Passing references of Paul put these epistles in the first century. 

Here are reasons for them not being before the first century, terminus post quem.

– Paul references  Illyricum in Rom. 15.19, a province that was only added to the Empire in 27 BCE. (and was notoriously rebellious until the first few decades of the first century CE.)

– Paul’s journey to “Syria and Cilicia” in Galatians 1:21, Paul mentioning Syria and Cilicia as a single region fits into the first century- Cilicia was often attached to the larger province of Syria for administrative purposes around 1st century CE. (25 BCE to 72 CE). This not only shows the terminus post quem but also determines the terminus ante quem, as this puts the letters before the 2nd century CE.

– Paul describes his congregation as “Philippēsioi” in Philippians 4:15, a Latinism that did not exist until after the Battle of Philippi in 42BCE. [The Triumphars Mark Antony and Octavian’s victory over Brutus and Cassius republican liberation army]. Rome renamed this city- “Colonia Augusta Julia Philippensis” after this. ^[1]

 – In Philippians 1:13 Paul refers to the “praetorian guard”, (praitōriō), more than likely Roman guards, a term started to be used in the imperial period in the Roman Empire. This shows Paul’s letters fit into the first century.

– In Philippians 4:22, “All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household” – this term was used for provincial government centres and imperial civil service outside Rome. This also fits with first century imperial age.

– Paul mentions the Nabataean King Aretas IV (who reigned from 9 BCE – 40 CE) in 2 Cor. 11:32. Douglas Campbell shows Paul’s King Aretus IV incident provides an anchor date for Paul’s epistles in general.^[2] It looks like Paul was ran out of Damascus, but escaped to carry on further missionaries. Richard Carrier shows that Aretas could have briefly held Damascus between 35-37 CE period. ^{[3] (For a forger, this incident about Aretas would be very silly to add to a letter, a forger would only be concerned with theological issues).}

– The authentic Paul also writes in the context of a much less organised and hierarchical church than what we see in later Christianity, including the forged ‘Pastoral epistles’.

– As Paul’s genuine letters are messy, angry and lacking context, show they are earlier than the well written pseudo Pauline’s.

– That Paul was considered authoritative enough to have later works written in his name could itself be an argument for an early date too.

– The christology is earlier too! The genuine epistles also describe the coming apocalypse as something that will happen soon. This is both something that was a focus of the earliest Christian texts but later de-emphasised (for obvious reasons), this indicates that Paul was writing relatively close to Jesus’ lifetime, since he views Jesus’ resurrection as the “first fruits” of the coming apocalypse (1 Cor. 15:20). It is also the difference between 1 Thess. and the pseudo letter 2 Thess, which used 1 Thess. as a framework while changing the apocalyptic christology as something that would happen later. The author of 2nd Thess., counsels patience in the wait for “the day of the Lord”. [some interesting facts on Thessalonians- here we have evidence of Paul’s letters were mashed together- two thanksgivings in 1 Thess shows two of *paul’s letters * were mashed together. 2 Thess. wanted to change to a delayed parousia. We know it used 1 Thess. because it also had two thanksgivings. The forger needed 1 Thess as a framework but gave away the game by going against convention and adding the two thanksgivings!]

Steve Mason shows why it is actual letters we are dealing with because they are like one sided conversations- we are dealing with actual letters. A forgery would included a context so that we could understand what they are arguing about. As the letters stand we have to try and mirror read them to try understand them. Try this blog to show you what I mean by mirror reading:

The Opponents of Paul as seen through Mirror Reading

– Robyn Faith Walsh shows Paul drawing off of 1st century philosophical thought, middle platonism and that the letters actually got right in there with first century thought. She acknowledges that the actual physical manuscripts only go back to the second century or later but that is normal in the era of transmission, the earliest copies would never go back to actual autographs. Robin Walsh shows that Paul represents first century philosophical perspective, Paul combines platonic ideas on dualities or death of the soul. The letters just fit 1^st century rather than 2^nd. ^[4]

The death of the soul in Romans 7 with stoic physics compares with how Paul thinks the spirit works. Paul is at the very crossroad when middle platonism was starting to give away to Stoicism as it did in the first century. ^[5]

– Jörg Frey shows Paul using first century Jewish concepts as attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls and not attested in the Torah: The term “works of the law” (ἔργα νόμου: Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5:10; Rom 3:20, 28) …  can be found in the Qumran library. In 1QS V 21, “his works in the law מעשי התורה ) is attested; the exact expression is found in 4QMMT (C27 8 ) works of the Torah). The phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is used in the Qumran texts: (צדקת) 1QS X 25; XI 12) and ( צדק אל ) 1QM IV 6). In 1QHa VI 26– 7, there is a parallel to the “revelation of the righteousness of God” (Rom. 1:17) ונגלתה צדקתך and your [God’s] righteousness will be revealed 1:17 before all your creatures.” The Qumran community saw itself as a “temple of humans” (4Q174 = 4QMidrEschat III 6) and “Aaron’s house” (1QS VIII 5; cf. IX 6), in which God’s holiness is present. Both in Qumran (1QS VIII 5; XI 8; cf. Jub. 1:16– 17) and in Paul (1 Cor 3:9–17) the notion of temple and building is associated with the equally broader notion of one “planting” of God (see CD I 9). ^[6]

These were first century concepts and had disappeared by the time of rabbinical literature which claims to have picked up oral traditions going back to Temple destruction.

All these terms fit right in there with first century usage as they do not exist in rabbinical literature either.

– circumcision was a first century debate among the Jews and it is a primary concern among Paul’s genuine letters. The Pseudo Pauline and Pastorials are no longer concerned with it. Later in the pseudo-Pauline letters this debate seems settled as seen from Ephesians here looking back-

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)—12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise,without hope and without God in the world.13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. (Ephesians 2:11-13)

The Pseudo Pauline and Pastorials are no longer concerned with it as the debate was over by the second century.

On top of these datable clues the epistles all assume the temple cult is still standing (1 Cor. 3:16-17) and Jerusalem still populated (Gal 1:18); that Judea is not in a war, so they fit right in with the 50’s.

As a matter of interest Acts understood from Paul’s letters that Paul was active in the 50’s. Acts has Paul preaching in the 50’s where he is accused before Gallio a proconsul of Achaia. The interesting thing is that an inscription was found in Corinth showing Gallio was proconsul between 51/52 CE.

We can see the letters are before 70CE as the Temple is still operating, this determines the terminus ante quem.

Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? (1 Cor. 10:18)

Another mention of the Temple is here:

Do you not know that you are God’s temple (naos) and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? ¹⁷ If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple. (1 Cor. 3:16-17).

This is similar to the sentiment of the DSS: seeing itself as a “temple of humans” (4Q174 = 4QMidrEschat III 6).

