One of the more common arguments against Jesus is that all of the evidence for him is found in the Bible, which of course is going to support him. In rebuttal, you might direct them to a book written by Jewish historian Flavius Josephus called Antiquities of the Jews and a passage that has become known as the Testimonium Flavianum.
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.
It would appear at first glance that Jesus enjoys a solid proof to his existence from a non-Christian source, but many smart guys and myself would ask you to reconsider its authenticity.
What should surprise us first is that a devout Jew would refer to Jesus as the Christ? Josephus was a professing Jew who worked for the Romans and might have been tried for treason if he were to say this. It also contradicts his statements in another book, Wars of the Jews, when Josephus calls Emperor Vespasian the Messiah. Also the early church father, Origen, when speaking of Josepus says that “he did not accept Jesus as Christ”.
There are generally three views on the Testimonium Flavianum.
- The entire text was fabricated and added afterwards by someone.
- All of the text is authentic
- Most of the text is authentic except for three additions:
- “if it be lawful to call him a man”
- “He was [the] Christ”
- “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”
The first view has some support saying that the passages before and after (3.2 and 3.4) flow into each other. Also Origen never actually mentions this passage in his arguments, but does mention another less significant passage (we’ll get to that one in a second).
The second view does not have much support, leaving many thinking that part of the text was originally written by Josephus, but the three additions are obvious. Some even go further and say there was a reference to Jesus but the reworking is so bad that the true original reference is lost.
If the text was added to or completely fabricated then we must wonder who is the culprit that took it upon themselves to change history. The main suspect is Eusebius who was a bishop of Caesarea in the 4th century. Eusebius only gets blame because he is the first one to use the Testimonium Flavianum and it conveniently supports his argument that Jesus was not a wizard. It doesn’t bode well for Eusebius that Origen, who wrote sooner, does not make use of this passage when speaking of Josephus’ writings.
The Testimonium Flavianum and Eusebius’ reference to it was never even questioned until about 1770. From that point on the Testimonium Flavianum has never really held any weight as a reference to Jesus. Instead Christian apologists look to another passage which is less disputed.
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned
Here Josephus is talking about James and refers to him as the brother of Jesus. Some still debate whether or not “who was called the Christ” was originally in there, but the majority accept this passage as authentic since it is quoted by Origen not too long after it was written. It would make sense that Josephus wouldn’t name James as his father’s son (which is the norm) because his brother was so well known.
Although there is very limited reference to Jesus outside of the Bible, the alarming statistics to defend the Bible’s authenticity should be enough. Lesson learned for today: Do not change the wording of ancient documents and if you must, then be a little less obvious.
References: