The Testimonium Flavianum , 1893–2025

This article responds to T.C. Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ (2025), which argues that Josephus’ account of Jesus and the first Christians ( Antiquities 18.63–64; the Testimonium Flavianum ) is authentic and that Josephus got his information about them from Jewish acquaintances in Judea and/or the Galilee. Schmidt suggests interpreting the Testimonium as reserved and even somewhat hostile vis-à-vis Jesus and Christianity, and that it may therefore be accepted as non-Christian and authentic. A review of Schmidt’s arguments, and of his responses to those supporting the consensus that the Testimonium is not authentic, but rather a product of Christian editing, upholds the consensus and thereby also undercuts the ascription of the Testimonium ’s contents to Josephus’ non-Christian Jewish informants. Schmidt’s study is compared, along the way, with Benedikt Niese’s 1893 essay on the topic – an example of work done in the pre-computer and pre-concordance age. A translation of that essay appears later in this issue.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Jewish Studies
Published
2026-10-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3828/jjs.2026.77.2.388
Primary Topic
Biblical Studies and Interpretation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Testimonium Flavianum , 1893–2025

Daniel R. Schwartz
Journal of Jewish Studies
Biblical Studies and Interpretation
article

The Testimonium Flavianum , 1893–2025

Daniel R. Schwartz
article en

Abstract

This article responds to T.C. Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ (2025), which argues that Josephus’ account of Jesus and the first Christians ( Antiquities 18.63–64; the Testimonium Flavianum ) is authentic and that Josephus got his information about them from Jewish acquaintances in Judea and/or the Galilee. Schmidt suggests interpreting the Testimonium as reserved and even somewhat hostile vis-à-vis Jesus and Christianity, and that it may therefore be accepted as non-Christian and authentic. A review of Schmidt’s arguments, and of his responses to those supporting the consensus that the Testimonium is not authentic, but rather a product of Christian editing, upholds the consensus and thereby also undercuts the ascription of the Testimonium ’s contents to Josephus’ non-Christian Jewish informants. Schmidt’s study is compared, along the way, with Benedikt Niese’s 1893 essay on the topic – an example of work done in the pre-computer and pre-concordance age. A translation of that essay appears later in this issue.

Journal of Jewish StudiesVol. 77(2)
Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Biblical Studies and Interpretation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.