And Paul could only be referring to the Jerusalem Temple here as Jorunn Økland put it:

The statement that the spirit of God dwells in this naos (1 Cor. 3:16-17) is the expression of an idea found in the Hebrew Bible, of God’s kavod, Septuagint Greek doxa, ‘glory’ or ‘honour’ (e.g., Exod 40:34–38; 1 Kgs 8:1–11) dwelling in his sanctuary. In other words, ‘dwelling’ and naos together indicate that Paul links the ekklesia to the temple in Jerusalem. Even if a Greek temple was also thought to host a presence of the deity whose image was worshipped there, the link was far more tenuous because, first, the cult statue itself was the focal point, not the building whose function it was to house it; second, the connection was perceived as less intimate since the same deity could be worshipped under different cult epithets in multiple sanctuaries even in a single city; and, third and finally, the deities of Mediterranean polytheistic systems were frequent travellers, worshipped in numerous sanctuaries across many countries.
The God of Israel, by contrast, in the Second Temple period, at least, was thought to dwell in the Jerusalem temple only, although there were different ideas regarding how exactly this dwelling should be understood. ^[7]

Here is more on the Circumcision debate:

There was a general abhoration to the rite of circumcision in the Greco-Roman world and missionaries generally found it easier by saying the rite was not needed for gentiles. Another missionary also similar to Paul, is a merchant named Ananias, who started to convert people to Judaism in conjunction with his work. He started converting the women belonging to the royal court of Adiabene. (Josephus Ant. 20.2.3) King Izates of Adiabene took up the Jewish religion but on advice of his mother who was concerned that his subjects would not tolerate the Jewish custom of circumcision, so he decided to hold off on that bit. Ananias accepted King Izates to follow the Torah save circumcision stating his “worship of God was of a superior nature to circumcision. And added that God would forgive him” (Ant. 20.42). But another Jewish missionary Eleazar told the king that he was “injurious to God himself, [by omitting to be circumcised.]” (Ant. 20.43-44).

Paula Fredriksen noted around the time of Paul that,  “…., pagan interest in Judaism seems to have been the result of freelance, amateur, non-institutionally based efforts by individuals (such as Ananias and Eleazar with the royal house of Adiabene, as related by Josephus) or the side-effect of unstructured contact through diaspora synagogue communities.” ^[8]

Basically the argument over circumcision all had to do with what will happen to the gentiles in the eschaton. Certain passages from Isaiah show that these gentiles (non circumcised) will be destroyed:

“For you will spread out to the right and to the left; your descendants will dispossess nations and settle in their desolate cities.” (Isaiah 54:3)

Yet from the same sources show that the gentiles (non circumcised) will not be destroyed in the eschaton:

“In the last days the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established as the highest of the mountains; …..Many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the temple of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.” The law will go out from Zion,….He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples.They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:2-4)

“On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine— the best of meats and the finest of wines.” (Isaiah 25:6)

These passages say the gentiles will not be destroyed in the eschaton (except the wicked ones). Another passage in Zechariah encouraged Jewish missionaries to go out to gentiles, not necessarily to convert them to full Judaism (i.e. getting circumcised)

“This is what the Lord Almighty says: “In those days ten people from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, ‘Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you.’ (Zechariah 8:23). 

These not fully converted Jews, similar to God-fearers (i.e. people who are not circumcised but love Judaism) are spoken of. We also have gentiles in an eschatological time in these passages:

And Zechariah mentions these gentiles (non circumcised) celebrating booths:

“Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.” (Zecharish 14:16)

Getting back to the passage in Josephus about the two missionaries at the court of Adiabene, both missionaries say that not being circumcised is a bad thing. Ananias said that god will forgive King Izates and that not getting circumcised is acceptable (but it is still a bad thing). Eleazar said this was not acceptable as god will not forgive him. 

So we see in Galatians the argument Paul was having with the Jerusalem council, were the types of arguments Jewish missionaries were having over what to do with the gentiles in eschatological times. Paul, like Ananias thought there was no need for circumcision of the gentiles, in his heated arguments he wrote that he wished ‘the pillars’ would castrate themselves! 

As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! (Gal. 5:12)

The attempted pushback against this dating.

There are a few scholars that suggest a second century or try to explain that we can’t go back further than the second century, so we will just examine their arguments to see if there is any merit to these.

Of late there is a push to put all Christian literature into the second century, Markus Vinzent thinks Marcion wrote his gospel (*Ev) and says the oldest collection of Pauline letters was put together by Marcion (although he does admit that Marcion did not write the letters). By putting Paul’s angriest letter Galatians first helps Marcion accuse the Jews of corrupting Paul’s gospel breaking Torah requirements and circumcision for gentiles. ^[9]

Dr Livesley tried to go so far as to say the letters were a church composition in the second century taking the character of Paul from Acts. ^[10]  This is unlikely for two reasons. Firstly, Acts tries to give Paul a Jewish name -Saul, showing it was uncomfortable with a Roman name. If Paul was a literary character this would not happen, the made up letters would have used the name Saul also. (As a side note there was a famous general Paullus who conquered the Greeks for Rome). Secondly if you wrote the letters from scratch and made up a figure straight out of Acts you would make Paul out to be far more successful. 

Also her arguments are not convincing, just because there is rhetoric in Paul’s letters does not mean Paul did not write them or that he did not exist, I mean rhetoric is the modus operandi of being a missionary. She argues that fake letters have greetings and fake letters have rhetoric, so Paul’s letters are fake. How about real letters have greetings too and real letters have rhetoric too- so none of her points actually work.

Paula Fredrikson also critics Livesey’s book:

Paul’s anti-circumcision remarks are specifically about gentile circumcision. Nina acknowledges this fact on page 205, and again on page 225. But she then ignores it, interpreting the letters in effect as teaching against circumcision itself, full stop. This perforce ignores as well all of Paul’s positive remarks in the letters urging the gentiles’ law observance: their ability to fulfill the law is one of the effects of their having the spirit of Christ. It also ignores Paul’s praising Jewish law and Jewish circumcision. (Romans 3:1-2: what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way; Romans 7:12, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good; vs 14, the law is spiritual. By concentrating exclusively on Paul’s negative remarks, Nina generates the impression of the Pauline school’s consistency, but in fact the letters pull in different directions, depending on the point Paul is arguing at the time. If these letters were all written by pseudepigraphers of the same school, why were they not more consistent on this critical point? …

[Fredrickson also asks a question Livesey can’t answer] Why would mid-second century school authors embed in their pseudepigraphical letters declarations of the imminent return of Christ made by their fictive first century figure? [*]

Richard Carrier has said a forger would not add silly details like the Aretas incident, [in the second century the only details people wanted to add were theological details – nobody would be bothered to add Aretas ruling Damascas] and the letters fit the timeframe.^[11] This is what historians call an incidental incident of Paul escaping in Damascus under King Aretas. There is no need for a forger to add an unnecessary detail like that to invent a myth. Reminds me of Steve Mason reason why the 7 genuine letters are just not fake- they are too messy and angry- not beautiful treaties like fake letters would be. You can tell Paul’s letters are real because they are like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. You would not get that from literary constructs. Mason goes on to explain the difference between the pseudo and genuine letters is that the pseudo tend to be abstract with a greeting tacked on. Paul’s genuine letters are very abrupt without explaining things. Half conversation, overhearing a telephone conversation.

