PART 2 of my Historical Jesus series
(Updated 1st July 2025)
- Final redaction = Textus Receptus found in all Greek manuscripts of Antiquities by Josephus.
Sample phrase “He was the Christ” (this phrase was written by a later redactor than Eusebius).
—————————————————————-
2. Middle redaction = close to Michael the Syrians recension. The Arabic recencion, the Syriac translation of Eusebius Church History (especially the British manuscript variant and Jerome will also be discussed as these are relevant witnesses. – Eusebius is suspected of being the middle redactor).
Sample phrase “He was thought to be the Christ” (This was redacted by Eusebius).
—————————————————————-—
3. Pre-Eusebian = A SOURCE used by Origen, the Slavonic, De Excidio and of course used by Eusebius.
Missing the sample phrase.
——————————————————————
1. FINAL REDACTION
Let’s start with the Testimonium Flavianum before looking at the variants:
There arose about this time Jesus, a wise man if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was a doer of strange deeds and a teacher to those who receive the truth with pleasure. And many of the Jews and many of Greek element he led to himself. He was the Christ. And when at the indictment of the first men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to a cross, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day, he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared (Josephus, Ant. 18.63-64).
2. MIDDLE REDACTION
To much fanfare back in 1971 Shlomo Pines released a book on the Arabic recension of the TF thinking that parts of it were going back to the original TF, or closer to it.[1] This TF recension was in a tenth century Arabic historical work contained in the book “Kitāb al-Únwān” (Book of History) a chronicle of the history of the world up to the 10th century written by Agapius, who was the Melkite bishop of Manbij (Hierapolis). It is closer to Josephus as it is more primitive than the Textus Receptus found in all Greek manuscripts of Antiquities. The Arabic gave no hint to the divinity of Jesus, nor made an assertion that Jesus was the Christ. The Arabic is a valuable witness in diminishing the assertion that Jesus was the Christ as it is unlikely that this recension would have downgraded this. As T. C. Schmidt refuting Hansens arguments, showed Muslims actually call Jesus the Messiah (Quran 4.171)[2] Similarily Jerome’s mention saying “he was believed to be the Christ” would be a copy from an earlier form if the TF rather than a downgrade of this phrase. Christians don’t usually downgrade their claims of Christ. So there would have been no softening of claims here. The Arabic also stated the resurrection as a report rather than a fact.
Shlomo Pines had also discovered a 12th-century Syriac version of the Testimoniumin in chronicle of Michael the Syrian. This book was called ܙܒܢܐ ܡܟܬܒܢܘܬ (Record of Times) written by the historian and patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox: Michael circa 1199CE. Alice Whealey has proved that Michael the Syrian’s recession is even more valuable than Agapius’ version as the Arabic is a paraphrase and Micheael’s was a literal copy. She proved this as she showed Michael the Syriac recension used the same source as the Arabic had used.[3]
According to Whealey the Arabic and Michael the Syrian do stem from what Eusebius wrote. (What Eusebius originally wrote we no longer have). It is just that some of the variants (Arabic, Michael the Syrians, Syriac translations of Eusebius and some Latin variants) used earlier forms of the TF as a source than the form witnessed by the textus receptus. Even though these earlier versions only get it back to what Eusebius originally wrote, (what I call the middle redaction) they are still useful as they show that Eusebius would never have written in ‘certain man’ instead of ‘Jesus’ if he made it up from scratch- as one variant of a Syriac manuscript witnesses. (MS British Library Add. 14,639).
Although the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian dates to nearly three centuries later than Agapius, he too reports a version of the TF that is more primitive than the received text (textus receptus) of Antiquities. Whealey has found Michael recension more valuable as it is a literal copy as opposed to Agapius which happens to be a paraphrase. Michael was born in 1126 and was Patriarch of Antioch from 1166 to 1199; he thus lived more than three centuries after Agapius.
Both Agapius’ and Michael’s chronicles. have a common source, now lost, of the Syriac chronicle of the Maronite Christian, Theophilus of Edessa (d. 785) This contained a narrative account of the seventh- and eighth-century Muslim conquests of the Roman Near East. T.C Schmidt sees an earlier source from Edessa as the common source that is the now lost Chronicle of Jacob of Edessa’ (c. 708CE). “in the preface of Michael’s Record of Times (preserved only in Armenian) he says, ‘First we must mention the names of the historians from which we will be gathering the material for our structure’. Among several sources, Michael lists Eusebius and Josephus, but then says that ‘the blessed Jacob of Edessa made an abridgement of all these’ (Եւ սուրբն Յակովբ ուռհայեցին համառօտ ընդ ամենն էանց).[4] He also says that Jacob of Edessa probably used both the Syriac translation and Josephus as a source for the TF.
Agapius (who wrote the Arabic recension) himself claimed that his own chronicle was based on the Syriac chronicle of Theophilus of Edessa (d. 785), this work itself was probably dependant on the earlier work of Jacob of Edessa. Michael the Syrian’s chronicle broadly parallels Agapius’ chronicle for the same period from creation to about 780, with the two chronicles being particularly close for the period from the first Muslim conquests of the Roman Near East to about 780. Michael the Syrian used the chronicle of Dionysius of Tellmahre (Monophysite patriarch of Antioch 818–848) Dionysius himself acknowledged that he drew on the work of Theophilus of Edessa – the same source as Agapius.
For Agapius’ relatively brief chronicle is clearly an abbreviated paraphrase of a longer source, while the section of Michael’s chronicle that parallels Agapius’ chronicle, from creation to the eighth century, is much longer and it frequently quotes entire sources verbatim. This suggests that Agapius’ Testimonium (the Arabic) was also a paraphrase rather than a verbatim quotation of its original Syriac source.
It has been observed that material in Michael’s account of the first century was dependent on a source that had quoted excerpts of Josephus from the Syriac Historia Ecclesiastica rather than translate them directly from Josephus’ works.
