Editing Josephus on Jesus (section)

== The ''<span lang="la">Testimonium Flavianum</span>'' ==
{{quote box|align=right|width=35%|title=''{{lang|la|Testimonium Flavianum}}''|quote=About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.|source=—&hairsp;''Antiquities of the Jews'', [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XVIII#Chapter 3|Book 18, Chapter 3, 3]]<ref>''Antiquities of the Jews'', [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XVIII#Chapter 3|Book 18, Chapter 3, 3]], based on the translation of [[Louis H. Feldman]], The Loeb Classical Library. http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm</ref><ref name="Antiquities 18.3.3" />}}

The ''{{lang|la|Testimonium Flavianum}}'', meaning 'the testimony of Flavius Josephus', is a passage found in [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XVIII#Chapter 3|Book 18, Chapter 3, 3]]<ref name="Antiquities 18.3.3">Or see the [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0145%3Abook%3D18%3Awhiston+chapter%3D3%3Awhiston+section%3D3 Greek text].</ref> of the ''Antiquities'' which describes the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the Roman authorities.{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Whiston|Maier|1999|p=662}}{{sfn|Schreckenberg|Schubert|1992a|pp=38–41}} The ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is probably the most discussed passage in Josephus.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|pp=54–57}}

The earliest secure reference to this passage is found in the writings of the fourth-century [[Christian apologist]] and historian [[Eusebius]], who used Josephus' works extensively as a source for his own ''[[Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius)|Ecclesiastical History]]''. Writing no later than 324,{{sfn|Louth|1990|}} Eusebius quotes the passage{{sfn|McGiffert|2007}} in essentially the same form as that preserved in extant manuscripts. It has therefore been suggested by a minority of scholars that part or all of the passage may have been Eusebius' own invention, in order to provide an outside Jewish authority for the life of Christ.{{sfn|Olson|1999}}{{sfn|Wallace-Hadrill|2011}} Some argue that the wording in the {{lang|la|Testimonium}} differs from Josephus' usual writing style, and that a traditional Jew would not have proclaimed {{lang|grc|ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν}} ('he was the Christ', at Josephus' time simply meaning 'Messiah'.)<ref>Kenneth A. Olson, ''Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum''. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (2): 305, 1999</ref> See also the arguments for authenticity in the sections below.

The consensus among scholars is that while the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium Flavianum}}'' cannot be entirely authentic as received, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to [[Interpolation (manuscripts)|interpolation]].{{sfn|Schreckenberg|Schubert|1992a|pp=38–41}}{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104–108}}{{sfn|Evans|2001|p=316}}{{sfn|Wansbrough|2004|p=185}}<ref>''The Jesus Legend'' by G. A. Wells 1996 {{ISBN|0-8126-9334-5}} p. 48: "... that Josephus made <em>some</em> reference to Jesus, which has been retouched by a Christian hand. This is the view argued by Meier as by most scholars today particularly since S. Pines..."</ref> [[James Dunn (theologian)|James Dunn]] states that there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=141}} Among other things, the authenticity of this passage would help make sense of the later reference in ''Antiquities'' [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX#Chapter 9|Book 20, Chapter 9, 1]] where Josephus refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus".{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Maier|1995|pp=284–285}}{{sfn|Vermes|2011|pp=33–44}}

=== Three perspectives on authenticity ===
[[File:Flavius Josephus 1582 by Froben.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|''The Complete Works of Josephus'', 1582]]
[[Paul L. Maier]] and Zvi Baras state that there are three possible perspectives on the authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'':
# It is entirely authentic.
# It is entirely a Christian forgery.
# It has authentic material about Jesus, but Christian interpolations exist in some parts.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336–337}}{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=339}}

Paul Maier states that the first case is generally seen as hopeless given that as a Jew, Josephus would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and that the second option is hardly tenable given the presence of the passage in all extant Greek manuscripts; thus a large majority of modern scholars accept partial authenticity.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336–337}} Baras adds that partial authenticity is more plausible because it accepts parts of the passage as genuine, but discounts other parts as interpolations.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=339}} [[Craig A. Evans]] (and separately [[Robert E. Van Voorst]]) state that most modern scholars accept the position that the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is partially authentic, had a kernel with an authentic reference to Jesus, and that the analysis of its content and style support this conclusion.{{sfn|Evans|2001|p=43}}{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|pp=509–511}}