The letters are so messy Paul changes his mind in the middle of a sentence. – Paul says “Some belong to apollos, some belong to Paul- nobody belongs to me – I didn’t Baptise any of you, oh wait a minute I did baptise Stephanus’ house.

Also Paul becomes angry and incoherent, Apollos is building on my foundation- you want me to come! You have the super apostles, what do you want me for! ^[12] Then you have the likes of Goodacre showing Paul is trying too hard to prove his authority over James and Peter. ^[13]  Other reasons for seeing the letters as before Acts is that if you made up the letters from a figure in Acts you would make him out as far more successful. The letters may have been mashed together and repackaged in the second century but they definitely began as Paul writing or dictating back to his problematic newly formed churches in the first century. To gain a good understanding of the original letters I would recommend Hugh’s and Jewett book on the Corinthian correspondence. ^[14] To see what I mean by repackaging M. David Litwa shows the Marcionite edition is chronologically prior to the canonical edition. [*1]

Addendum

A friend of mine asked about Tertullian mention of circumcision, but Tertullian was not debating this, just using Paul’s language:

That was only a polemic, not a real debate by Tertullian. The circumcision debate was over in the second century.

I love it when Pauls fighting talk is carried on into the 2nd century:

Tertullian’s report makes it plain that in response to Marcion’s gospel, others had forged a Judaised version of it. [Tertullian, Adv Marc IV, 4] Tertullian, following Ireneaus, however, turned Marcions argument upside down and claimed not that Marcion’s opponents had ‘judaised’ but that Marcion had ‘circumcised’ scripture. [Tertullian, Adv Marc III, 11,7].

Markus Vinzent, Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity and the making of the New Testament, (Ashgate, 2011), p.87-8.

 

---

[1] Simon Gathercole, The Historical and Human Existence of Jesus in Paul’s Letters, JSHJ 16.2, 2018, p.206

[2] Douglas A. Campbell, “An Anchor for Pauline Chronology: Paul’s Flight from ‘The Ethnarch of King Aretas’ (2 Corinthians 11:32-33).” JBL 121.2, 2002, pp. 279–302.

[3] Richard Carrier, blog entitled, How Do We Know the Apostle Paul Wrote His Epistles in the 50s A.D.?

How Do We Know the Apostle Paul Wrote His Epistles in the 50s A.D.?

[4] Robyn Faith Walsh video taking here:

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Ac7TdryUv/?mibextid=wwXIfr

[5] Emma Wasserman, The Death of the Soul in Romans 7: Sin, Death, and the Law in Light of Hellenistic Moral Psychology (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament WUNT 2. Reihe, 256) 2008.

[6] Jörg Frey, Qumran, Early Judaism, and New Testament Interpretation. (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament WUNT 1 Reihe, 261), 2019, p.78.

[7] Jorunn Økland, “Paul and Sacred Space” in in Handbook in Pauline studies, Eds Novenson and Matlock, Oxford 2022, p.566.

[8] Paula Fredriksen, Paul the Pagan Apostle, (Yale, 2017), p.73.

[9] Markus Vinzent, Christs Torah: The Making of the New Testament in the second century, (Routledge, 2025).

[10] Nina Livesey, The Letters of Paul in their Roman Literary Context: Reassessing Apostolic Authership, (Cambridge, 2024).

 [*] Paula Fredriksen, Review of Nina Livesey, The Letters of Paul in their Roman Literary Context (CUP 2025). SBL 2025, p.4.

[11] Richard Carriers video

 

 

[12] Steve Mason video

 

 

[13] Mark Goodacre video

 

 

[*1] M. David Litwa, The Orthodox Corruption of Paul, 2026.

[14] Frank W. Hughes and Robert Jewett, The Corinthian, Radaction, Rhetoric and History, (Fortress, 2021).

 

 

 

Matthew’s crafted story is based on Pharaoh’s attempt to kill the Israelite children in Exodus. Much of Matthew’s gospel was modelled from the many Moses stories in the Tanak in order to make Jesus fit the Moses typology. [1] There is no corroboration or evidence that such an event occurred in history. Josephus would have loved a story like this and would have included it in his books. An argument from silence becomes stronger when it is expected that something that happened would have been mentioned if it did happen.

The magi had outwitted Herod by returning a different route (Mt. 2:12).

The court of Nero may have inspired this story of the Magi coming to Jerusalem (Mt. 2:1). As Morton Smith noted both in Apollonius of Tyana (Life I.4) and Matthews birth narrative were “inspired by the visit of Tiridates I [of Armenia] and his train to Nero that culminated in their reverencing him as a god.” [2]

There was a proxy war in Armenia between the two superpowers – Rome and Parthia, and on this occasion it was Parthia who had gained the upper hand in a battle won in Rhandeia in 62 CE. (There are two main reasons why Parthia came out on top during the start of Nero’s reign, firstly the great Roman general Corbola who was successful there in the fifties had been promoted as Syrian governor and his subordinate, Paetus was not as good tactically. Secondly Parthia had quelled its own internal revolts and had now more resources to gain control of Armenia). An arrangement was made between Rome and the Parthians, according to which the Romans recognized Tiridates as King of Armenia. This Tiridates was a brother of the Parthian king Vologeses I and Tiridates agreed to come to Rome and receive his crown from the hands of Nero.

After Nero had confirmed him as king of Armenia, ”the king did not return by the route he had followed in coming,” but sailed back a different way. [Reflects Mt. 2:12] It is significant that Pliny (Natural History XXX vi 16-17) refers to Tiridates and his companions as magi.” [3]

The significance of the gifts: (Mt. 2:11)

Gold is a gift fit for a king. Myrrh was used as an embalming ointment, a symbol of his death and frankincense an incense, as a symbol of deity. The Syrian King Seleucus I Nicator is recorded to have offered gold, frankincense and myrrh (among other items) to Apollo in his temple at Didyma near Miletus in 288/7 BC. (Greek inscription RC 5 (OGIS 214))

When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. (Mt.2:16)

We also have stories of Herod trying to kill people who tried to conceal a messiah!

We have an Ossuary discovered at Giv’at Hamivtar, Jerusalem (1971) which is known as the Messiah Ossuary. [4]

This Ossuary is believed to have “belonging to the house of David” on the unusual place, the rim of the ossuary. The Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palestinae has accepted David Flusser reading which translated דוד as David. (CIIP 1.1.45). So the actual inscription שלבידוד (sheleVE daVID) is now accepted in scholarship as “belonging to the house of David.” [5]

According to Kokkinos, “In a penetrating analysis of Ant.17.43-45, prompted by the discovery of an important ossuary of an individual claiming to belong to ‘the House of David’, Flusser suggested that the ‘slave’-wife of Pheroras [Herod the Great’s brother] may have been [thought] of Davidic descent, and that the ‘Pharisees’ …. hoped that she would become the mother of the expected Messiah.” [6]

Here is the relevant passage:

In order to requite which kindness of hers, since they were believed to have the foreknowledge of things to come by divine inspiration, they foretold how God had decreed that Herod’s government should cease, and his posterity should be deprived of it; but that the kingdom should come to her and Pheroras, and to their children. 44 These predictions were not concealed from Salome, but were told the king; as also how they had perverted some persons about the palace itself; so the king slew such of the Pharisees as were principally accused, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one Carus, who exceeded all men of that time in comeliness, and one that was his catamite. He slew also all those of his own family who had consented to what the Pharisees foretold; 45 and for Bagoas, he had been puffed up by them, as though he should be named the father and the benefactor of him who, by the prediction, was foretold to be their appointed king; for that this king would have all things in his power, and would enable Bagoas to marry, and to have children of his own body begotten.” (Ant. 17.43-45).