It is much more probable that these distinctive common elements simply reflect the nature of the literal translation of the Testimonium that was taken from the Syriac Historia Ecclesiastica by the common source that both Agapius and Michael followed, the former loosely and the latter literally. The most significant common elements are that both Agapius and Michael qualify the Testimonium’s statement about Jesus being the Messiah, and that both make a more explicit reference to Jesus’ death than the textus receptus Testimonium. (Current copy found in both Josephus MSS and MSS of the Greek Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius).
Whealey argues that Agapius’ Testimonium is a loose paraphrase of the Testimonium from the Syriac Historia Ecclesiastica while Michael’s Testimonium is a literal rendition.
Both the Agabius and Michael the Syrians versions both stem from Eusebius original version (his original copy which we don’t have now)! This we know because the common source Jacob of Edessa had used the Syriac translation of Eusebius. Michael the Syrians is very close to the Syriac Ecclesiastical History.
So to sum up, Eusebius added the phrase “he was thought to be the Christ” and also the term “Christians” to the middle redaction and possibly a few creeds. But Eusebius had originally opened the TF with, “There arose about this time a certain man”- this variant is witnessed by a Syriac translation of Eusebius, the physical copy of which is 6th century four centuries earlier than the physical Greek manuscripts of Eusebius (10th century). This shows later scribes added “Jesus” in place of “certain man.”
Michael the Syrians version which is more “primitive” than this Textus Receptus is close to this middle redaction of the TF, ie it is close to what Eusebius wrote. This is known as Michael the Syrians version actually originally came from a Syrian version of Ecclastica Historia. This was the book by Eusebius, therefore this version came from an Eusebian version that Eusebius originally wrote. This original Eusebius version is a version we no longer have but is probably accurately represented by Michael the Syrians version.
In a response to Ken Olson, Whealey was under the impression that the original TF is only minimally different from the textus receptus.[5] T. C. Schmidt also tries to keep the TF intact but really both Schmidt and Whealey really only get the TF back to what Eusebius wrote- what David Allen terms as the middle redaction. As we have shown the variant ‘certain man’ was in the place where the name ‘Jesus’ was in the TF that Eusebius reproduced before later scribes changed this- shows us that Eusebius used an earlier form of the TF circulating at this time. Ironically it was from Whealey’s own brilliant scholarship that this minimally changed version was proved to be from the hand of Eusebius! In other words this is the middle redaction by Eusebius and the textus receptus is actually a later redaction (redacted after Eusebius). How she proved this (without realizing it!) was by showing more primitive recensions of the textus receptus that came from the Syriac Historia Ecclesiastica stemming from the hand of Eusebius.[6] So her argument of minimal change shows the more primitive version of the TF actually written by Eusebius. As Eusebius would never have written ‘certain man’ if he made up the passage from scratch – shows us that Eusebius used an earlier form of the TF circulating at that time. What Whealey does not seem to realize is the version of the TF that she is arguing against Olson originally came from the hand of Eusebius! I have showed in my paper that we actually have three redactions of the TF. “We can see three layers of redaction at play here, firstly from the original the hand of Josephus as per Paget’s arguments and the variant “certain man” from the Syriac translation of Eusebius actually is the smoking gun and proves an earlier form of the TF. Secondly Eusebius: from Olson’s scholarship only support Eusebian tampering, not a creatio ex nihilo. Thirdly, scribes who changed the TF after Eusebius’ tampering. Whealey shows more primitive recensions than the textus receptus – both the Arabic and Michael the Syrian that that used a sourc (Theophilus of Edessa (Whealey) or Jacob of Edessa (Schmidt) that had in turn used the Syriac Historia Ecclesiastica, so these witnesses show us what Eusebius originally wrote. This is the middle redaction.
We have a very early variant that has ‘certain man’ in the place of ‘Jesus’ for its recension of the TF.[7] This variant comes from one of the manuscripts of the Syriac Historia Ecclesiastica, this manuscript is MS British Library Add. 14,639. This variant is the harder reading making it more likely that it was the original. This proves ‘certain man’ was originally in Eusebius’s recension as the Syriac is a translation of Eusebius’s book Church History. As Eusebius would never have written ‘certain man’ if he was responsible for making up the TF from scratch, this variant proves Eusebius copied that phrase from his own source. That source was an earlier form of the TF that was circulating at that time.
As there is a variant of ‘certain man’ in place of ‘Jesus’ in one of these Syriac manuscripts shows us that ‘certain man’ was in this middle redaction.
Michael the Syrians recension is very important for my reconstruction because it at least gets us back to what Eusebius originally wrote.
Here is Michael the Syrians rendition:
The writer Josephus also says in his work on the institutions of the Jews: In these times there was a wise man named Jesus, if it is fitting for us to call him a man. For he was a worker of glorious deeds and a teacher of truth. Many from among the Jews and the nations became his disciples. He was thought to be the Messiah [or Perhaps he was the Messiah] . But not according to the testimony of the principal [men] of [our] nation. Because of this, Pilate condemned him to the cross, and he died. For those who had loved him did not cease to love him. He appeared to them alive after three days. For the prophets of God had spoken with regard to him of such marvellous things [as these]. And the people of the Christians, named after him, has not disappeared till [this] day.
