Few ancient texts have faced more debate than Josephus’s famous reference to Jesus, the Testimonium Flavianum (TF), found in Antiquities 18.3.3. For generations, scholars have proposed varying degrees of Christian interpolation, leading many to approach the passage cautiously when discussing extra-biblical evidence for the historical Jesus.
However, recent research by historian Tom Schmidt has renewed the conversation through detailed literary and stylometric analysis. Schmidt argues that when the contested lines are understood in their original Greek context, the passage fits naturally with Josephus’s usual wording and historical style, supporting the view that it substantially preserves his original account.
In this context, the Testimonium is best understood as Josephus’s own restrained report of Jesus’s public ministry and his execution under Pontius Pilate, not a later Christian invention. If so, it stands as an early, independent, non-Christian testimony to Jesus preserved within first-century Jewish history.
Rather than rehashing the entire debate, this article focuses on historian Tom Schmidt’s recent research and the new evidence he brings to the question of the Testimonium’s authenticity. While not all scholars agree with Schmidt’s conclusions, his cumulative analysis has significantly reframed how the passage is evaluated within contemporary Josephus studies.
🧭 Introduction
In this hour-long interview, Tom Schmidt sits down with scholar Gavin Ortlund to unpack the latest evidence on the TF: a data-driven case for its substantial authenticity. The conversation brings his statistical, textual, and contextual arguments to life. The full conversation is worth engaging for its depth and nuance:
For those who want a deeper dive, Schmidt’s book, Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ (Oxford University Press, 2025), is available free online as an open-access PDF: https://academic.oup.com/book/60034
Several of the most compelling elements of Schmidt’s thesis hinge on how scholars evaluate the reliability of Josephus’s account. To understand the force of his argument, however, we must first consider who Josephus was and how he typically wrote.
📜 Josephus in Historical Context
Flavius Josephus (c. 37–100 AD) was a Jewish historian, Pharisee, and former commander in the Jewish revolt against Rome, who later wrote under Roman patronage. His Antiquities of the Jews preserves a vast chronicle of Jewish history, culture, and politics in the first century.
One of the most debated passages in Antiquities is the Testimonium Flavianum (Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3), the earliest non-Christian account of Jesus.
Historically, scholars have been cautious about using this passage as evidence. The primary concern has been that it may have been altered by later Christian scribes, with certain phrases sounding overly flattering and some stylistic features appearing uncharacteristic of Josephus. This very controversy drew Schmidt into his 10-year research project, aiming to clarify the passage’s authenticity through rigorous data analysis.
The Testimonium Flavianum (TF) in Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3 of Antiquities:
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” — Josephus 18.3.3
❓Reasons for Skepticism: Traditional Critiques
Critics have long cited three main reasons for doubting Josephus’s authorship of the TF:
1) Overly flattering language: The passage calls Jesus “the Christ,” claims he was resurrected, performed miracles, and fulfilled prophecy. To early critics, this sounded too favorable to have been written by a non-Christian historian.
2) Stylistic mismatch: Some argued the TF did not match Josephus’s usual Greek style, vocabulary, or narrative techniques.
3) Patristic silence: Early Christian writers do not clearly cite the Testimonium Flavianum until Eusebius in the fourth century. Critics have argued that if the passage existed in its current form earlier, apologists such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, or Origen would likely have appealed to it when defending the historicity or messianic identity of Jesus.
Even Schmidt once accepted these critiques until data-driven research revealed patterns and insights that challenge the traditional view.
🛡️Addressing Skepticism
Linguistic and Stylistic Consistency
Schmidt’s work, alongside other scholarship, uses stylometrics, which is the statistical study of an author’s writing style. This analysis demonstrates that the TF’s vocabulary, syntax, and rhetorical devices are consistent with Josephus’s other works, including Antiquities of the Jews and The Jewish War.
For instance: the passage’s structure, vocabulary, and themes mirror his other works, challenging claims that it is a later Christian insertion. Also, Josephus frequently uses phrases to introduce new topics in the same way the TF begins.
While stylometric analysis addresses concerns about authorship and literary style, critics have also focused on the passage’s specific wording. Several Greek terms have been read as overtly Christian in tone. Yet when these terms are examined within Josephus’s broader usage, they may not carry the theological weight often assumed.
Reinterpreting Key Terms
1) ‘Paradoxa’ (Schmidt, Ch. 3)
The Greek term paradoxa is often translated as “miracles,” implying divine intervention. But Josephus routinely uses paradoxa to describe extraordinary or unusual deeds performed by figures like Egyptian magicians not just acts of God.
Even among Jesus’s contemporaries, extraordinary deeds weren’t automatically seen as divine. The Pharisees, for example, accused him of casting out demons by the “prince of demons” (Matthew 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15).
This shows that Josephus could acknowledge remarkable deeds without attributing them to God, supporting a neutral, historical reading of the TF.1
2) ‘Wise Man’ and ‘Doer of Wonderful Works’ (Ch. 3)
These descriptors are part of Josephus’s standard vocabulary, used for various figures he writes about, including prophets and philosophers, without necessarily implying divinity. For example, he uses similar language to describe the Essenes and other notable figures. Therefore, their use in the TF is objective, not theological.