(Isn’t that a nice prophecy promising the eunuch he would have a family, no wonder he wanted to believe it! Jesus in Matthew promised better than this to eunuchs, he promised the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 19:12)). So we have a precedent – Herod the Great was threatened by a potential messiah figure and a prophecy of the end of his dynasty – so he slaughtered everyone!

Of course those trying to cling onto the historicity of this story in Matthew do cite the viciousness of Herod on having his sons executed. This was due to Herod marrying into the Hasmonians but never losing his paronia of Hasmonian claims to the throne. 

The royal marriage problems of Herod make for a great soap opera- his public life was brilliant, becoming the best client king in the Roman influence, eventually going ahead of Cleopatra of Egypt. Herod’s private life was a poignant different story. He had the love of his life, Mariamne executed on suspected adultry reported by his sister Salome. Mariamne had come to hate Herod after his executions of other Hasmonian members. This eventually boiled over into the execution of his sons (by Mariamne) Alexander and Aristobulus who continued to plot against Herod.

“Here, Herod really did kill all the Jewish children who sought to replace him, as Matthew 2:17 would have it, but these rather were his own children with Maccabean blood!” [7]

In view of such executions, the emperor Augustus reportedly quipped, “It is better to be Herod’s pig than son” (Macrobius, Saturnalia, 2:4:11)—the joke being that, since Herod was a Jew, he didn’t eat pork and his pig would be safe.

Overall I found the gospels were like hot political potatoes ensuring their readership traction in their own time. The best of plays always reflected political truths of the day, the subtext was barely covered and easily recognised. This brilliance is what ensured popularity and preservation.

---

[1] Dale Allison, The New Moses, A Matthean Typology, (Wipf & Stock, 1993), pp.145-6

[2] Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician, p.96.

[3] Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p.174.

[4] Amos Kilmer, “A buried cave of the Second Temple Period at Giv’at Hamivtar, Jerusalem”, Qadmoniot, 19-20 (1972), pp.108-9.

[5] David Flusser, “The house of David on an Ossuary” The Israel Museum Journal, 5 (Spring, 1986), pp.37-40.

[6] Nikos Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse, (Spink,2010), p.173

[7] Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, ch3

In this post I track the evolvement of various minor movements and where Jesus fitted into to this current. This will help to make historical Jesus history intelligible.

In book 17 of Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus writes about four minor groups in quick succession causing havoc. Before Josephus introduced these groups he explained the rebellious state of Judea-

Now at this time there were ten thousand other disorders in Judea, which were like tumults, because a great number put themselves into a warlike posture, either out of hopes of gain to themselves, or out of enmity to the Jews. (Ant. 17.269)

Josephus in a cute way describes these minor rebels as enemies of the Jews and a theme of his book is that these few fanatics and some bad administration by Roman Govenors were the real causes of the Roman Jewish War. Josephus puts into the mouth of a Jewish embassy to Caesar –

whether they be really a seditious people, and generally fond of innovations [this is a description Josephus uses for an aspiration by the rebellious to change government], or whether they would live in an orderly manner, if they might have governors of any sort of moderation set over them. (Ant. 17.314)

There were many minor risings before Roman General Varus was called in to quell the various revolts in Roman Judea. (Yes that same Varus that was treacherously betrayed by Arminia and not only lost 3 legions at the Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE by Germanic tribes but also his own life).

As Menahem Mor states:

the composition of the auxiliary forces in Judaea from the year 6 CE and onwards consisted of six units (five cohorts and one cavalry unit), in which three thousand soldiers served, most of whom were recruited from Caesarea and the surrounding area.( Ant. 19.356–366; War 2.238; Ant. 20.121, 176; War, 3.66). These units were based on six units that were originally from the army of Herod. In the course of the Varus rebellion, these units joined those of the Roman army that had been brought to the country by Varus to suppress the revolt after the death of Herod in 4 BCE. (Ant. 17.266; War 2.52, 58, 63).[1]

As seen from this blog trouble was there before Herod died too, but the Romans thought that with the strong man gone, they would have to deal with this directly. So in 4 CE Varus, the Roman legate to Syria, moved two legions from Syria to join the one legion that was in Judea- and that was the end of the Judea revolts. (III Gallica, VI Ferrata, X Fretensis were the three legions). Varus had made sure Judaea was “full of fire and of slaughter” (Ant. 18.290) to quell the rebellions. Many slaughterings such as Sepphoris burnt to the ground (Ant. 17.289) in response to Judas son of Hezekiah – a city that was near where Jesus was from and within living memory. Or such as the infamous 2000 Jews crucified by Varus as they revolted between Herod and Herods son Archelous rule (this happened during Roman procurator Sabinus who took over after Herod’s death in 4 BC as an interregnum (Ant. 17.295). Or the burning of Emmaus because of Athronges and his brothers had had attacked Romans there (Ant. 17.282,291). With Varus show of strength, 10,000 other Jews just gave themselves up and that was the end of sedition for now (Ant. 17.297).

Many groups were inspired by the recent autonomy of Isreal by the Maccabees, in the words of David de Silva-

[The Maccabees] thus served as a model of piety to later generations oppressed by the power of Rome. The great hope, in light of Maccabean success, was that the restoration of Israel could be inaugurated or achieved militarily by warriors whose piety matched their prowess—a combination of attributes that characterized no less a person than Israel’s first king and God’s messiah, David.[2]

Taking the sentiment of how the Maccabees came to power, being the underdog also inspired these minor groups. As it says in its own propaganda “Victory in battle does not depend on who has the largest army; it is the Lord’s power that determines the outcome.” (1 Macc. 3:19). This underdog sentiment obviously goes all the way back to the David v Goliath saga.

Now let us examine the four minor groups Josephus writes about in quick succession. First he writes about 2000 retired disbanded Herod troops (Ant 17.270). This was the chaotic aftermath of Herod the Great’s death in 4BCE. They decided to get together and fight the royal troops. As they were skilled they were able to drive the royal troops to the mountains.

