CHRIST IN JOSEPHUS: ANSWERING THE OBJECTIONS AND STATING THE FACTS
When the ancient historian Flavius Josephus is mentioned in Christian discussion, the air often fills with questions—Did he really write about Jesus? Is the testimony authentic? Has it been tampered with?
These are fair questions, and the answers—when weighed carefully—show that Josephus gives us one of the earliest non-Christian references to Jesus Christ. The evidence may be debated, but it cannot be dismissed.
First, the Testimonium Flavianum in Antiquities 18 describes Jesus as a wise man, a doer of surprising works, followed by both Jews and Gentiles, crucified under Pontius Pilate, and still regarded by His disciples as alive after death.
Most scholars agree that the version we have today contains some later Christian embellishments—phrases like “He was the Christ”—but the core text is solidly recognized as authentic Josephus.
Even skeptical historians acknowledge that Josephus wrote something here about Jesus; a complete forgery is nearly impossible, given the consistent manuscript tradition and the fact that early critics of Christianity (like Origen) mention Josephus’ reference but note that Josephus did not call Jesus “the Christ.” That tells us two things: the passage existed, and certain phrases were added later.
Second, in Antiquities 20, Josephus gives a brief, uncontroversial reference to “James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” This text is universally accepted as authentic. No Christian scribe would need to invent such an incidental detail—it fits perfectly with Josephus’ style of identifying lesser-known figures by referencing better-known relatives. This one line alone confirms two undeniable facts:
Josephus knew of Jesus,
Jesus was known widely enough to identify James by association with Him.
This second reference essentially anchors the first. If Josephus casually refers to Jesus elsewhere, then it is historically reasonable that he mentioned Him earlier in more detail.
Third, objections claiming that Josephus “would never write about Jesus” overlook the obvious: Josephus wrote about many figures involved in Jewish affairs of the first century, including others who founded movements, caused disturbances, or gathered followings. Jesus fit the pattern of individuals Josephus would naturally comment on—especially given His execution under Pilate and the continued presence of His followers. Silence would be far stranger than mention.
Fourth, some object that Josephus, being a Jew and a Pharisee, could not have said anything positive about Jesus. But Josephus often described people neutrally or respectfully without affirming their beliefs. He praised John the Baptist. He spoke sympathetically about the Essenes. Describing Jesus as a wise teacher or miracle worker would not violate Josephus’ style; it simply reflects how Jesus was broadly perceived.
When all the dust settles, here are the facts that remain standing:
Josephus mentions Jesus twice in works that survive in multiple manuscripts.
One reference (Antiquities 20) is universally accepted as authentic.
The other (Antiquities 18) is mostly authentic, with likely Christian additions.
Together they form one of the earliest non-Christian confirmations of Jesus’ existence, execution, and following.
Even secular historians—agnostic or unbelieving—accept Josephus as a historical witness to Jesus.
Thus Josephus does not give us theology, but he does give us history. He stands as an unwilling witness—an outsider, a Jew, a historian detailing the events of his people—and yet even from his distant vantage point, the figure of Christ emerges unmistakably. No fabrication, no pious invention—just a first-century historian acknowledging the presence of a first-century Savior.
BDD