3) ‘He appeared to them alive again the third day‘ (Ch. 3)
The phrase traditionally rendered as “he appeared to them alive again the third day” is better understood as a neutral report of the disciples’ perception. Tom Schmidt argues that a more accurate translation — “he seemed to them to be alive” — is supported by several lines of evidence:
- Greek syntax – The verb used in the original Greek, ὤφθησαν (ōphthēsan), is the passive form of to be seen. In Josephus’s other writings, he frequently uses this construction to report how events appeared to observers, without asserting them as factual.
- Consistent reportorial style – Across Antiquities, Josephus regularly describes extraordinary events using phrasing that conveys perception rather than doctrinal affirmation, whether discussing Jewish figures or foreign magicians.
- Manuscript evidence – Early Latin, Syriac, and Armenian translations render the phrase in a way that emphasizes appearance or perception, not theological assertion. For example, Syriac versions read “it seemed to them that he was alive,” preserving the neutral tone.
- Historical context – By reporting what followers believed, Josephus maintains his objective, historical perspective. The TF thus reflects contemporary perception rather than an endorsement of Christian claims about the resurrection.
This subtle but crucial shift in translation aligns the passage with Josephus’s typical objective reporting style, strengthening the argument that the TF preserves his authentic voice rather than reflecting later Christian interpolation.
4) Jesus as ‘The Christ’ (Ch. 3, 4)
Josephus references Jesus in another passage concerning James:
“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others… he delivered them to be stoned.” — Antiquities 20.9.1
Critics have argued that the TF must have been a Christian interpolation because it refers to Jesus as “the Christ,” which seems theologically loaded. However, Schmidt demonstrates that this objection misunderstands Josephus’s method. The phrase “who was called Christ” is consistent with his neutral, reportorial style: he is documenting how others identified Jesus, not endorsing a Christian claim.
Schmidt points out that even the TF’s phrasing can be reconciled with Josephus’s style. Early translations in Latin, Syriac, and Armenian often render the expression as “thought to be the Christ” or similar. This aligns with Josephus’s historical reporting: he consistently records the beliefs and perceptions of people around him without asserting their truth. As Schmidt notes:
“The phrase ‘he was thought to be the Christ’ accurately captures the contemporary perception of Jesus as a messianic figure, reflecting Josephus’s method of reporting beliefs without endorsing them.” — Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ
By showing that both the Greek original and the early translations convey perception rather than doctrinal affirmation, Schmidt argues that the TF’s use of “Christ” does not indicate Christian tampering. Instead, it reflects a factual report of a widely recognized title, fully consistent with how Josephus presents other figures in his histories.
Taken together, the Greek phrasing, Josephus’s narrative style, and early translations demonstrate that the TF’s reference to Jesus as Christ is not evidence of Christian interpolation but rather an example of Josephus’s objective historiography.
5) Ancient Versions: Supporting Neutrality (Ch. 4)
Early translations of Josephus’s works provide additional support for this interpretation. Latin, Syriac, and Armenian versions often render the phrase as “thought to be the Christ” or its equivalent. Schmidt argues that these translations preserve the original, reportorial intent:
- Latin manuscripts: emphasize perception rather than endorsement.
- Syriac translations: read along the lines of “he was considered to be the Christ,” again showing a factual, non-doctrinal statement.
- Armenian versions: similarly frame the term as a contemporary designation, not a theological claim.
Together, the original Greek context, Josephus’s narrative style, and these early translations reinforce the idea that Josephus is recording contemporary understanding and belief, rather than inserting Christian affirmation. This aligns with his broader historiographical method, where he consistently documents what people believed without adopting their convictions as his own.
Stylistic Evidence
1) Word Frequency and Stylistic Patterns (Ch. 4)
Tom Schmidt also conducted a word frequency analysis of the Testimonium Flavianum to assess its consistency with Josephus’s broader writings. The results show that key vocabulary and syntactic patterns in the TF match Josephus’s typical style, further supporting its authenticity.
For example, the TF describes the disciples as “receiving Jesus’ teaching with pleasure.” While this may sound flattering to modern readers, Schmidt notes that in Josephus’s usage, this phrase often carries a slightly critical tone, describing people who are naive, overly eager, or easily impressed. This aligns with the New Testament depiction of the disciples’ initial misunderstandings and enthusiasm, suggesting that the phrasing is characteristic of Josephus rather than a Christian interpolation.
The word frequency patterns, combined with these stylistic nuances, reinforce the argument that the passage likely originates from Josephus himself, reflecting his historical and reportorial voice rather than later theological embellishment.
2) Unique Word Usage: A Marker of Authenticity (Ch. 4)
Critics have previously flagged the use of a single unique word in the TF — one that Josephus does not use elsewhere in the passage — as suspicious. However, Tom Schmidt’s analysis reframes this as a point of linguistic authenticity.
Josephus’s writing demonstrates a high rate of unique word usage: across his works, he employs over 5,000 words only once, averaging roughly one unique word every 87 words. The TF is approximately 90 words long, meaning that the appearance of a unique word aligns exactly with Josephus’s normal stylistic patterns.