Next Josephus writes about the son of a chief bandit, Hezekiah. (This was the son of the famous Hezekiah, the arch bandit who was captured and executed by Herod the Great in 47BCE). This son who was Judas Ben Hezekiah would continue this banditry into the next generation. Judas Ben Hezekiah who was active in Sepphoris in Galilee, stole arms and caused trouble there (Ant. 17.271-272). He had raided the governments palace and took money and arms and was able to arm his movement. Varus burnt Sepphoris in response to this.

Next Josephus moved onto Simon of Perea who was in some position of power as he was a servant of Herod. He broke away and burnt the palace at Jericho (Ant. 17.274). He was stopped by Gratus (prefect of Judea 15-26, just before Pilate) after a long battle. Simon escaped but Gratus managed to catch him and cut off his head. Even so, the group without a leader still managed to continue on and burn the palace at Amathus (Ant. 17.277).

Isreal Knohl thinks this Simon may possibly be connected to the messiah stone. If that is true  Simon of Peraea would have been called the King of the Jews and believed to be a Messiah. This is seen from line 72 which reads “David the servant of YHWH).

The latest on the translation of line 80 of the Gabriel stone is Ronald Hendel’s reading of “In three days, signs, I Gabriel command you” and has gained widespread support.[3]

The text of the stone seems to draw heavily upon the Book of Daniel. Scholars know from the work of Josephus that many Jews immediately before and during the time of Jesus focused on the Book of Daniel because of his prophecies related to a messiah coming to usher in a Kingdom of God. We also see this in the gospel of Mark- Mark is heavily dependent on Daniel (abomination of desolation, martyrdom, kingdom of God etc).

The book of Daniel told us to expect a messiah, Daniel “reworked” Jeremiah’s 70 year prophecy by reinterpreting the seventy years of Babylonian captivity into a more detailed, future-oriented prophecy of “seventy years of weeks” (70*7 = 490 years) in Daniel chapter 9. This reinterpretation brings us to around the time of Jesus and other leaders who thought themselves as prophets and may have been understood as messiahs by their followers.

As Marc Z. Brettler said on Daniel 9 handling of the prophecy in Jeremiah:

from one of the latest texts of the Hebrew Bible, Dan.9. The background of this text is the earlier prophecy in Jer. 25:11, which suggests Babylon will be given dominion over the world for seventy years; Jer. 29:10 builds upon that prophecy, suggesting that after that seventy years Isreal will be restored. This presented a serious problem for the author of Dan. 9 living during the reign of the (Seleucid) Greek King Antiochus IV Epiphanes who persecuted Jews and forbid them to follow the most fundamental laws. In this period, between 167 and 164 BCE [We know the book of Daniel was written then, as its predictions are super accurate for this period only] it seemed that Jeremiah’s word, which claimed that a complete restoration would transpire, was false. … [Heres how Daniel changed it!] the seemingly unambiguous ‘seventy years’ (Heb. Shib im shanah) was “correctly interpreted” by angel Gabriel to ‘seventy weeks’ (Heb. Shabu im shib im). The consonants of Jeremiah’s Shib im (“seventy”) are read twice. First as shabu im (weeks) then as Shib im (years).Hebrew at this time was written with consonants only, so the same word could be pronounced and understood as different words with different vowel sounds. [4]

All these messianic movements claimed their line from King David. (We know this from the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q174 III: 1-9; Pauls epistles, Romans 1:3; 15:12; CfJeremiah 23:5; b.Talmud Rosh Hashanah 25a and still claiming at the time of Eusebius, Church History 3.12).[5]

Isreal Knohl now views Simon’s death, according to the inscription, as “an essential part of the redemptive process. The blood of the slain messiah paves the way for the final salvation”.[6]

Thinking forward to Jesus, a lot of people wonder how a nobody gathered supporters- why he could have been called a messiah.

Yet this kind of thing was happening all over Judea.

But because Athronges, a person neither eminent by the dignity of his progenitors, nor for any great wealth he was possessed of, but one that had in all respects been a shepherd only, and was not known by any body; yet because he was a tall man, and excelled others in the strength of his hands, he was so bold as to set up for king (Ant. 17.278) … while he put a diadem about his head (Ant. 17.280)

Atheonges the shepherd who had attacked a Roman company at Emmaus (Ant. 17.282) – these bandits were all more like the Jewish idea of a messiah, a military leader to restore Isreal.

Why are people surprised, that Jesus, a nobody was considered a messiah – studying history shows this is what was happening to many small groups that gathered crowds and were suppressed fairly quickly. King figures would have dashed their forehead with oil (i. e. anointed = messiah = Christ) …

In fact this was rife!

The interesting thing about Atheonges is that he managed his group with his brothers all tall strong men. Many ancient groups from kings to bandits tried to keep their movements together with family members. This was examined by Stauffer, who compared this with the Jesus movement and seemed to see the remains of a Caliphate of James.[7]

Josephus reports many messianic figures who had also hoped to become king and often declared a king by their followers. This was the century before Jesus you had traditional messiah figures. All these were messiah figures.

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.

“And now Judea was full of robberies; and as the several companies of the seditious lighted upon any one to head them, he was created a king immediately, in order to do mischief to the public.” (Ant. 17.285).

Novenson shows Josephus interprets Judaism for non-Jews in the Graeco- Roman world and reasons why Josephus calls the Jewish insurgents “diadem-wearers” and not “messiahs.” Josephus was aware of messianism as seen when he recounts the “ambiguous oracle” that drove them to war.[8]

In that passage Josephus sees Vespasian as the messiah, so he obviously would not see anyone else holding this title (War 3.12-13, cf Num. 24.17-19).

The Jesus movement would have gathered a crowd but in the light of many failures – (well no revolt could succeed when Varus had three legions in Judea). Judas son of Ezekiel (Ant. 17.272). Simon of Peraea, (Ant. 17.273) and Athronges the shepherd (Ant. 17.278), a basic revolt fighting the Romans was out of the question. As mad as these Sign Prophets were, they weren’t that mad! (Deluded by their apocalyptic beliefs maybe but not mad). Jesus belonged to a type of movement that would have relied more on Gods help, the Sign Prophets knew they couldn’t beat the Romans and hoped for divine intervention. This was an innovation since John the Baptist.

All these movements too were easily squashed. As explored by Allen in his paper “Jesus Realpolitik”, all these movements failed due to informers and spy rings.[9] In the gospels the evangelists crafted a narrative about Judas Iscariot who represented the reality of informers. All the Roman govenors knew exactly the plan of action all the Sign Prophet movements (including Jesus and his movement) had in mind.

All the failures by the minor revolts before Varus turned up meant that by the century Jesus lived in, these minor movements hoped for more of gods help. Before Herod the Great died, Judas son of Sepphoris along with Matthias pulled down a golden eagle erected on the Temple because it contradicted their laws of no images. Herod had them both burned (Ant. 17.149-168; War 1.646-656). Let’s examine Judas the Galilean, a leader who incited a revolt against a Roman census and taxation in 6CE said we should have God as lord only. (This hope for divine intervention was even more developed by Jesus’ time – the messianic figures and Sign prophets were more reliant and hoping that Yahweh would break in, in a new age. (This cosmic hope was possibly influenced by realization of how futile it was to try and fight the Romans). The High Priest of the time Joazar Ben Beethus (Ant. 18.3) was persuading the opposite of Judas- that they should pay the taxes. Judas movement was causing “robberies and murder of our principal men” (Ant. 18.7). Josephus blamed the burning of the Temple on the fourth philosophy (zealot movement) founded by Judas and Sadduc (Ant. 18.8,23). These Sign Prophet movements became more reliant on their apocalyptic beliefs- they were millennial movements. James McGrath thinks it was John the Baptist that influenced all subsequent Sign Prophets. Jesus was just one in a line of Sign Prophets.