This would be close to what Eusebius wrote except for a few translation issues, instead of nations, Eusebius would have written Greeks, “Both Michael and the Syriac Historia Ecclesiastica use ‘nations’ to translate the Greek Testimonium’s, tou Hellēnikou. This middle redaction by Eusebius showing Eusebius added ‘he was thought to be the Christ” and “Christians”. Feldman writes, ‘The passage refers to Christianon apo toude (‘the tribe of the Christians’) but it is unlikely that Josephus referred to the Christians as a new nation, distinct from Jews and gentiles. The word “Christians” is found nowhere else in the works of Josephus.[8] Another phrase eis eti te nyn (‘still to this day’) is never found in Josephus except in the TF. It is a Eusebian phrase, Josephus usually wrote— eti kai nyn (‘until now’)[9]. Whealey notes an earlier reading of that phrase, in “[the] two oldest manuscripts containing Book XVIII of Antiquities, A and W, read eis te nyn instead of eis eti te nyn. Whealey finds more indirect evidence that this was more original to the TF[10]. So Whealey concludes “While eis eti te nyn is indeed more typical of Eusebius than Josephus, it is far from clear that eis eti te nyn was the original reading of the Testimonium as there is also good evidence for eis te nyn [11].” Of course having an earlier form of the phrase eis eti te nyn exposes a pre Eusebian layer. As noted by Whealey and Paget, Josephus probably used the phrase “until now”, where Eusebius had changed this to his own idiosyncratic phrase “still to this day.”[12]
As discussed above a Syriac manuscript that copied out of Eusebius had the variant ‘certain man’. (MS British Library Add. 14,639). Therefore ‘certain man’ instead of ‘Jesus’ was in Eusebius’ copy.
One more witness I will discuss for this middle redaction- Jerome’s. Jerome’s recension had ‘he was believed to be the Christ’ which shows it is earlier than the textus receptus TF. Jerome’s recension was known to have used Eusebius’s version as Jerome literally copied it from the Historia ecclesiastica. Jerome let’s us know that it was Eusebius’ History (H.E.) that he copied it from as he says himself: “that Eusebius Pamphilus in the ten books of his Church History has been of the utmost assistance” (De Viris Illustribus 13). Interestingly, in two manuscripts of Rufinus’s translation of Eusebius’s Historia ecclesiastica, the same phrase is used.[13] Pollard observed, ‘the Latin manuscripts are generally much earlier than the surviving copies of the Greek original, meaning that we need to know the Latin before we can restore Josephus’ Greek.’[14] In Jerome’s Latin recension it says “he was believed to be the Christ” which shows it is earlier than the textus receptus found in Josephus Antiquities. Jerome’s recension was known to have used Eusebius’ version as Jerome literally copied it from Eusebius’ History (H.E.). Interestingly in two manuscripts of Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius’s H.E., the same phrase is used. “By far the most interesting variant in the texts we are discussing is the reading et credebatur esse Christus (“he was believed to be the Christ”) for Christus hic erat (“he was the Christ) which is found in two manuscripts of Rufinus currently in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek: Clm 6383 from the late eighth century and Clm 6381 from the early ninth century.”[15]
The SYRIAC TRANSLATION OF EUSEBIUS: MS British Library Add. 14,639
While the Slavonic is a very late witness, the Syriac translation of Eusebius is the earliest we have. This makes the Syriac translation the earliest witness of this particular variant of a ‘certain man’ very valuable and almost a certainty that ‘certain man’ was the original reading instead of the name Jesus that later scribes added to Eusebius’ manuscripts. The Syriac translations happen to be the oldest manuscripts we have that contain the TF. One of the earliest of which is in the National Library of Russia, Codex Syriac 1 which dates to 462 CE. Therefore we have a fifth century manuscript of the Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History in Syriac, and and is the oldest physical manuscript that contains the Testimonium Flavianum. Although Eusebius wrote Ecclesiastical History circa 313 CE and his Theophanycirca 325/ 6 CE, our physical manuscripts are actually late. (Our earliest of Eusebius Greek manuscripts are in the 10th century and are tampered with).
The physical Syriac manuscript of Ecclesiastical History that contains the variant ‘certain man’ is from the 6thcentury, the manuscript is MS British Library Add. 14,639. So we have the Syriac that actually witnesses earlier phrases that were originally written by Eusebius. According to David Allen, Eusebius original version is known as the middle redaction of the Testimonium Flavianum.[16] The TF was tampered before, by and after Eusebius, all can be seen from textual variants.
3. PRE-EUSEBIAN
The pre-Eusebian first redaction is shown from the following variants – Origen, the Slavonic and De Excidio. In one of my papers I have tracked at least three redactional layers in the TF.[17] These layers can be seen more easily from the Latin manuscripts. In the textus receptus (“received text” of Antiquities) we have the phrase “He was the Christ”. These variants are missing the example phrase taken in the final redaction – “he was the Christ” and the middle redaction – “he was thought to be the Christ”.