Rather than suggesting Christian interpolation, this rare word is consistent with Josephus’s frequency of unique words and serves as a subtle marker of authenticity. Its contextual fit within the passage further supports the view that the TF reflects Josephus’s own writing rather than later theological embellishment.
3) Reception in Ancient and Medieval Literature (Ch. 1)
Another line of evidence comes from the ancient and medieval reception of the TF. Schmidt identifies roughly 20 quotations of the passage in Greek literature spanning antiquity and the medieval period, preserved across Greek catenae, chronographies, and historiographical compilations.
Interestingly, these citations:
- Focus on historical and factual elements such as chronology, number of disciples, nature of Jesus’s teaching.
- Do not emphasize miracles, resurrection, or theological claims, which modern critics often highlight.
Schmidt interprets this as strong evidence that Josephus’s original audience and later readers understood the passage as historical reporting rather than confessional or theological writing. They read the text much as Josephus did, categorizing Jesus as a notable historical figure whose followers had perceptions about him, without assuming divine endorsement.
From this perspective, the TF was regarded as interesting and noteworthy, but not miraculous or faith-affirming. This aligns closely with Schmidt’s argument that the passage is reportorial in nature, consistent with Josephus’s objective historiographical style, and not a later Christian interpolation.
🕵️♂️The Argument from Silence: Why Don’t Early Christians Quote TF? (Ch. 1, 2)
For generations, critics have pointed to the silence of prominent early Christian writers as proof that the TF is a later forgery. The most significant example is the scholar Origen (c. 185–254 AD). In his work Contra Celsus, Origen complains that Josephus, despite being a credible historian, “did not believe in Jesus as Christ.” This statement, coupled with Origen’s failure to quote the TF when he was actively looking for non-Christian evidence, has been used to argue that the passage did not exist in his day. The first clear citation of the TF appears in the works of Eusebius of Caesarea a century later (c. 260–339 AD), which is why many have suspected him of being the interpolator.
Origen specifically says this in Book 1, Chapter 47 of Contra Celsus:
“And further, he [Celsus] is not acquainted with the statements in the works of Josephus, who, although he did not believe in Jesus as Christ, nevertheless, in treating of the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem and the overthrow of the temple, since he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these evils befalling the people, and since he knew that it was on account of these that they suffered these things, said, if I may so express myself, that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the crime against James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus (who was called Christ), since they had slain him, who was a most righteous man.”
Tom Schmidt’s Response: A Non-Apologetic Account
Schmidt turns the “argument from silence” on its head, arguing that the passage’s lack of early use is actually evidence for its authenticity. He contends that early Church Fathers, like Origen, were looking for clear, unambiguous evidence to defend the divinity of Jesus. As Schmidt’s analysis shows, the TF is a neutral, historical account. From a 3rd-century Christian perspective, a passage that refers to Jesus’s works as mere paradoxa and describes him as “thought to be the Christ” would not have been seen as a powerful tool. It was not the explicit endorsement they sought, so it was largely ignored.
Schmidt argues that the early Church’s primary concern was not proving that Jesus was a historical person (that was widely accepted even by their critics) but proving his divine nature. The TF, with its purely historical and non-theological language, would have been considered largely irrelevant to that debate. It confirmed Jesus’s existence, but it didn’t affirm his divinity, which was the core issue at the time.
According to Schmidt, Origen’s frustration wasn’t that Josephus never mentioned Jesus, but that he failed to express a Christian theological conviction about him. Schmidt’s argument is that the phrase “who was called Christ” is a factual, historical designation, not a theological confession. This reconciles Josephus’s text with Origen’s statement, as Josephus could report what others believed without personally believing it.
In short, the passage’s lack of early citation isn’t proof of its non-existence. It is a sign that its original, non-theological meaning was so thoroughly misunderstood by later generations that it was only seen as “flattering” after centuries of Christian reinterpretation.
🏛️Conclusion
When viewed cumulatively, the evidence forms a coherent case for authenticity rather than interpolation. Schmidt’s research establishes multiple, converging lines of evidence supporting the TF’s authenticity:
- Linguistic and stylistic consistency with Josephus’s writings
- Neutral reporting of events and titles
- Matches word frequency patterns, including unique word usage
- Early translations preserving original perception
- Reception history demonstrating historical, not theological, reading
Taken together, these findings suggest that the TF is not a later Christian invention but substantially preserves Josephus’s original voice. Under this reading, the passage stands as an early, independent, non-Christian testimony to Jesus’s life, public ministry, and execution under Pontius Pilate, standing as one of the earliest non-Christian attestations to Jesus in the ancient historical record.
📚 References
- Schmidt, T. C. Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ. Oxford University Press, 2025. Open-access PDF
- Josephus, Flavius. Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3; Book 20, Chapter 9, Section 1.
- Origen. Contra Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 47.
- Schmidt, T. C., interview with Gavin Ortlund. “Josephus and the Testimonium Flavianum.” YouTube link
Leave a Reply