Coponius was the first prefect of a newly created Judea province, the Romans had decided to remove the incompetent client King Archelaus, Herod’s son because of all the trouble and revolts that happened after he took over. (Archelaus was proving too costly for the Romans- gathering money in taxes was hampered severely with revolts). Under Coponius, we find a more organised resistance as Judas the Galilean with Sadduc, a Pharisee had started the zealot movement. The innovation of Judas is that he would rely more on Gods help.

Under him (Coponius)  a Galilean named Judas incited his people to rebel, calling them cowards if they paid tax to the Romans and let themselves be ruled by mortal men, having formerly served God alone. (War2.118)

In his other book Josephus reports that Judas’ movement said “that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord.” (Ant. 18.23). From this we can see Judas the Galilean prefered a kingdom of God to a kingdom ruled by Romans. This Kingdom of God became the banner call of many subsequent Sign Prophets including Jesus. In the words of Martin Hengel “God would only help them if they worked actively with him to liberate themselves.” (Ant. 18.5).[10]

None of these movements succeeded, while Josephus does not tell how Judas died he later relates how Judas’s sons, James and Simon were executed by procurator Tiberius Julius Alexander in about 46. This resistance became a generational thing because later Menahen suspected to be his grandson although Josephus calls him son, was a major actor in the Roman Jewish war. And Menahems cousin Eleazar Ben Ya’ir was the last resister at Masada! The raising of Lazarus sounds much more subversive in this light! (John 11:1-44).

All these movements were squashed with overwhelming force, so steps in another messiah figure, this time as conventional rebellion was not working- the new tack involved more involvement by god and his army of angels. This can be  seen from the War Scroll, which showed Gods angels would intervene and help the sons of light. We have hints that John was seen as a messiah figure (Martyr Dialogue, 88.3; Lk. 3:15; people believing he was the one to come Mt. 11:2-6; Lk. 7:18-23).

The success of John the Baptist and all subsequent Sign Prophet groups would rely on Gods intervention. James McGrath believes it was John the Baptist that has influenced all subsequent Sign Prophet groups.[11]

These Sign prophet movements had no intention of being a major resistance groups but instead were expecting an eschatological God event. The Samaritan group had only armed in defense of Pilate (Ant. 18.88). He was trying to revive the Temple at Gerizim. The vessels the Samaritan was hoping to dig up were probably instruments used for Temple  duties and would connect this Samaritan figure to Moses  (Deut. 27:1-2)(Ant. 18.86-7)

This was where Jesus fits in. He was one in a line of Sign Prophets, gathered a crowd going to re-enact some great scriptural event (at the Temple), a millennial prophet promising God would turn up just like the old days. By triangulating the Sign prophet passages and the gospels, this becomes apparent. In the gospels, Jesus expecting the Temple to be rebuilt without human hands is very Sign Prophet territory there. It is similar to the unlikely claims of other Sign Prophets such as Theudas saying he would part the Jordan (Ant. 20.97) or the Egyptian saying Jerusalem walls would fall (Ant.20.170).

Sign Prophets gathered a crowd to re-enact  some great scriptural event. Two obvious examples  reported in Josephus were Theudas splitting the  Jordan (Ant. 20.97; cf. Exod. 12:29-14:30; Josh. 3-4) or the  Egyptian saying the walls would fall (Ant. 20.170; cf. Josh.  6:20). It is the scriptures that drove these Sign Prophets on[12] … Theudas was operating under Fadus in the 40’s and wanted to gather a crowd to witness a scriptural reenactment of splitting the river so they could walk through.  Crossley and Myles class this “ as ‘millenarian’ is because it envisaged radical transformation through a dramatic action by tapping into well-known themes from Jewish  ancestral traditions about Moses.”[13]

So we see a change from the century before Jesus, where traditional Jewish messiah figures tried to revolt and got squashed. By the turn of the century more of gods help was expected as with Judas the Galilean hoping for a kingdom of God. But the real change came from another messiah figure who wanted to rely only on Gods help. It was the Baptist that spawned a series of Sign Prophets movements. This is where Jesus fits in History (Under Pilates prefectorship). The mistake most people make is thinking that Jesus’s group was any bigger than all the movements mentioned in this post. It wasn’t! 

If you enjoyed this post, you can read more of Jesus’ compatible groups in this post.

---

[1] Menahem Mor, The Second Jewish Revolt,The Bar Kokhba War, 132–136 CE, (Brill, 2016), p.35.

[2] David de Silva, “Jewish Martyrology and the Death of Jesus: 2 Maccabees and the Lives of the Prophets” in ch.7 in The Jewish Teachers of Jesus, James, and Jude: What Earliest Christianity Learned from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,(Oxford,2012).

[3] Ronald Hendal  (2009), “The Messish son of Joseph: Simply Sign”, BAR 35.1. p.8

[4] Marc Z. Brettler, “The Interpretation of the Bible: The Hebrew Bibles interpretation of itself” in The New Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV, (5th Ed) (Oxford, 2018).

[5] Dr. Winchester taken from the debate here:

This is the original debate here: https://www.facebook.com/SouthernevangelicalSeminary/

[6] Isreal Knohl, The Messiah before Jesus, The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls, (University of California Press, 2002).

[7] Ethelbert Stauffer, “The Caliphate of James.” Trans. by Darrell J. Doughty. JHC 4.2 (1997), pp. 120-143.

[8] Matthew V. Novenson, The Grammar of Messianism: An Ancient Jewish Political Idiom and Its Users (Oxford, 2017), p.147-8.

[9] David Allen, “Jesus Realpolitik”, JHC forthcoming, you can read it here.

[10] Martin Hengel, The Zealots, Investigation into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I to 70 AD, (translation by David Smith), (Edinburgh 1989), p.76.

[11] James McGrath, John of History, Baptist of Faith, The Quest for the Historical Baptizer, (Eerdmans, 2024), p.428-432.

[12] David Allen, “Sign Prophet Hypothesis for Jesus”, JHC 20.2, (2025), pp.75-105 (75).

[13] Crossley and Myles, Jesus: A Life in Class Conflict, (Zero, 2023), pp.4-5 (5).

---

Most people are very perplexed when trying to get just a simple history of Jesus- like what actually happened, why is Jesus famous, what was his actual history? None of these very simple questions seem to be answered in most history books about Jesus. Never was a figure so clouded in mystery. Why is that? Do people put too much trust on the religious texts or are people convinced that is all we have to go on. 