Origin, Contra Celsum 1.47
As noted by Zvi Baras, Origen contradicts what Eusebius wrote into the TF, [“he was believed or thought to be the Christ”] which shows, “a clear contradiction cannot be pushed aside; one is therefore bound to conclude that the text of the Testimonium was tampered with—a conclusion corroborated also by modern scholarship.[18] Christopher Hansen using Olson’s argument, has questioned this argument, “This is, of course, a faulty argument for it would be easily surmised by any Christian that a Jewish author like Josephus would not consider Jesus the Messiah.”[19] Ironically this argument instigated by Olson and used by Hansen actually turns out to be faulty. Olson imports the argument that Origen wanted to find a non Christian to support his argument, therefore he emphasised that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the messiah for this effect. It was common knowledge that Josephus was non Christian so there is no need for Origen to do this. More than likely what happened is that Origen digressed onto the TF, where his version did not have the statement “he was the messiah.” It becomes more likely that Origen digressed onto the TF when we take the next passage in Contra Celsuminto play:
‘For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Christ’ (Cels. 1.48). In Antiquities it does not connect the Baptist movement with the Jesus movement. Also in Antiquities, the execution of John (beheading) is different from the execution of Jesus (crucifixion). Therefore, these two passages taken together (Cels. 1.47, 48) show that Origen used Antiquities in his fights with Celsus.[20]
In his digression Origen milks the TF for what it’s got stating since they “put to death Christ, who was a prophet,” and then complains “he ought to say that” these things happened “because they killed the prophet Christ.” He says “although against his will” (καὶ ὥσπερ ἄκων) that these things happened because of James. Giuseppe Ferri in Early Christian Writings has an interesting discussion on that phrase. [*]. That Origen is using the TF is actually backed up when we realise that Pseudo-Hegesippis also used a similar TF that was also missing the phrase “he was the Christ.” I will discuss this below but first let us examine Olson’s argument in detail. In order to make his argument Olson uses Cels. 6.41 to equate this with the statement “although not believing in Jesus as the christ” with “Moiragenes … , who is not a Christian, but a philosopher.”[21]
Let us examine this passage in detail
“Origen is trying to argue against the following accusation by Celsus:
having become acquainted with one Dionysius, an Egyptian musician, the latter told him [Celsus], with respect to magic arts, that it was only over the uneducated and men of corrupt morals that they had any power, while on philosophers they were unable to produce any effect, because they were careful to observe a healthy manner of life. (Cels. 6.41)
Origen answers with the following:
that any one who chooses to inquire whether philosophers were ever led captive by it [i. e. Magic] or not, can read what has been written by Moiragenes regarding the memoirs of the magician and philosopher Apollonius of Tyana, in which this individual, who is not a Christian, but a philosopher, asserts that some philosophers of no mean note were won over by the magic power possessed by Apollonius, and resorted to him as a sorcerer; and among these, I think, he especially mentioned Euphrates and a certain Epicurean. (Cels. 6.41)
There is no such argument in Cels. 1.47 to argue against like we have in Cels. 6.41, on why Origen should bring up the phrase “not believing in Jesus as the Christ.” That is the imported interpretation of Olson. Origen has to state that Moiragenes is not a Christian to counteract the accusation of Celsus and not sound like a Christian apologist showing Celsus was wrong. This is not what’s going on in Cels. 1.47. And what’s going on in Cels. 6.41 is not what is going on in the Commentary on Mattheweither. This is why Feldman noted the following, “More over, it makes no sense for Origen to express wonder (Commentary on Matthew 10:17) that Josephus did not admit Jesus to be the messiah if Josephus did not even mention him.”[22]
Contra Celsum 1.47 passage:
I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptised Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless — being, although against his will, not far from the truth— that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ), — the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.
Pseudo-Hegesippus, De excidio urbis Hierosolymitanae 2.12 [“On the ruin of the city of Jerusalem”]:
The most interesting of the Latin variants is the De excidio, written by Pseudo-Hegesippus. This Christianised Latin adaptation of Josephus’ War is independent of Eusebius. As Paget states:
“The importance of this reference lies in the fact that Pseudo-Hegesippus writes independently of Eusebius. This is made clear by the fact that he refers to Josephus’ account of John the Baptist after the TF, following the Josephan order and not the Eusebian order as we find it in HE, and at an earlier point in the same book (2.4) [cf Ant.18.3.4] refers to the Paulina incident which Eusebius never mentions.”[23]
De excidio was created out of the Greek War in c. 370 CE, but it is known that this author had direct access to Antiquities, not only from Paget’s points but also from the report of pestilence which followed Herod’s execution of his wife Mariamne (1.38; cf. Ant. 15.7, 9). This paraphrase does not blame Pilate for crucifying Jesus (which could be explained by the general trend of Pseudo-Hegesippus taking the blame off the Romans and placing it onto the Jews) nor does it state that Jesus was the Messiah. ‘It is not easy to see why he should have omitted any reference to Jesus as the Messiah if it was in his version of the received text. After all, he appears to exaggerate the significance of the TF, most blatantly in his claim that even the leaders of the synagogue acknowledged Jesus to be God.’[24] If the statement ‘he was the Christ’ was in Pseudo-Hegesippus’s received text he would have used that exact phrase. Jerome’s recension had ‘he was believed to be the Christ’ which shows it is earlier than the TF. Jerome’s recension was known to have used Eusebius’s version as Jerome literally copied it from the Historia ecclesiastica. De Excidio was created out of the Greek Jewish War in circa 370, but it is known that this author had direct access to Antiquities, not only from Paget’s points but also the report of pestilence which followed Herod’s execution of his wife Mariamne (1.38; cf Ant. 15.7,9). This paraphrase does not mention that Jesus was the messiah. “It is not easy to see why he should have omitted any reference to Jesus as the Messiah if it was in his version of the received text. After all, he appears to exaggerate the significance of the TF, most blatantly in his claim that even the leaders of the synagogue acknowledged Jesus to be God.”[25] If the statement “he was the Christ” was in Ps-Hegissipius’ received text he would have used that exact phrase.
The importance of the De Excidio usage of the TF is that his received text from Antiquities was prior to Eusebian tampering. As Nussbaum states:
In De excidio Hierosolymitano 2:12, Pseudo-Hegesippus paraphrases the TF, omitting the statement that Jesus was the Christ. He then vehemently criticises Josephus that he testified of Jesus, but did not believe in him as the Christ. It can be concluded that Pseudo-Hegesippus must have read a kind of TF, otherwise he would not have screamed that Josephus did not believe despite his report on Jesus. The situation is reminiscent of Origen writings – he wrote that Josephus did not believe in the messiahship of Jesus.[26]
To sum up Jerome’s recension has “he was believed to be Christ” which is what Eusebius wrote into the TF. The other Latin translation De Excidio is a paraphrase but what makes this interesting is that he took from a copy of Antiquities before Eusebius tampered with it. It means that one Latin translation of Jerome is before the textus receptus but after Eusebius. The other Latin translation of Ps-Hegesippus is before both the textus receptus and before Eusebius tampering.