While before the advent of [[literary criticism]] most scholars considered the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' entirely authentic, thereafter the number of supporters of full authenticity declined.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=89–90}} Most scholars now accept partial authenticity and many attempt to reconstruct their own version of the authentic kernel, and scholars such as [[Géza Vermes]] have argued that the overall characterizations of Jesus in the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' are in accord with the style and approach of Josephus.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=89–90}}<ref name=Henry185>''Jesus and the oral Gospel tradition'' by Henry Wansbrough 2004 {{ISBN|0-567-04090-9}} p. 185</ref><ref>''The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament'' by Andreas J. Kostenberger, L. Scott Kellum and Charles L Quarles 2009 {{ISBN|0-8054-4365-7}} pp. 104–108</ref><ref name=Geza35 /><ref>''Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies'' by Craig A. Evans 2001 {{ISBN|0-391-04118-5}} p. 316</ref>

=== Arguments for complete authenticity ===
==== Pre-modern criticism ====
Until the rise of modern criticism, many scholars believed the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' was nearly or completely authentic with little or no Christian interpolations.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=89}} Some of these arguments relied on the language used in the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}''. For instance, Jesus is called "a wise man" (and Josephus described others like Solomon, Daniel, and John the Baptist in the same fashion), which would not have been a common Christian label for Christ at the time. He referred to Jesus merely as "a worker of amazing deeds" and nothing more, again disagreeing with how Christians viewed Christ. Referring to Jesus as "a teacher of people who accept the truth with pleasure", where "pleasure" ({{lang|grc|ἡδονή}}) connotes [[hedonistic]] value, is not in line with how Christians saw the point of Jesus' teachings. Claiming that Jesus won over "both Jews and Greeks" is a misunderstanding that a Christian scribe would not likely have made, knowing that Jesus mainly ministered to Jews. Also, the phrase "Those who had first loved him did not cease doing so" is Josephan in style, and calling Christians a "tribe" would not have made sense to a Christian writer.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=89–90}}

=== Paraphrase model ===
The ''paraphrase model'', advanced by G. J. Goldberg in 2022, is based on the observation that Josephus wrote most of the ''Jewish Antiquities'' by paraphrasing Greek and Hebrew sources.<ref name="Goldberg2022">{{Cite journal |last=Goldberg |first=Gary J. |date=Feb 2022 |title=Josephus's Paraphrase Style and the Testimonium Flavianum |url=https://brill.com/downloadpdf/journals/jshj/20/1/article-p1_2.xml |journal=Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus |volume=20 |issue=1 |pages=1–32 |doi=10.1163/17455197-bja10003 |s2cid=244296505 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Goldberg proposes that the Jesus passage in the ''Antiquities'' is also a paraphrase in the same manner. Josephus's methods of revising his sources have been well established and can be used to objectively test whether a proposed candidate source could have been adapted in the same way for the Jesus passage. In a phrase-by-phrase study, Goldberg finds that the Jesus account can be derived from Luke's Emmaus narrative using transformations Josephus is demonstrated to have employed in paraphrasing known sources for the ''Antiquities''. He finds these paraphrase precedents in word adoption, word and phrase substitution, content order preservation and content modification. As these stylistic pairings are unlike the relationships found among any other ancient Jesus texts, Goldberg proposes the most plausible explanation of these findings is that the Jesus passage in the ''Antiquities'' is indeed Josephus's paraphrase of a Christian text very much like, if not identical to, Luke's Emmaus narrative (Luke 24:18–24).

This paraphrase model, Goldberg argues, is not only a natural application of Josephus's writing processes but also resolves the questions that researchers have raised about the passage, shedding light on the origin of specific difficult phrases and accounting for its brevity and its mixture of Josephan language with a Christian credal structure. While many had previously suspected that an original Josephus passage had been edited by a later Christian to give the credal appearance, the paraphrase model argues such edits cannot explain the end-to-end consistency of a paraphrase relationship with the Emmaus text. The more plausible explanation is rather the reverse: an original Christian document was edited by Josephus by applying his usual revision method for the ''Antiquities''.

The historical implications of the model, Goldberg argues, include the following. First, it shows Jesus was a historical figure and not a myth, based on the reasoning that Josephus's treatment of his source indicates he thought it reliable; it must have conformed with what he knew of events under Pilate. The model also provides unique evidence about the dating of at least one passage of Luke's Gospel. And as the paraphrase shows Josephus had obtained a Christian source and treated it with a degree of respect, it provides an unexpected window into a cordial relationship between Christians and Jews in Rome at the end of the first century.