Not so according to a new paper of mine, very much in line with the next quest, I attempt to reconstruct what actually happened given what we know about similar groups and similar figures to Jesus. In line with the next quest for the historical Jesus, memory studies are used to show how the gospels stories were built around memories. This we can achieve knowing the background history.

Enjoy Jesus realpolitik!

To access the paper that today’s summary is on about, press Here’s the paper

Today we’ve got a truly intriguing piece to explore. Something that blends religion, history, and a hefty slice of politics, yes we are diving into Jesus realpolitic. These two concepts don’t usually hang out in the same sentence, right? Well Allen explores and makes better use of a word once coined by E. P. Sanders – that is “realpolitik” of Jesus. The core question of this paper is remarkably simple but sound. Was Jesus one in a line of Sign Prophets movements re-enacting scripture to bring about a tangible kingdom of God? And what happened when these movements were perceived as a threat? They were usually squashed by the all powerful Roman governors. This is huge because it reframes the narrative of Jesus from just a spiritual leader to a political leader in first century Judaea. What Jesus was trying to do (“gather a crowd to witness a divine event by re-enacting some great scriptural event”), what he attempted to do (“force the end, i. e. To start a new age with Gods help), what happened to Jesus (got caught and executed), how he got caught (through a spy ring) all happened to other figures such as John the Baptist, the Samaritan Te’heb, the Egyptian Sign Prophet, and other unnamed Prophets in first century Judaea. Understanding this may change how you view Jesus and the dynamics of the Roman authorities and the Jewish authorities (Roman spy rings and High Priest collaborators) of the time.

This framework of placing Jesus among the Sign Prophets is methodologically convincing: it allows to overcome both excessively apologetic and sceptical readings, and places Jesus in a typology already known in the Judaism of the Second Temple.

– Roberto Gordillo Castillo (from the Spanish historical Jesus Group).

Jesus being a Sign Prophet is not a new concept but this paper explores the historical practicalities of this concept. Practicalities such that shows how all the same Sign Prophets gathered the people to re-enact a great scriptorial event, and by this re-enacting, expected a divine intervention. Re-enacting great events from the Tanak made these events hugely popular. The oppressed peasants thought their fortunes would be reversed in a new age. Another figure similar to Jesus was Jonathan the Weaver who was a hero of the poorer classes hoping to improve their lot (War 7.438). Just like Jesus, it was the upper class that ratted him out:

The best catch by Schmidt is that Josephus would have been only one step away from people that actually met Jesus at his trial, this is known from the phrase “first men among us” (Ant. 18.64) i. e. The Jewish aristocrats including the High Priest party, people belonging to Josephus’ class. [1] These High Priest collaborators had their own spy network to rat Jesus out.[2] Something similar had happened Jonathan the Weaver, “those of the greatest dignity among them informed Catullus, the governor of the Libyan Pentapolis, of his march into the desert, and of the preparations he had made for it.” (War 7.439).[3]

Jesus’s message that the kingdom of God is coming was not just a spiritual message. It was a banner call, bringing the people together, expecting a tangible kingdom in a new age where God would rule instead of the Romans. The Roman authorities could not ignore this and through their spy rings and the spy rings of the High Priest would prevent these planned events to take place. Let us now examine another figure that used “the Kingdom of God” as a banner call. Judas the Galilean, also wanted to establish a kingdom of god. He told his followers ‘they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans, and would, after God, submit to mortal men as their lords’ (War 2.118) and his movement would only accept ‘that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord.’ (Josephus,  Ant. 18.23). Jesus initiated some action to achieve the Kingdom of God and that got him crucified.

The usual Sign Prophet plan of action was to gather a crowd to re-enact a great spiritual event and expect divine intervention. The crowds that followed the these Sign Prophets thought the events would actually happen! And why wouldn’t they? According to their scriptures these types of things happened before, according to the scriptures, God had intervened before, the various Sign prophets had convinced the crowds that an event like this would happen if they took events into their own hands.

Typically both the Sign Prophet and his followers were brought up on stories on how God had intervened on behalf of the Jewish people, “God had once parted the sea, had produced manna in the wilderness, had caused the sun to stand still, had brought down the walls of Jericho.”[4] God had turned up then, the scriptures had told them so and why in their hour of need, would God not turn up now? An oppressed crowd hoping for a reversal of fortune would rally around a self styled prophet using the banner call, “the Kingdom of God is coming.” Enacting key moments in the birth of the nation, these Sign Prophets signaled the eschatological nearness of final redemption. Their grounding in biblical miracle also accounts for the size of their popular followings. Scriptural authority undergirded not only their own message; it also supported the hopes and convictions of their followers.[5] A plan of action would have been formulated by the various Sign Prophets from a vision they had (obviously influenced by Scriptures). Visions were thought of by the ancients as a visitation from the divine. These visions experienced by various Sign Prophets shaped their plan of action to bring on the new age. Many plans simply involved going out into the wilderness. Lohmeyer on his study of John the Baptist sees the wilderness as a place, where like after the exodus, a close bond between God and Israel existed. It is here, then, that the eschatological coming of God himself in order to restore his people was expected [6]. This shows similarities with other prophetic figures such as Theudas, the Egyptian, Jonathan the Weaver where John chose the wilderness for his ministry. [7] We can see from Qumran and the Synoptics how the scriptures may have influenced a plan of action taking place in the wilderness – “biblical prophecy in Isa. 40:3, which speaks of preparing a way for the Lord in the wilderness and straightening his path in the desert (1QS 8:12–14; 9:18–20). The Synoptic Gospels (Mark 1:3–4//Matt. 3:1–3//Luke 3:2–4) associate the Baptist’s presence in the same Judean Desert with the same Isaian passage” [8]

Events like the splitting of the Jordan (re-enacting the Exodus) or the great big walls around the city of Jerusalem falling, just like those of Jericho, that all these events would actually happen! Theudas splitting the Jordan (Ant. 20.97; cf. Exod. 12:29-14:30; Josh. 3-4) or the Egyptian saying the walls would fall (Ant. 20.170; cf. Josh. 6:20). The gospel of Mark hints at a similar type of claim Jesus made of destroying and restoring the Temple (Mark 14:57-58) and the gospel of John actually puts it into Jesus’s mouth (John 2:19). Destroying the Temple and expecting it to be rebuilt without human hands (Mark 14:58, Acts 7:48)  is very Sign Prophet territory there. Therefore the gospel of Johns understanding that Jesus made a claim like this is very fitting to the historical context and was likely. To the Romans these re-enactments were more than harmless spiritual acts, they saw them as threats and put down these movements swiftly. (In the case of the Egyptian Sign Prophet the fears of the Roman governor proved correct as a major battle ensued). All these Sign Prophets, such as Jesus faced execution because of their apocalyptic beliefs. They made all the governors nervous. Movements were quickly put down even before they got off the ground to execute their plan of action. (Theudas never got to the place where he was going to split the Jordan). Jesus trying to get some divine intervention at the Temple scene (possibly to improve Temple workings) was similar to the Samaritan Te’heb who tried to revive the Temple at Gerizim. (Josephus Ant. 18.85-87). These sign troublemakers were perceived as direct threats to Roman authority and were caught in an intricate web of political intrigue. This sheds new light on Jesus’s execution between two bandits. By studying other similar movements to Jesus, as reported by Josephus, we get a realistic reconstruction of some basic history that does not seem to be related by traditional means. The gospels in their efforts to keep Jesus innocent fail to relate why Jesus was in Jerusalem, what the hell was he doing there? What did he do to deserve crucifixion. By putting all the blame onto the Jewish authorities and Jewish people and taking the blame away from Pilate (it was a Roman execution after all. Jesus initiated some action that got him caught and executed). The gospels really covered up the fact of some basic history, like Jesus gathering a crowd to re-enact a scripture event, trying to force a new age. These historical events have been reworked in the gospel accounts. Yet the real events are included in the gospels but are broken up to cause a disconnect. In another paper, I showed the gospel stretched out the events that Jesus did that day, all which helped to keep him innocent in the gospel reader eyes, but really Jesus gathered the crowd to cause trouble and this is the real reason he got executed.