Pseudo-Hegisippus recension
They indeed paid the punishments of their crimes, who after they had crucified Jesus the judge of divine matters, afterwards even persecuted his disciples. However a great part of the Jews, and very many of the gentiles believed in him, since they were attracted by his moral precepts, by works beyond human capability flowing forth. For whom not even his death put an end to their faith and gratitude, on the contrary it increased their devotion. And so they brought in murderous bands and conducted the originator of life to Pilatus to be killed, they began to press the reluctant judge. In which however Pilatus is not absolved, but the madness of the Jews is piled up, because he was not obliged to judge, whom not at all guilty he had arrested, nor to double the sacrilege to this murder, that by those he should be killed who had offered himself to redeem and heal them. About which the Jews themselves bear witness, Josephus a writer of histories saying, that there was in that time a wise man, if it is proper however, he said, to call a man the creator of marvelous works, who appeared living to his disciples after three days of his death in accordance with the writings of the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him from which began the community of Christians and penetrated into every tribe of men nor has any nation of the Roman world remained, which was left without worship of him. If the Jews don’t believe us, they should believe their own people. Josephus said this, whom they themselves think very great, but it is so that he was in his own self who spoke the truth otherwise in mind, so that he did not believe his own words. But he spoke because of loyalty to history, because he thought it a sin to deceive, he did not believe because of stubbornness of heart and the intention of treachery. He does not however prejudge the truth because he did not believe but he added more to his testimony, because although disbelieving and unwilling he did not refuse.
Five points need to be stressed with this variant of the Testimonium Flavianum.
1. The arguments here do not accept Eusebius as the initial person to have tampered the TF. Tampering of the TF has happened before and after Eusebius.
2. The passage received by both Eusebius and Pseudo Hegesippus was already tampered with.
3. In examining the TF quote contained in the Excidio, the points of agreement with Eusebius show that both used a tampered passage. (See the bold print in the quote above).
4. How we know Pseudo Hegesippus did not use Eusebius is that he would have used the Eusebius phrase that Eusebius himself inserted – “He was believed to be Christ” (as evidenced by Jerome). The Excidio did not use either phrase- “he was the Christ” or “he was thought to be the Christ”
5. We know the TF was also tampered after Eusebius as the textus receptus has “He was the Christ” yet Whealeys scholarship shows the earlier phrase “he thought to be the Christ” which came from Michael the Syrian which in turn derived from Eusebius. This is similar enough to he was “thought to be the Christ”.
We can tell that Ps-Hegesippus did not use Eusebius. His Christianised document had “leaders of the synagogue confessed him to be god” and would not have dropped the phrase “he was the Christ”, even a paraphrase would not drop that phrase.
A better explanation is that an already tampered TF was received by both Ps-Hegesippus and Eusebius. This is seen from the points of contact, an example I give below. Realistically Ps-Hegesippus paraphrase has “the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him.”
The Slavonic
Slavonic recension is also very important as it actually preserves some parts of the TF that were pre-Eusebian. The Slavonic working off a very early Greek exemplar has preserved some fascinating points despite the major Christian gloss.
Before the thirteenth century, in Constantinople or its environs, an earlier form of the TF was used by the Slavonic. (This recension of the TF came from an earlier Greek examplar and was used as a source for the manuscripts of the Slavonic we have now).
This is now known as the ‘Slavonic Josephus.’ The material corresponding to the beginning of the Testimonium was inserted between the third and fourth paragraphs of the ninth chapter of Book 2 of War. “… it is certainly a noteworthy fact that Josephus’ silence about Jesus in the Jewish War was felt to be a defect at quite an early period, with the result that attempts were made to remedy this state of affairs by a bold insertion of the Testimonium into the War.”[27]
All scholars recognize that the Slavonic has been destroyed with Christian gloss as explained very well by Van Voorst:
“The Slavonic Josephus reflects the growing Christian tendency to excuse Pontius Pilate for Jesus’ death and to blame the Jews, even to the point of saying that the Jews themselves crucified Jesus. To make this point, the Slavonic version has to ignore Josephus’s original statement that Pilate crucified him….The Slavonic Testimonium uses the New Testament extensively at several points to develop its story.”[28]
But then Van Voorst goes on to say that the Slavonic does “not provide an authentic textual alternative to the main Testimonium Flavianum in the Jewish Antiquities,”[29] as he points out all the ridiculous claims, yet the Slavonic agrees with a very early variant found in a Syriac translation of Eusebius- that variant is ‘certain man.’ As bloated as the Slavonic is it preserves that fact that Jesus was not named in the original TF, and this is within keeping of how Josephus described other Sign Prophets and messianic figures. Josephus hardly knew their names and only knew them as troublemakers.
So Christians were trying to bolster up the TF, but Van Voorst fails to explain why the Slavonic dropped the name “Jesus” and title “Christ” in the exact passage they were quoting from. Of course it is easier to explain if the Slavonic came from an early Greek exemplar. It would explain it perfectly if it came from an exemplar that existed before scribes tampered with Eusebius 10th century Greek manuscripts. There is evidence it came from an early Greek exemplar as a number of Greek words were taken over literally by the Russian.[23] For example: igemon, metropolja, archierei, skinopigja, katapetasma, aramatji and others just shows that the Slavonic is working off an early Greek exemplar. The variant ‘certain man’ matches a very early Syriac translation of Eusebius.[30]
The most telling part of Slavonic is the fact that it says so much about Jesus except his name. It refers to him as “there appeared a certain man” (Slavonic War 2.9.3/4). This suggests that this particular line of transmission has preserved the notion that Jesus was not named in the original TF. There is also a noticeable absence of the phrase “he was the Christ” or the downgraded version is also absent “he was thought to be the Christ”. The opening line is in agreement with one of the earliest variants we have. The earliest Greek manuscripts of Eusebius are 10th century, so many centuries after the Syriac manuscripts. The harder reading of “certain man” in place of “Jesus” as witnessed in the Syriac manuscripts thus shows the name Jesus was added later to the Greek manuscripts.