=== Arguments for presence of Christian interpolations ===
The ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' has been the subject of a great deal of research and debate among scholars, being one of the most discussed passages among all antiquities.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=55|ps=. [https://books.google.com/books?id=f3KwlJSQr4cC&q=aforementioned Google books]}} Louis Feldman has stated that in the period from 1937 to 1980 at least 87 articles had appeared on the topic, the overwhelming majority of which questioned the total or partial authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}''.<ref>''Josephus, the Bible, and History'' by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata 1988 {{ISBN|0-8143-1982-3}} p. 430</ref> While early scholars considered the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' to be a total forgery, the majority of modern scholars consider it partially authentic, despite some clear Christian interpolations in the text.<ref>{{cite book |author=Alice Whealey |title=Josephus on Jesus: the testimonium Flavianum controversy from late antiquity to modern times |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eZUlAQAAIAAJ |access-date=19 February 2012 |year=2003 |publisher=Peter Lang |isbn=978-0-8204-5241-8}}</ref><ref>Meier, 1990 (especially note 15)</ref>

The arguments surrounding the authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' fall into two categories: internal arguments that rely on textual analysis and compare the passage with the rest of Josephus' work; and external arguments, that consider the wider cultural and historical context.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Paget |first1=J. C. |title=Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity |journal=The Journal of Theological Studies |volume=52 |issue=2 |year=2001 |pages=539–624 |issn=0022-5185 |doi=10.1093/jts/52.2.539}}</ref> Some of the external arguments are "arguments from silence" that question the authenticity of the entire passage not for what it says, but due to lack of references to it among other ancient sources.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=91–92}}

The external analyses of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' have even used computer-based methods, e.g. the matching of the text of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' with the [[Gospel of Luke]] performed by Gary Goldberg in 1995.<ref name="Goldberg1995">Goldberg, G. J. 1995 "The Coincidences of the [[Emmaus]] Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus" ''The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha'' 13, pp. 59–77 [http://www.josephus.org/GoldbergJosephusLuke1995.pdf]</ref> Goldberg found some partial matches between the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' and Luke 24:19–21, 26–27 stating "the Emmaus narrative more closely resembles the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' in its phrase-by-phrase outline of content and order than any other known text of comparable age."<ref name="Goldberg1995" /> Goldberg's analyses suggested three possibilities: that the matches were random, that the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' was a Christian interpolation based on Luke, or that both the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' and Luke were based on the same sources.<ref name="Goldberg1995" /> In a later work, published in 2022, Goldberg investigated Josephus's paraphrase style and concluded only the last of these possibilities could explain why the Emmaus-''{{lang|la|Testimonium}} language relationships were end-to-end consistent with Josephus's methods of revision.<ref name="Goldberg2022" />

=== Internal arguments ===
[[File:Works Translated by William Whiston.djvu|page=40|thumb|upright=0.7|right|An 1879 copy of the ''Antiquities'']]

==== Christian phraseology ====
One of the key internal arguments against the complete authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is that the clear inclusion of Christian phraseology strongly indicates the presence of some interpolations.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=91}} For instance, the phrases "if it be lawful to call him a man" suggests that Jesus was more than human and is likely a Christian interpolation.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=91}} Some scholars have attempted to reconstruct the original ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'', but others contend that attempts to discriminate the passage into Josephan and non-Josephan elements are inherently circular.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=340}}

==== Eusebian phraseology ====
Another example of the textual arguments against the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is that it uses the Greek term {{tlit|grc|poietes}} to mean "doer" (as part of the phrase "doer of wonderful works"), but elsewhere in his works Josephus only uses the term {{tlit|grc|poietes}} to mean "poet", whereas this use of {{tlit|grc|poietes}} seems consistent with the Greek of Eusebius.<ref>''Josephus and the New Testament'' by Steve Mason 2003 {{ISBN|1-56563-795-X}} p. 231</ref>

=== External arguments ===
[[File:Eusebius of Caesarea.jpg|thumb|upright=0.7|[[Eusebius]]]]

