​91, 132, 191–​92n.228, Phiabi, Family of, 159, 176f, 179–​80
216, 233n.17 Philip the Tetrarch, 161, 162n.15, 165–​66, 168–​69
Joseph, son of Gorion, 187–​88 Pontius Pilate, 50, 92, 93–​94, 131–​32, 133n.59,
Joseph, son of Simon, 180–​82, 185, 194 142, 183–​84, 184n.172, 194–​95, 202n.22,
Josephus, 206, 208, 209, 209n.70, 211, 212n.84,
possible beliefs on Jesus, 2–​3, 4, 13–​14, 15, 221n.57, 232n.11, 241, 242, 249, 265
71–​73, 83–​92, 93, 96, 101–​2, 132–​33, Poppaea, 144n.29, 153n.102, 179
138, 201–​5
possible sources of, 144–​58, 159–​97, Rome, 144, 145n.30, 148n.60, 150n.80, 153–​54,
199–​201 155–​56, 162n.15, 163, 164–​65, 179–​80,
ancient misrepresentations of his claims, 186–​87, 244
22–​23, 24, 25, 27, 31, 32, 38, 40, 60n.144,
215–​22, 228, 234–​39 Sadducees, 144, 144n.26, 148–​49, 155–​56,
biography of, 1, 142–​47, 163, 164–​65, 170, 174, 202n.21, 232–​33, 239, 240, 250n.9, 258–​59
178, 179, 181, 187–​88, 196, 197, 199–​200, Salome, 160f, 161, 168–​71, 195, 196, 201n.15
201, 258nn.6–​7 Sanhedrin, 145–​46, 150, 152n.93, 171n.77,
use of assistants, 64–​65 172–​76, 176f, 177–​78, 180, 182–​90, 192–​94,
corpus, 1, 59–​60, 61n.151, 109–​10, 111–​28, 199–​201, 211n.80, 212n.84, 231, 240, 249,
112t, 116t, 116t, 118t, 120t, 121t, 124t 255, 256, 257–​63, 266
Joshua, son of Gamala, 143n.19, 155–​56, 177–​78, Sepphoris, 146, 147f
180–​81, 185, 188, 194, 200 Simon bar Kochba, 73n.73
Judaea, 131n.51, 131–​32, 149, 155n.126, Simon, son of Gamaliel, 172–​76, 176f, 178, 188,
162n.15, 164, 165–​66, 180n.140, 194–​95, 193, 199n.8, 200–​1, 258n.13, 262, 266
197, 250n.9
Jude, brother of Jesus, 53, 209–​10, 216n.7, Theophilus, son of Ananus, 176f, 182, 185
232n.11, 233n.18 Tiberias, 145–​46, 147f, 166–​67, 195–​96
Julius Hyrcanus, 170n.73 Titus, 160f, 163, 181, 234, 239–​40n.57, 262–​63
Justus of Tiberias, 14n.5, 29, 30, 71–​72 Trachonitis, 147f, 161–​62, 165–​66
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 by guest on 23 May 2025