If Christians were trying to bolster up the TF, as Van Voorst claims, he fails to explain why they dropped his name Jesus and title Christ.[31] Something similar has happened to the Baptist passage:
The Baptist passage in the Slavonic merely opens with – “And at that time a certain man” … [Slavonic II.VII.2(b)].[32] Again, dropping the name John from a source text used by the Slavonic does not make sense unless the source was from a more primitive version of Antiquities that did not have the Baptist named in the exact passage and was used for the insertion.[33]
Getting back to Jesus not being named in the Slavonic Testimonium “Meschersky (Meščerskij) is at a loss of why the Slavonic dropped Jesus’ name in the exact TF passage and merely asserts unconvincingly that it was to make it less Christian, unlikely given how Christian the passage already is.”[34]
In the following sentence contained in the Slavonic TF could have come from an original TF, “And many souls were roused, thinking that thereby the Jewish tribes could free themselves from Roman hands.” The word tribe is also in the last sentence of the TF. That line plus the fact Jesus was not named nor called Christ, are the parts that the Slavonic has preserved from the original TF.
As damaged as the Slavonic is with Christian gloss, it is on a different transmission line than the Arabic and Michael the Syrian recension. Therefore it is valuable as it came from a pre Eusebian Greek exemplar.
The Slavonic recension
At that time there appeared a certain man, if it is meet to call him a man. His nature and form was human, but the appearance of him more than (that) of a human (being): yet his works (were) divine. He wrought miracles wonderful and strong. Wherefore it is impossible for me to call him a human (being, simply). But on the other hand, if I look at (his) characteristic (human) nature, I will not call him an angel. And all, whatsoever he wrought through an invisible power, he wrought by a word and command. Some said of him, “our first lawgiver is risen from the dead, and hath evidenced this by many cures and prodigies.” But the others thought he was (a man) sent from God. Now in many things he opposed the Law and kept not the Sabbath according to the custom of (our) forefathers. Yet again, he did nothing shameful nor underhand. And many of the multitude followed after him and hearkened to his teaching. And many souls were roused, thinking that thereby the Jewish tribes could free themselves from Roman hands. But it was his custom rather to abide without the city on the Mount of Olives. There also he granted cures to the people. And there gathered to him of helpers 150, but of the crowd a multitude. But when they saw his power, that he accomplished by a word whatsoever he would, and when they had made known to him their will, that he should enter the city and cut down the Roman troops and Pilate, and rule over them, he heeded it not. And when thereafter news of it was brought to the Jewish leaders, they assembled together with the high priest and said, “We are powerless and (too) weak to resist the Romans. Since however the bow is bent, we will go and communicate to .Pilate what we have heard, and we shall be free from trouble, in order that he may not hear (it) from others and we be robbed of(our) goods and ourselves slaughtered and (our) children dispersed.” And they went and reported (it) to Pilate. And he sent and had many of the multitude slain. And he had that wonder-worker brought up, and after he had held an inquiry concerning him, he pronounced (this) judgment: “He is (a benefactor, but not) a malefactor (nor) a rebel (nor) covetous of king(ship).” And he let him go, for he had healed his dying wife. And after he had gone to his wonted place, he did his wonted works. And when more people again gathered round him, he glorified himself by his action(s) more than all. The scribes (therefore) being stung with envy gave Pilate thirty talents to kill him. And he took (it) and gave them liberty to car out their will (themselves). And they took him and crucified him contrary to the law of (their) fathers.
I have noted that Hansen trying to offer a reason for the Slavonic dropping Jesus due to literary reasons is moot as there is no literary reason to drop it.[35] In a previous blog Hansen had suggested it was to make the passage less Christian which was even a more ridiculous claim consider how Christianized the passage was. The Slavonic naming Jesus elsewhere also misses the point- it is missing in the exact passage, which means it was missing in the source used by the chronographer. Hansen goes on to say:
“The first [argument made by Dave Allen] is mitigated by the fact that while the Separated Edition (i.e., the later redaction of the Church Slavic War) omits Jesus’ name, the older editions of the Church Slavic edition retain it (Leeming and Leeming 2003, 261 note for 174b).”[36]
“On inspection of these manuscripts and the footnote of Leeming and Leeming’s book for 174b, it shall be noted that Jesus was not named in the exact passage- it clearly says that it was only in the heading before the passage that the following was written: “Josephus writes about Christ.” The reason the chronographer had to put in that heading before the passage is that the name “Jesus” was missing from the passage!”[37]
John Curran who examined the Latin texts of the TF, has shown this more primitive version of the TF went east.[38] I see the more primative version of the TF made its way east and influenced the insertions of the Slavonic. There are numerous sources to track especially in regard to the additions inserted and added to Josephus’ War book by the Russian chronographer in creating the Slavonic. Apart from Byzantium historians Hamartolus and Malalas, I find a different transmission line going east which would have also influenced those insertions. The reason for this is that it is difficult to explain why the Slavonic dropped the name Jesus and title Christ if this passage did not derive from an earlier form of the TF as witnessed by the textus receptus.
It is obvious “he was the Christ” was not in the original TF, this is played out by De Excidio, the Slavonic and Contra Cels.1.47. […] The Slavonic probably preserved this line from the original TF: “Many were roused, thinking that thereby the tribe could free themselves from Roman hands.”[39] That line makes Jesus sound like the rest of the Sign Prophets as Dave Allen has shown that Jesus was just one in a series of Sign Prophets. “Jesus, like other Sign Prophets, expected a cataclysmic event to unfold. Many Sign Prophets expected an eschatological divine intervention, and the earliest strata of the gospels reflect this.”[40]
As noted above, the Slavonic Baptist passage preserves the fact John was not named. It also provides some other interesting historical nuggets. One change highlighted by Rothschild is agrios:
“Slavonic Josephus refers to John as agrios(“a wild man.”) Eusebius records “good man.” The difference between Slavonic Josephus and Eusebius elicits the question of whether Eusebius improved John’s image with a switch from ágrios to agathos.”[41]
Although she says it is plausible that “good man” fits with Josephus, I think that “wild man” is much more fitting a description by Josephus for a figure executed because of the threat of sedition (Ant. 18.118). We also have evidence of tampering with the Baptism suggesting an earlier form of the Baptist passage:
baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness (Ant. 18.117).