==== Origen's references to Josephus ====
According to Wataru Mizugaki, the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' passage that [[Origen]] had seen in the third century was likely to have been neutral or skeptical on Jesus without Christian interpolation and this may have looked unsatisfactory to a Christian editor.{{sfn|Mizugaki|1987|pp=340–341}} Origen's statement in his ''Commentary on Matthew'' ([[Wikisource:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book X/Chapter 17|Book X, Chapter 17]]) that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ", is usually seen as a confirmation of the generally accepted fact that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=97}}<ref>''Jesus in his Jewish context'' by Géza Vermès 2003 {{ISBN|0-334-02915-5}} pp. 91-92</ref> This forms a key external argument against the total authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' in that Josephus, as a Jew, would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and the reference to "he was the Christ" in the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' must be a Christian interpolation.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336–337}} Based on this observation alone, [[Paul L. Maier]] calls the case for the total authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' "hopeless".{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336–337}} Almost all modern scholars reject the total authenticity of the ''Testimonium'', while the majority of scholars still hold that it includes an authentic kernel.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336–337}}{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|pp=509–511}}

=== Arguments from silence ===
A different set of external arguments against the authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' (either partial or total) are [[arguments from silence]], e.g. that although twelve Christian authors refer to Josephus before Eusebius in AD&nbsp;324, none mentions the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}''.<ref name=Rothchild274>"Echo of a whisper" by Clare Rothchild in ''Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity'' by David Hellholm 2010 {{ISBN|3-11-024751-8}} p. 274</ref>{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=57}}

Even after Eusebius' AD&nbsp;324 reference, it is not until [[Jerome]]'s ''{{lang|la|[[De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)|De Viris Illustribus]]}}'' ({{circa|AD&nbsp;392}}) that the passage from Josephus is referenced again, even though the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}''{{'}}s reference to Jesus would seem appropriate in the works of many intervening [[patristic]] authors.<ref name=Rothchild274 />{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=57}} However, [[Bart D. Ehrman]] and [[John P. Meier]] have argued that this silence is mainly due to the fact that the original ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' probably had a neutral tone toward Jesus and did not contain elements that would have been useful to Christian apologetics, since it did not recognize him as the Messiah, nor did it speak about his resurrection; it was, therefore, not a useful instrument in their polemics with pagan writers.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Meier |first=John P. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zODYAAAAMAAJ |title=A Marginal Jew: The roots of the problem and the person |date=1991 |publisher=Doubleday |isbn=978-0-385-26425-9 |pages=71–85}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Ehrman |first=Bart D. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hf5Rj8EtsPkC |title=Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth |date=2012-03-20 |publisher=Harper Collins |isbn=978-0-06-208994-6 |pages=64, 350}}</ref>

Some scholars also point to the silence of [[Photios]] as late as the ninth century, and the fact that he does not mention the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' at all in his broad review of Josephus.{{sfn|Schreckenberg|Schubert|1992b|p=39}} However, Photios argues in his ''{{lang|la|[[Bibliotheca (Photius)|Bibliotheca]]}}'' that Josephus's works mention the [[Massacre of the Innocents]] and the [[virgin birth of Jesus]] (which no works of Josephus make any reference to), leading many scholars to think that he actually had a scant knowledge of the writings he was reviewing or that the documents he was working on were grossly interpolated. Also, Photios had clearly read Eusebius's ''Ecclesiastical History'' and Jerome's ''{{lang|la|De Viris Illustribus}}'', since he lists them both in his ''{{lang|la|Bibliotheca}}''.<ref>[[Photios]], ''Bibliotheca'', Chapter 33</ref>

==== Table of Josephus excludes the ''<span lang="la">Testimonium</span>'' ====
A separate argument from silence against the total or partial authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is that a fifth- or sixth-century table of contents of Josephus (albeit selective) makes no mention of it.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=57}}

==== Arabic ''<span lang="la">Testimonium</span>'' lacks Christian terminology ====
[[Andreas J. Köstenberger]] argues that the fact that the tenth-century Arabic version of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' (discovered in the 1970s) lacks distinct Christian terminology while sharing the essential elements of the passage indicates that the Greek ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' has been subject to interpolation.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104–108}}

==== No parallel in other works ====
A final argument from silence relates to Josephus' own writings and questions the authenticity of ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' based on the fact that it has no parallel in the ''[[The Wars of the Jews|Jewish War]]'', which includes a discussion of Pontius Pilate at about the same level of detail.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=88}}{{sfn|Feldman|1984|p=826}}

