Josephus does not tell us that Christianity is true, and Christians do not need Josephus to tell them that Christ is risen. But Christianity makes claims about things that happened in public history under identifiable rulers, priests, and governors. For that reason, testimony from outside the church matters.
Much of what we know about the political world of the New Testament comes from the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (c. AD 37–100). In his Antiquities of the Jews, he tells us at length about Herod the Great and his successors, describes the high-priestly families who governed Jerusalem, recounts the career of John the Baptist, and gives us one of our most important accounts of Pontius Pilate’s troubled administration of Judea.
In the middle of his account of Pilate, Josephus pauses to mention another figure: Jesus of Nazareth. The passage is only a paragraph long, but its importance is difficult to exaggerate. If Josephus wrote it, it is the earliest surviving account of Jesus by a non-Christian writer who actually names him. Scholars call it the Testimonium Flavianum, the “Flavian Testimony.”
In the Greek manuscripts that survive today, Josephus describes Jesus as a wise man and a worker of extraordinary deeds who attracted both Jews and Greeks. He says that leading Jewish authorities accused him and that Pilate condemned him to the cross. Jesus’ followers remained devoted to him afterward, and the passage appears even to say that Jesus appeared to them alive again on the third day in fulfillment of prophecy. For a Jewish historian writing barely sixty years after the crucifixion, that is remarkable testimony. Perhaps too remarkable.
The Problem with Josephus
The difficulty is obvious. Some of Josephus’ statements sound suspiciously Christian. He appears to call Jesus “the Christ.” He seems to affirm his miracles, the fulfillment of prophecy, and even his resurrection. He describes Jesus as a wise man and then adds the curious qualification, “if indeed one ought to call him a man.” Why would Josephus, who never became a Christian, write something that sounds so much like a Christian confession?
There is another problem. The third-century Christian scholar Origen knew Josephus’ writings well and stated twice that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ. Yet the Greek text we possess says, “He was the Christ.” Because Origen lived centuries before our earliest surviving Greek manuscript of this part of the Antiquities, scholars have long suspected that Christian scribes may have altered Josephus’ words.
That has produced a debate that has lasted for generations. Some scholars have dismissed the entire passage as a later Christian addition. Others have defended most or all of it as genuine. A common middle position holds that Josephus really did write about Jesus, but that later Christian scribes added a few strongly Christian phrases. T. C. Schmidt challenges that approach in his new book, Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ (Oxford, 2025).
Schmidt’s argument is straightforward. Perhaps the passage sounds Christian not because Christians rewrote it, he asserts, but because modern readers have misunderstood what Josephus was saying. Schmidt believes almost the entire passage is authentic. Only a few words, he argues, were altered or lost as the text was copied over the centuries.
Reading Josephus Differently
One clue comes from the way ancient Christians themselves read Josephus. Schmidt points out that many early Christian writers did not treat the passage as a ringing endorsement of Christianity. They often read it as neutral, ambiguous, or even slightly unfriendly toward Jesus. That is strange if a Christian scribe invented the passage for apologetic purposes. If that were the purpose, many early Christians apparently missed the point.
Translation also matters. Josephus says Jesus performed paradoxa. The word is often translated “miraculous deeds,” which makes Josephus sound as though he is affirming Jesus’ miracles. But the word can also mean extraordinary, incredible, or even magical deeds. Josephus may simply be reporting that Jesus did things people found astonishing without telling us what he himself thought of them.
The most troublesome sentence, for scholars, is “He was the Christ.” Schmidt argues that other ancient versions of Josephus preserve an older form of the sentence. One Syriac tradition says Jesus was “thought to be the Christ,” while Jerome’s Latin version says he was “believed to be the Christ.” That makes a difference. Josephus would not be confessing that Jesus was the Messiah. He would simply be reporting that people believed he was.
Schmidt makes a similar argument about the resurrection. The familiar translation makes Josephus say that Jesus “appeared to them alive again on the third day.” Schmidt argues that the Greek is better understood as saying that “on the third day it seemed to them that he was alive again.” Again, Josephus is not saying, “Jesus rose from the dead.” He is saying that Jesus’ followers believed he had. For the historian, that may actually make Josephus more valuable rather than less.
A Witness Outside the Church
Josephus does not need to become an honorary Christian for his testimony to matter. His importance lies precisely in the fact that he was not a Christian. On Schmidt’s reading, Josephus knew the basic outline of Jesus’ story. Jesus was known as a wise man and teacher. He was associated with extraordinary deeds. He attracted followers. People regarded him as the Christ. Leading Jewish authorities accused him, and Pontius Pilate had him crucified. After his death, his followers continued because they believed that he was alive again on the third day.
Josephus does not prove the resurrection. But he gives us something historically important: a non-Christian witness who knows many of the same basic facts and claims found in the earliest Christian sources. That raises another question. Where did Josephus get his information?
“The First Men Among Us"
Josephus was born in AD 37, several years after the crucifixion, so he was not an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry or trial. But he grew up in Jerusalem in an eminent priestly family and later moved among the city’s political and religious elite. He knew people who were much closer to the events.
Schmidt notices an important phrase in Josephus’ account of Jesus. Josephus says that Pilate condemned Jesus after accusations were brought by the “first men “among us.” He focuses on these words, examines other places where Josephus uses that expression, and argues that Josephus typically uses it for people or things with which the speaker has direct familiarity.
Josephus also tells us elsewhere that he knew the “first men” of Jerusalem. If Schmidt is correct, Josephus may be telling us something remarkable: he personally knew some of the Jerusalem leaders connected with the proceedings against Jesus.
Schmidt identifies one especially interesting possibility. Josephus knew Ananus II, a later high priest who ordered the execution of James, the brother of Jesus. Ananus II was the son of Ananus I—the Annas mentioned in the Gospels—and the brother-in-law of Caiaphas. Schmidt argues that Ananus II may well have been present for some part of Jesus’ trial. Josephus knew other members of Jerusalem’s ruling families as well. His information about Jesus, therefore, may not have come simply from stories circulating decades later. Some of it may ultimately have come through people connected with those who had opposed Jesus and later confronted his followers.
Why It Matters
The historical case for Jesus is sometimes dismissed as Christians simply repeating what other Christians said. The Gospels were written by Christians. Paul was a Christian. Acts comes from within the Christian movement. Therefore, the argument goes, all we really have is Christians confirming Christians.
Josephus complicates that picture. If Schmidt is right, a Jewish historian writing before the end of the first century knew the same broad outline of the story. Jesus was a teacher associated with extraordinary deeds. He gathered followers. Jewish leaders accused him. Pilate crucified him. His followers continued after his death because they believed that on the third day he was alive again.
Josephus does not tell us that Christianity is true, and Christians do not need Josephus to tell them that Christ is risen. But Christianity makes claims about things that happened in public history under identifiable rulers, priests, and governors. For that reason, testimony from outside the church matters.
Schmidt has not discovered a new Gospel or unearthed a forgotten manuscript. He has returned to one of the oldest non-Christian references to Jesus and made a substantial case that scholars have misunderstood what Josephus was actually saying. His argument does not prove the resurrection. It does, however, strengthen the case that the broad outline of Jesus’ life—and the earliest Christian claim that he was alive again on the third day—was known outside the Christian movement. And if Schmidt is right about Josephus’ sources, some of that testimony may reach surprisingly close to the people who were there.