One of the first witnesses of the Baptist passage did not deny Baptism was for washing away sins like the extant passage, it argues for the existence of John the Baptist, baptising for the remission of sins:
For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. (Origen, Contra Celsum, 1.47)
Rufinus Latin translation of Eusebius History that quoted the Baptist passage seems to agree to this earlier version, perhaps preserving what Eusebius had originally written using Josephus’ Baptist passage:
For then indeed baptism would be acceptable, if it would be taken up not only for washing away misdeeds, but also would be observed for the purpose of purity of the body and indeed for the purpose of righteousness and purification of the soul, and would be considered as a sign of all virtues equally and a certain faithful safeguard. (Literal Translation of LAJ 18.116-119 with Variants from Rufinus)[42]
The Slavonic has an even simpler version-
he did nothing else for them, except to immerse them in Jordan’s stream and dismiss them, bidding them to refrain from their wicked deeds.” [SlavonicII.VII.2(c)][43]
One more piece that we may extract about the TF from the Slavonic is the denial that Jesus was “desirous of Kingship.” The Slavonic denied Jesus was desirous of Kingship thus perhaps preserving the earliest form of the phrase “he was the Christ.” We have other examples within Josephus writings where he reported other messianic figures and Sign Prophets were declared a King. Judas son of Ezekiel had ‘ambitious desire of the royal dignity’ (Ant. 17.272). Simon of Peraea, a slave of Herod the Great ‘dared to put a crown on his head’ (Ant. 17.273) and Athronges the shepherd ‘dared to aspire to be king’ (Ant. 17.278). They were declared King (βασιλεὺς) at a drop of a hat. The Egyptian prophet saw himself as a ‘tyrant’ (War 2.262). The ‘Egyptian’ may have called himself “king Messiah”, because Josephus uses the Greek verb τυραννεῖν (to be sole ruler). So to see the original TF stating that Jesus was “desirous of Kingship,” is in line with Josephus writings.
This blog has shown that the Slavonic not only proves that there were earlier pre-Eusebian versions of both the TF and an earlier version of the extant Baptist passage, but that the Slavonic becomes quiet useful in helping to reconstruct these earlier versions. The Slavonic also provides evidence that a different transmission line of the TF influenced the passage on Jesus in Josephus. This is huge as it makes the “creatio ex nihilo by Eusebius hypothesis” of the TF unlikely
Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7
There is another very important variant found in one of the manuscripts:
Codex A of Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7
This reading offers the pronoun τις after Ίησούς referring to “a certain Jesus.” This is the same reading as the Slavonic. “The Slavonic Josephus offers a trace of the same pronoun: the phrase muzi nekij retroverted into Greek would correspond to ἀνήρ τις” [certain man][44]
We have plenty of manuscript evidence that tis (certain) was original to tte TF:
It is little wonder then that Christian scribes omitted the word from all Greek manuscripts of Josephus’ Antiquities, and that the only reason we are aware of its existence is because it is preserved by Eusebius via manuscript Codex A of the Ecclesiastical History [fn. 34 MS Paris Grec 1430 (tenth century) f. 26b line 3. Further pictures may be found at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722779g/f32.item.zoom.%5D and in its ancient Syriac ( ܚܕ ) [fn. 35 MS British Library Add. 14639 (sixth century) f. 14b left col, line 29; MS Russian National Library Siriyskaya novaya seria 1 #24 (462 ce) f. 16a right col, line 26; BL.Add.12154, f. 151r line 20 (eighth/ninth century) and Armenian (մի) translations. [fn. 36 MS HMML 7640 (Codex Mechitaristarum Vindobonensis 49 (70C)) f. 15a line 22.] Michael the Syrian’s version of the TF was derived from Jacob of Edessa (c.708 ce), also preserves ‘a certain wise man, whose name was Jesus’ ( ܓܒܪܐ ܚܕ ܚܟܝܡܐ ܕܫܡܗ ܝܫܘܥ ) [fn.37 Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 5.10 [91] found in MS Edessa-Aleppo Codex 50r left col, line 17.] And according to Bermejo-Rubio, the Slavonic recension of Josephus’ work contains vestiges of this word with the phrase muži nĕkij, which may be ‘retroverted into Greek’ as ἀνήρ τις. [fn.38 Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, p.358.][45]
As tis is attested in multiple manuscripts (Syriac manuscripts, Armenian manuscripts, Church Slavonic manuscripts, and a Greek manuscript – codex A of EH 1.11.7) makes this a certainty that this was the original reading.This expression argues against the TF being made up of whole cloth as the term would only be used for somebody unimportant. The phrase ‘τις’ was also used for Judas the Galilean, War 2.118). The use of ‘certain’ suggests a figure not well known. The qualification of ‘certain’ would only be omitted if the figure was well known. When Eusebius was adding the name Jesus to “certain man” contained in the original TF, he had “certain Jesus” originally written, the tis was dropped by later scribes. That would explain this variant better than a scribal error. The same happened with “he was the Christ”- Eusebius originally wrote “he was thought to be the Christ” and this was changed after Eusebius to “he was the Christ”.
This variant plus the Slavonic suggests that the particular line of transmission the Slavonic came from has preserved the notion that Jesus was not named in the original TF. Of course Jesus not being named is not unusual for Josephus: cases such as the ‘Egyptian’ (War 2.261– 263; Ant. 20.169–172) who led a revolt of thousands and he was featured in both Antiquities and War yet Josephus could only call him the ‘Egyptian’. Same goes for the ‘Samaritan’ who was also not named and was described as “A man who made light of mendacity”. In that passage his mob “appeared in arms”! (Ant. 18.85–87).
The beauty about Josephus report of these other Sign Prophets passages in Josephus is that they have not been tampered with. Therefore they are invaluable to see how Josephus would have written about Jesus before the TF was tampered. This phrase ‘τις’ was also used for Judas the Galilean, War 2.118 and Theudas Ant. 20.97. It also makes the original TF very similar to the way Josephus described these other apocalyptic Sign prophet types.