==== Timing of the interpolations ====
Zvi Baras believes that the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' was subject to interpolation before Eusebius wrote.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=340}} Baras believes that Origen had seen the original ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' but that the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' seen by Origen had no negative reference to Jesus, else Origen would have reacted against it.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=340}} Baras states that the interpolation in the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' took place between Origen and Eusebius.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=340}}

[[Paul L. Maier]] states that a comparison of Eusebius' reference with the tenth-century Arabic version of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' due to [[Agapius of Hierapolis]] indicates that the Christian interpolation present in the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' must have come early, before Eusebius.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336–337}} Robert E. Van Voorst also states that the interpolation likely took place some time between Origen and Eusebius.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=97}}

=== Arguments for partial authenticity ===
[[File:Rakow josephus.jpg|thumb|upright=0.7|right|A copy of Josephus' ''Antiquities'' c. 1200]]

==== Arguments from style and content ====

==== Lack of Jewish deicide ====
[[Craig A. Evans]] states that an argument in favor of the partial authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is that the passage does not stress the role played by the Jewish leaders in the death of Jesus. According to Evans, if the passage had been an interpolation after the emergence of conflicts between Jews and Christians, it would have had a more accusatory tone, but in its current form reads as one would expect it to read for a passage composed by Josephus towards the end of the first century.{{sfn|Evans|2001|p=43}} [[Géza Vermes]] concurs, arguing that if the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' had been the work of a Christian forger, it would have placed blame on the Jewish leaders, but as is it is "perfectly in line" with the attitude of Josephus towards Pilate.<ref name=Geza35 /> Vermes also states that the detached depiction of the followers of Jesus is not the work of a Christian interpolator.<ref name=Geza35 /> Vermes calls the Jesus notice in the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' a "veritable tour de force" in which Josephus plays the role of a neutral witness.<ref name=Geza35 />

==== Josephan vocabulary and style ====
[[Andreas J. Köstenberger]] argues that the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' includes vocabulary that is typically Josephan, and the style is consistent with that of Josephus.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104–108}} Köstenberger (and separately Van Voorst) state that the Josephus' reference to the large number of followers of Jesus during his public ministry is unlikely to have been due to a Christian scribe familiar with the New Testament accounts, and is hence unlikely to be an interpolation.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104–108}}{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=90}}

==== Josephan beliefs about Jesus ====
Claudia Setzer holds that while "tribe is an odd way to describe Christians", it does not necessarily have negative connotations.<ref name=Setzer106>''Jewish responses to early Christians'' by Claudia Setzer 1994 {{ISBN|0-8006-2680-X}} pp. 106–107</ref> Setzer argues for the existence of an authentic kernel because "the style and vocabulary are Josephan" and specific parts (e.g. the use of "wise man") are not what one would expect from a Christian forger.<ref name=Setzer106 /> Setzer argues that the Testimonium indicates that Josephus had heard of Jesus and the basic elements surrounding his death, and that he saw Jesus as primarily a miracle worker.<ref name=Setzer106 /> Van Voorst also states that calling Christians a "tribe" would have been very out of character for a Christian scribe, while Josephus has used it to refer both to Jewish and Christian groups.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=89–90}}

=== Arguments from external attestation ===

==== Origen's complaint about Josephus referencing Jesus ====
[[Lester L. Grabbe]] notes that in two works (''Commentary on Matthew'' 10.17 and ''Contra Celsum'' 1.47; see {{section link||Early references}}) Origen had actually complained that Josephus had mentioned Jesus, while not recognizing Jesus as the messiah, and this provided an early independent support of the partial ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' in a more neutral form.<ref>{{cite book |author1=Lester Grabbe |editor1-last=Verenna |editor1-first=Thomas S. |editor2-last=Thompson |editor2-first=Thomas L. |title="Is This Not The Carpenter?": The Question of The Historicity of the Figure of Jesus |date=2013 |isbn=978-1-84465-729-2 |pages=61–67 |chapter=3. Jesus Who is Called the Christ: References to Jesus Outside Christian Sources |publisher=Acumen Publishing Limited}}</ref> Zvi Baras argues from this that Origen had seen a version of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' that included no interpolations.{{sfn|Baras|1987|pp=340–341}} Baras asserts that a ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' seen by Origen must have had a neutral tone, and included no derogatory references towards Christians, and hence required no reaction from Origen.{{sfn|Baras|1987|pp=340–341}} He claims that the neutral tone of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' was then modified between the time of Origen and Eusebius.{{sfn|Baras|1987|pp=340–341}} John P. Meier similarly argues that the fact that Origen complains that Josephus had not recognized Jesus as the Messiah points to the fact that Origen had read the original version of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'', since such a clear statement could not have simply arisen from the "James, brother of Jesus" passage.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Meier |first=John P. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zODYAAAAMAAJ |title=A Marginal Jew: The roots of the problem and the person |date=1991 |publisher=Doubleday |isbn=978-0-385-26425-9 |language=en}}</ref>

