History is messy. Most people think the only records of Jesus come from the Bible, but that’s just not true. If you’ve ever gone down the rabbit hole of first-century Roman history, you’ve hit the name Flavius Josephus. He was a Jewish general who defected to Rome, lived a cushy life under the emperors, and wrote massive volumes of history. He’s basically our best window into what was happening in Judea during the time of the Apostles.
But here’s the kicker. Josephus mentions Jesus. Twice.
These mentions are some of the most debated sentences in the history of the written word. Why? Because if they are 100% authentic, a secular Jewish historian essentially confirmed the resurrection. If they’re fakes, we’ve got a massive case of ancient "fake news." The truth, as it usually does, sits somewhere in the middle.
The "Testimonium Flavianum" Controversy
The big one is called the Testimonium Flavianum. It’s found in Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews. Honestly, when you read it in a standard translation, it sounds exactly like something a Sunday school teacher would write. It calls Jesus "a wise man," mentions his "wonderful works," and explicitly states, "He was [the] Christ."
Wait. Stop.
Josephus was a Pharisee. He died a Jew. He never converted to Christianity. It makes zero sense for him to casually drop "He was the Messiah" in the middle of a book written for a Roman audience. Because of this, scholars have been fighting about this passage for centuries.
The Layers of the Text
Most modern historians, like Geza Vermes or E.P. Sanders, think the passage was "touched up." Imagine a medieval monk copying this manuscript by hand. He gets to the part about Jesus, thinks Josephus was being a bit too cold, and decides to add some "flair" to make it more pious.
✨ Don't miss: Melissa Calhoun Satellite High Teacher Dismissal: What Really Happened
We actually have a version of this text from an Arabic manuscript found by Shlomo Pines in the 1970s. In that version, the language is much more neutral. It says things like "he was perhaps the Messiah" or "they reported that he had risen." That sounds way more like the Josephus we know—a skeptical historian reporting on a weird movement he didn't quite belong to.
The Death of James and the Second Mention
While the first mention gets all the glory, the second mention is actually more important for proving Jesus existed as a historical figure. In Book 20, Josephus writes about the execution of a man named James. He describes James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."
This is huge.
It’s a "passing reference." Josephus isn't trying to prove anything here; he’s just identifying which James he’s talking about because "James" was a super common name back then. He uses Jesus as a landmark. For historians, these accidental mentions are gold. It proves that by the year 93 AD, a high-ranking historian in Rome knew exactly who Jesus was and knew he had a brother named James who was leading a group in Jerusalem.
There’s almost no scholarly doubt about this second passage. It’s too mundane to be a Christian forgery. A forger would have called James "the brother of the Lord" or something more respectful. Calling him the brother of "Jesus, who was called Christ" is exactly how a detached historian would phrase it.
Why Does This Matter Today?
You’ve probably seen the "Mythicist" movement online. These are folks who claim Jesus never existed at all and was just a solar myth or a literary invention. The writings of Flavius Josephus and Jesus are the primary roadblocks for that theory.
🔗 Read more: Wisconsin Judicial Elections 2025: Why This Race Broke Every Record
If Jesus was a myth, Josephus wouldn't be writing about his brother being executed by the Sanhedrin in 62 AD. You can't execute the brother of a myth.
The Roman Connection
Josephus lived in the Flavian palace. He was tight with Emperor Vespasian. If he were making things up about a local Galilean preacher, his Roman patrons would have called him out on it. Rome had records. They had reports from governors. Josephus was writing for an audience that could check his facts.
He also gives us the context for why the movement grew. He describes a Judea that was a literal powder keg. High taxes. Corrupt priests. Messianic pretenders popping up every Tuesday. When you read Josephus, you realize that the world the Gospels describe—the tension between the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Roman occupiers—was 100% real.
The Core Evidence We Can Trust
If we strip away the likely additions made by later Christian scribes, here is what we are left with from Josephus:
- Jesus was a real person. No serious historian who has studied Josephus believes Jesus was a fabrication.
- He was a teacher. Josephus calls him a "wise man" and a teacher of people who "receive the truth with pleasure."
- He had a following. He gained "many Jews and many of the Greek race."
- He was executed by Pilate. This aligns perfectly with the Roman record and the Gospels.
- The movement didn't die. Josephus notes that the "tribe of Christians" was still around in his day.
It’s a bare-bones account, sure. It doesn't mention the parables or the Sermon on the Mount. But for a secular source writing during the first century, it’s remarkably detailed.
What Most People Get Wrong
The biggest mistake is thinking Josephus was a fan of Jesus. He wasn't. He was a fan of Josephus. He was a survivor who wanted to explain Jewish culture to Romans so they’d stop wanting to kill every Jew in the empire. He mentions Jesus because Jesus was part of the history of the "disturbances" in Judea.
💡 You might also like: Casey Ramirez: The Small Town Benefactor Who Smuggled 400 Pounds of Cocaine
To Josephus, the followers of Jesus were just another group in a long line of Jewish movements. He didn't see the world-changing potential. He just saw another group that got into trouble with the authorities.
There's also a common misconception that Josephus is the only source. We also have Tacitus and Suetonius, but Josephus is the only one who was actually from the area and lived during the generation immediately following Jesus. His proximity is what makes his testimony so heavy.
How to Study This Further
If you want to look into this yourself, don't just read a blog post. Go to the primary sources. You don't need to be a scholar to see the differences in tone between the "preachy" parts of the Testimonium and the rest of Josephus’s dry, political writing.
- Read the Arabic Version: Look up the "Agapius version" of the Testimonium Flavianum. It’s widely considered by experts like David Flusser to be closer to what Josephus actually wrote.
- Compare with Tacitus: Read Book 15, Chapter 44 of the Annals by Tacitus. See how a Roman perspective differs from Josephus’s Jewish perspective.
- Check the Timeline: Note that Josephus wrote Antiquities around 93-94 AD. This is roughly the same time the Gospel of John was being finished. These aren't ancient accounts written hundreds of years later; they are nearly contemporary.
- Look at the Context: Read the chapters surrounding the mention of Jesus. Josephus is talking about riots, water supply issues in Jerusalem, and political infighting. Jesus is mentioned as just one part of a very chaotic era.
The relationship between Flavius Josephus and Jesus is the bridge between faith and history. Whether you believe in the divinity of Jesus or not, the historical footprints left in the works of Josephus are impossible to ignore. They provide a tether to reality for a story that has shaped two millennia of human civilization.
Actionable Insights for History Enthusiasts
To get the most out of this historical intersection, stop viewing Josephus as a religious witness. View him as a political survivor. When you read his accounts, look for the political motivations behind why he mentions certain figures and ignores others. If you are researching for a project or personal interest, prioritize the "Niese" numbering system when looking up references in Josephus, as it's the standard for academic citations. This ensures you're looking at the most accurate cross-references across different translations of Antiquities.