For interest let’s produce the TF used by Eusebius and De Excidio
There arose about this time a certain man, a wise man. A teacher of men who worship him with pleasure. Many of the Judaeans, and also many of the Greek element, he led to himself; he was believed to be a King. And when at the indictment of the first men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to a cross. For those who had loved him did not cease to love him. He appeared to them alive after three days. For the prophets of God had spoken with regard to him of such marvellous things [as these]. And this tribe has until now not disappeared
(This first redaction is an attempted reconstruction of the source for Pseudo-Hegesippus when composing his Excidio and a source for Eusebius, it was what was circulating beforeEusebius’ touch up).[46]
Here is what Josephus originally wrote
There arose about this time a certain man, a sophist and agitator. [some eschatological sign similar to other sign prophets could have been the following:] He stated he was a prophet and promised the Temple would be destroyed and that it would be restored in three days] Many of the Judaeans, and also many of the Galilean element, he led to himself in a tumult; he was desirous of Kingship: Many were roused, thinking that thereby the tribe could free themselves from Roman hands. [Josephus may have mentioned Jesus as a pseudo prophet here but it has been replaced with the Emmaus passage found in Luke] And when at the indictment of the first men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to a cross. Many of his followers, the Galileans and Judaeans were slain. Yet this tribe has until now not disappeared.
Here’s links to the rest of the blogs in the series:
Part 1 The Original Testimonium Flavianum
Part 3 Analysis of the Testimonium Flavianum
Part 4 The Layers of the Testimonium Flavianum
Part 5 Wanna know what Josephus originally wrote about Jesus?
Part 6 Exposing the Pre-Eusebian Strata of the TF
Part 7 Why we know there was a Testimonium Flavianum.
[5] Alice Whealey, “Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum” in Christoph Böttrich and Jens Herzer (eds) Josephus und das Neue Testament, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), pp.115-6.
[7] The physical Syriac manuscript of Ecclesiastical History that contains the variant ‘certain man’ is from the 6th century, the manuscript is MS British Library Add. 14,639; cit. op. Thomas Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, New Evidence for the one Called Christ, (Oxford, 2025), p.47, n.57.
[8] Louis Feldman, “On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum”, in E. Carleback and J. J. Schacter (eds.), On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum Attributed to Josephus: New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations, Library of Judaism 33; Leiden: Brill, 2012), p.25
[14] Richard M. Pollard, ‘The De excidio of “Hegesippus” and the Reception of Josephus in the Early Middle Ages’, Viator46 (2015), pp. 65-100 (72).
[18] Christopher M. E Hansen, “A Response to David Allen’s ‘A Model Reconstruction of What Josephus would have Realistically Written about Jesus”, JGRChJ 19 (2023), pp.94-103; Hansen statement on page 95 is totally moot- ,”This also calls into question other parts [other than Tacitus] of the reconstruction as well, including what justifications Allen has for utilizing specific sources,” As Allen uses variants of the TF that are actual quotations and allusions to the particular copy of the TF that various authors used, it is hard to see any point to Hansen’s question here.
[19] Olson, “Why Origen said Josephus was unbelieving in Jesus as Christ” blog.
[20] Allen, “Model Reconstruction”, p.120.
[*] Giuseppe Ferri, https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=191053#p191053
[21] Olson, “Why Origen said Josephus was unbelieving in Jesus as Christ” blog.
[22] Feldman, Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, p.56.
[25] Paget, “Some Observations”, p.567.
[26] Johannes Nussbaum, ‘Das Testimonium Flavianum: Ein authentischer Text des Josephus’, NovT 52 (2010), pp. 72-82.
[30] The variant ‘certain man’ is found in the Syriac manuscript: MS British Library Add. 14,639, see Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, p.47, n.57; Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts, vol. 3 pp. 1039–40 (catalog #1411).
[31] David Allen, “A Model Reconstruction of what Josephus would have realistically written about Jesus”, JGRChJ 18, 2023, p.126
[32] Henry Leeming and Kate Leeming (eds.), The Slavonic Version of Josephus’s Jewish War, A Synoptic Comparison of the English Translation by H. St. J. Thackeray, with the Critical Edition by N. A. Meščerskij of the Slavonic Version in the Vilna Manuscript translated into English by Henry Leeming and L. Osinkina, Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums und des antigen Judentums und des Urchistentums 46, Boston: Brill 2003, p. 248.
[33] David Allen, Exposing the Pre-Eusebian strata of the Testimonium Flavianum, JHC 20.2 forthcoming 2025, section 4, (not paginated yet).
[34] David Allen, How Josephus really viewed Jesus, Revista Bíblica 85/3-4 (2023b), p. 338; N. A. Meščerskij, “Introduction” in Leeming and Leeming, Slavonic Version, p.19.
[35] David Allen, Exposing the Pre-Eusebian strata of the Testimonium Flavianum, JHC 20.2 forthcoming 2025, section 3, (not paginated yet).
[38] John Curran, “‘To Be or to Be Thought to Be’: The Testimonium Flavianum (Again)’, NovT 59 (2017), pp.71-94.
[39] David Allen, “A Propsal, Three Redactionsl layer model for the Testimonium Flavianum, Revista Bíblica 85/1-2 (2023), p. 227.
[41] Clare K.Rothchild, “Echoes of a Whisper: The Uncertain Authenticity of Josephus’ Witness to John the Baptist”, in D. Hellhom et al. (eds), Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (3 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), I, p.262.
[42] Levenson and Martin, “The Latin Translations of Josephus, p.37.
[44] Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando, Was the Hypothetical Vortage of the Testimonium Flavianum a “Neutral” Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on Antiquitates Judaicae 18.63-64, Journal for the study of Judaism 45 (2014) p.358; Paget, Some Observations, p.565; Eisler, Robert, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist, (1929), p. 38-41.
[45] Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus,p.68.
[46] Allen, “A Proposal”, p.219.
BACK TO HOMEPAGE
Dave Allens blog 