==== Arabic ''<span lang="la">Testimonium</span>'' as the more authentic version ====
[[Andreas J. Köstenberger]] argues that a comparison of the Greek manuscripts with the Arabic quotation discovered by [[Shlomo Pines]] in the 1970s provides an indication of the original Josephan text.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104–108}} Köstenberger states that many modern scholars believe that the Arabic version reflects the state of Josephus' original text before it was subject to Christian interpolation.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104–108}} This version reads as follows:
<blockquote>At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good,
and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.<ref>{{cite web |first=Shlomo |last=Pines |url=http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/pines01.pdf |title=An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications |publisher=The Israel Academy Of Sciences and Humanities}}</ref></blockquote>

=== Other arguments ===

==== Comparison to Philo's works ====
[[Steve Mason (biblical scholar)|Steve Mason]] has argued for partial authenticity for the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'', because no other parts of any of the works of Josephus have been contested to have had scribal tempering, Christian copyists were usually conservative when transmitting texts in general, and seeing that the works of [[Philo]] were unaltered by Christian scribes through the centuries strongly support that it is very unlikely that the passage was invented out of thin air by a Christian scribe. Philo often wrote in a way that was favorable to Christian ideas and yet no Christian scribes took advantage of that to insert Jesus or Christian beliefs into Philo's text.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Mason |first1=Steve |title=Josephus and the New Testament |date=2011 |publisher=Baker Academic |isbn=978-0-8010-4700-8 |pages=232–233 |edition=2nd}}</ref>

=== Authenticity of the James passage ===
[[Bruce Chilton]] and [[Craig A. Evans]] state that the general acceptance of the authenticity of the James passage lends support to the partial authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' in that the brief reference to "Jesus, who was called Christ" in ''Antiquities'' [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX#Chapter 9|XX, 9, 1]] "clearly implies a prior reference" and that "in all probability the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is that prior reference".{{sfn|Chilton|Evans|1998|pp=187–198}} [[Paul L. Maier]] concurs with the analysis of Chilton and Evans and states that Josephus' first reference was the ''Testimonium''.{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Maier|1995|pp=284–285}} [[Géza Vermes]] also considers the "who was called Christ" reference in the James passage as the second reference to Jesus in the ''Antiquities'' and states that the first reference is likely to be the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}''.<ref name=Geza35>''Jesus in the Jewish World'' by [[Geza Vermes]] 2011 {{ISBN|0-334-04379-4}} pp. 35–43</ref><ref>''The Changing Faces of Jesus'' by Geza Vermaes 2001 {{ISBN|0-670-89451-6}} p. 276</ref>

==== Reconstruction of an authentic kernel ====
[[File:Works Translated by William Whiston.djvu|page=11|thumb|upright=0.5|''The Works of Josephus'', 1879]]
[[Robert E. Van Voorst]] states that most modern scholars believe that the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is partially authentic, and has a reference to Jesus.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} However, he states that scholars are divided on the tone of the original reference and while some scholars believe that it had a negative tone which was softened by Christian interpolators, others believe that it had a neutral tone, in keeping with the style and approach of Josephus regarding the issue.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} According to Van Voorst, scholars who support the negative reconstruction contend that the reference read something like "source of further trouble in Jesus a wise man" and that it stated "he was the so-called Christ".{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} Van Voorst states that most scholars support a neutral reconstruction which states "Around this time lived Jesus, a wise man" and includes no reference to "he was the Christ".{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} Van Voorst states that if the original references to Jesus had had a negative tone, the Christian scribes would have likely deleted it entirely.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} Van Voorst also states that the neutral reconstruction fits better with the Arabic ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' discovered by [[Shlomo Pines|Pines]] in the 1970s.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=97}} Van Voorst states that the neutral reconstruction is supported by the majority of scholars because it involves far less conjectural wording and fits better with the style of Josephus.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}}

==== Exclusion of three divisive elements ====
[[Craig Blomberg]] states that if the three elements "lawful to call him a man", "he was the Christ" and the reference to the resurrection are removed from the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' the rest of the passage flows smoothly within the context, fits the style of Josephus and is likely to be authentic.<ref name=Blomberg434>''Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey'' by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 {{ISBN|0-8054-4482-3}} pp. 434–435</ref> Blomberg adds that after the removal of these three elements (which are likely interpolations) from the Greek versions the remaining passage fits well with the Arabic version and supports the authenticity of the reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate.<ref name=Blomberg434 /> [[Joel B. Green]] also states that the removal of some elements from the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' produces a passage that is likely to be an authentic reference to the death of Jesus.<ref name="Joel B">[[Joel B. Green]] "Crucifixion" in the ''Cambridge Companion to Jesus'' edited by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl 2001 {{ISBN|0-521-79678-4}}, p. 89.</ref>

In the estimation of [[James Dunn (theologian)|James Dunn]], there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding what the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' would look like without the interpolations.{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=141}} According to Dunn's reconstruction, the original passage likely read:{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=141}}<ref name="Joel B" />{{quote box|align=left|Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.}}

In this passage, which is based on [[John P. Meier]]'s reconstruction, Jesus is called a "wise man", but "lawful to call him a man" and "he was the Christ" are removed, as is the reference to the resurrection.{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=141}}<ref name="Joel B" /> According to [[Bart D. Ehrman]], Meier's reconstruction is currently the most accepted among scholars.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ehrman |first=Bart D. |date=March 10, 2019 |title=Do Any Ancient Jewish Sources Mention Jesus? Weekly Mailbag |url=https://ehrmanblog.org/do-any-ancient-jewish-sources-mention-jesus-weekly-mailbag/ |website=The Bart Ehrman Blog |language=en-US |quote=If this is something Josephus wrote, as most scholars continue to think, then it indicates that Jesus was a wise man and a teacher who performed startling deeds and as a consequence found a following among both Jews and Greeks; it states that he was accused by Jewish leaders before Pilate, who condemned him to be crucified; and it points out that his followers remained devoted to him even afterward (Ant. 18.3.3).}}</ref>

[[Géza Vermes]] has performed a detailed analysis of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' and modified it to remove what he considers the interpolations.<ref name=Henry185 /><ref name=Geza35 /> In Vermes' reconstruction "there was Jesus, a wise man" is retained, but the reference to "he was the Christ" is changed to "he was called the Christ" and the resurrection reference is omitted.<ref name=Geza35 /> Vermes states that the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' provides Josephus' authentic portrayal of Jesus, depicting him as a wise teacher and miracle worker with an enthusiastic group of followers who remained faithful to him after his crucifixion by Pilate, up to the time of Josephus.<ref name=Geza35 /> Vermes's version reads:<blockquote>Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. He was called the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2009-12-14 |title=Jesus in the Eyes of Josephus |url=https://standpointmag.co.uk/jesus-in-the-eyes-of-josephus-features-jan-10-geza-vermes/ |access-date=2021-09-06 |website=Standpoint |language=english |archive-date=2021-09-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210918163503/https://standpointmag.co.uk/jesus-in-the-eyes-of-josephus-features-jan-10-geza-vermes/}}</ref></blockquote>

=== Arguments for complete forgery ===

==== Textual similarities to Eusebian works ====
In addition to the arguments listed above, a minority of scholars have put forward arguments to the effect that the entire ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is a Christian interpolation. For example, Kenneth Olson has argued that the entire ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' must have been forged by Eusebius himself, basing his argument on textual similarities between the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' and Eusebius' writings in the ''Demonstrations of the Gospels''.{{sfn|Olson|1999}}

==== Three Eusebian phrases ====
In 2012, Josephus scholar [[Louis Feldman]] reversed his prior support for the partial authenticity of the ''Testimonium'', proposing that the passage was interpolated in its entirety by Eusebius. In support of this view, Feldman points out, following Olson, that the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' features three phrases ("one who wrought surprising feats", "the tribe of the Christians", and "still to this day") which are used nowhere else in the whole of Greek literature except Eusebius.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Feldman |first=Louis H. |author-link=Louis Feldman |title=On the Authenticity of the ''Testimonium Flavianum'' Attributed to Josephus |encyclopedia=New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations |series=The Brill Reference Library of Judaism |volume=33 |publisher=Brill |location=Leiden |editor1-last=Carlebach |editor1-first=Elisheva |editor2-last=Schacter |editor2-first=Jacob J. |year=2012 |pages=11–30 |isbn=978-90-04-22118-5 |doi=10.1163/9789004221185_003 |chapter=On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum Attributed to Josephus}}</ref> Feldman's new theory was criticized by [[James Carleton Paget]], who accused Feldman of misreading the data and of using anachronistic criteria.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Paget |first=James Carleton |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AFLJ682D9QUC&q=Jews,+Christians+and+Jewish+Christians+in+Antiquity |title=Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity |date=2010 |publisher=Mohr Siebeck |isbn=978-3-16-150312-2 |page=602}}</ref>

Both Carleton Paget and Alice Whealey had already responded to Olson's argument, rejecting its arguments and conclusion.<ref>J. Carleton Paget, "Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity," Journal of Theological Studies 52, no. 2 (2001): 539–624</ref><ref>Alice Whealey, "Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum," in Josephus und das Neue Testament, ed. Christfried Böttrich and Jens Herzer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 73–116.</ref> In his 2000 book Van Voorst had also argued that the word "tribe" is actually used by Josephus to describe other Jewish groups, while Géza Vermes argued in 2009 that the expression "surprising feats" ({{tlit|grc|paradoxon ergon}}) is repeatedly used by Josephus in his works to describe many miracles associated with the Old Testament (such as the [[burning bush]] and the miracles of [[Moses]] and [[Elisha]]).<ref>{{Cite book |last=Voorst |first=Robert Van |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lwzliMSRGGkC |title=Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence |date=2000 |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans |isbn=978-0-8028-4368-5}}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine |date=2009-12-14 |title=Jesus in the Eyes of Josephus |url=https://standpointmag.co.uk/jesus-in-the-eyes-of-josephus-features-jan-10-geza-vermes/ |access-date=2021-07-10 |magazine=Standpoint |archive-date=2021-09-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210918163503/https://standpointmag.co.uk/jesus-in-the-eyes-of-josephus-features-jan-10-geza-vermes/}}</ref>

==== Fourth-century Christian credal statements ====
In 2014, [[Paul J. Hopper]] wrote a book chapter in which he argued that the style and narrative structure of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' is sharply in contrast with the rest of Josephus' work. According to Hopper, the language of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' has more in common with fourth-century Christian credal statements than the [[historiographical]] work of first-century authors, including Josephus. He concluded that the most likely explanation is that the passage was simply interpolated in its entirety by a Christian scribe.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Hopper |first=Paul J. |author-link=Paul J. Hopper |editor1-last=Fludernik |editor1-first=Monika |editor2-last=Jacob |editor2-first=Daniel |encyclopedia=Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |location=Berlin/Boston |year=2014 |title=A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63 |pages=147–171 |isbn=978-3-11-030756-6 |url=https://www.academia.edu/37321029}}{{dead link|date=December 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

The concordance of the language used in the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'', its flow within the text, and its length have formed components of the internal arguments against its authenticity, e.g. that the brief and compact character of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' stands in marked contrast to Josephus' more extensive accounts presented elsewhere in his works.<ref name=Wells49 /> For example, Josephus' description of the death of [[John the Baptist]] includes consideration of his virtues, the theology associated with his baptismal practices, his oratorical skills, his influence, the circumstances of his death, and the belief that the destruction of Herod's army was a divine punishment for Herod's slaughter of John.<ref>{{cite journal |title=John the Baptist in Josephus: philology and exegesis |journal=Journal of Biblical Literature |first=John P. |last=Meier |volume=111 |issue=2 |pages=225–237 |jstor=3267541 |year=1992}}</ref> [[G. A. Wells]] has argued against the authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'', stating that the passage is noticeably shorter and more cursory than such notices generally used by Josephus in the ''Antiquities'', and that had it been authentic, it would have included more details and a longer introduction.<ref name=Wells49 />

==== Intrusion that breaks the narrative ====
A further internal argument against the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}''{{'s}} authenticity is the context of the passage in the ''Antiquities of the Jews''.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} Some scholars argue that the passage is an intrusion into the progression of Josephus' text at the point in which it appears in the ''Antiquities'' and breaks the thread of the narrative.<ref name=Wells49>''The Jesus Legend'' by George Albert Wells and R. Joseph Hoffman 1996 {{ISBN|0-8126-9334-5}} pp. 49–56</ref>