The events that the gospels stretched out but probably all happened on the same day were- 

Jesus gathering a crowd, leading them onto Jerusalem (Triumphal entry) and possibly onto the Temple (Temple scene) and ending in execution (arrest scene and crucifixion) , was typical of these charismatic prophets in this time period.

In fact John moved the Temple scene far off from the arrest scene as Mark had not moved it far enough. By separating these two events causes a disconnect- so you would not think Jesus brought on his own execution by making a move causing trouble in the Temple. This all helped to keep Jesus innocent, John offers a silly reason for Jesus’ crucifixion, to satisfy a narrative reason as Jesus can’t get crucified for literally nothing – the raising of Lazarus.

---

Want to know more? Just read the paper.

---

[1] Thomas Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, New Evidence for the one called Christ (Oxford , 2025).

[2] David Allen, Jesus Realpolitik, JHC, forthcoming.

[3] The quote is an Extract from a forthcoming Paper in the JHC– David Allen “Josephus on Jesus, New Evidence for the One called ‘Certain Man’”  

[4] E. P. Sanders, The Historical figure of Jesus, (Allen Lane Penguin Press, 1993), p.262.

[5] Paula Fredriksen, When Christians Were Jews, The first generation, (Yale University Press, 2018), p.177f.

[6] Ernst Lohmeyer, Johannes der Täufer, vol. 1 of Das Urchristentum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1932), pp.47-48.

[7] Joachim Jeremias, “Der Ursprung der Johannestaufe,” ZNW 28 (1929): pp.312–20 (319-20).

[8] Joel Marcus, John the Baptist in History and Theology, (2018), p.30

Just noticed that in the academia site is starting to do AI summaries of papers uploaded to the site. These summaries are quite good and handy especially if we are a way too busy in work to do blogs. The ai can be a little bit creepy as it pretends to be a human sometimes, it tries too hard giving us false memories, telling us of it’s times in Oxford. That would creep anybody out as we know it’s only AI and not an actual human. That aside I do think the summaries are good as they sum up the basic history I think everybody should know about Jesus. It sums up what I’m doing here and what I am discovering after my eight years of research who Jesus actually was, so I will reproduce the four separate AI summaries of four of my papers that really do show who Jesus actually was in history. (This research has produced three peer review papers, one SBL paper and a whole clatter of papers for Robert Prices journal to give it a boost). The image that the Christian church portrays leaves out the gritty dirty details, details that later history tries to smooth over. So the first summary is on my paper Jesus and the Sign Prophet Hypothesis so here is the summary:

We’re diving into a fascinating and pretty provocative piece of scholarship by David Allen, the Sign Prophet Hypothesis for Jesus. What is the driving question from this paper – simply put – Jesus was one of the Sign Prophets active in first century whose actions tried to prompt God to usher in a new age. Rather than seeing Jesus as a total outlier, the utterly unique founder of an unprecedented movement, Allen says hey – Let’s look at how Jesus and his followers might fit into a much wider pattern that was pretty common in his region and era. Why does that matter for you? Well, it totally transforms how you think of religious and social change, it shows how across history, movements grew and sometimes got crushed when people tried to hope for a better world right now, not someday. Allen’s core claim is that there were a lot of charismatic core leaders called Sign Prophets who gathered crowds promising God would act in some spectacular way often re-enacting, biblical miracles, parting rivers, toppling walls and often promising new freedom or justice. Allen places Jesus in the same bucket as figures like Theudas or the Egyptian Sign prophet. [As ai gets some details wrong I’ll just add what it should have said here. Theudas by splitting the Jordan hoped to transform the world of the oppressed peasants in an apocalyptic way, flipping their unfortunates into the fortunes of the upper classes. That is what the new age promised in the banner call- The Kingdom of God is coming. In the new age God would be in charge, not the Romans, God would ensure FairPlay for the peasants. These crowds that were gathered believed the instigator was a prophet, that he spoke for God. He convinced the crowds he led, that God turned up in momentous times in their history according to the Torah, and argued that God would turn up now in their time of need.] Many Sign Prophets led people out into the wilderness, Rallying the poor and oppressed. Promising God would turn up to transform their brutal status quo in the new age. Allen discusses the methods these Sign Prophets would use drawing on the collective memory contained in their history recorded in the Tanakh. Think Joshua’s conquest, Moses splitting the sea and Joshua at Jericho. They tried to replay those moments, hoping to force the end. That is get God to intervene now. According to Allen, Jesus riding into Jerusalem, making a ruckus in the Temple, leading his followers with high expectations matches patterns seen in these other Sign prophet movements.

Of course Allen is careful to point out that historians do not have access to the real Jesus and he encourages everyone including you to treat reconstructions as models, helpful but not absolute. With careful use of Josephus, Dead Sea Scrolls and Paul’s letters we can triangulate what actually happened. By recognising the gospels are carefully crafted stories softening the gritty history of Jesus’ utter failure we can get an idea of what was going on. Historical memories used by the evagelists can be determined from Josephus. One core insight is that the authorities, the high priests and the Roman governors were always watching for trouble with their spy rings. They had webs of informers and as soon as charismatic leader gathered the crowd around them they would easily stamp them out. Often brutally in just a day or two. Jesus’ arrest and execution fits this playbook pretty well. Allen draws on memory studies to show how later evangelist reshaped this history. The gospels wanted to soften Romes image and emphasise Jesus as a misunderstood innocent victim. That’s why the gospels stretch out events turning a single event into a multi scene drama. To give you an example of how the historical memories were crafted, we will give you the example of Judas. The many nameless informers do not make a good narrative for the gospel of Mark so he may have morphed all these into one single insider character- Judas Iscariot.

By comparing  Sign Prophets, we see common themes, a belief in divine imminent intervention, big dreams of cosmic reversal and yeah, a constant dance with political authorities. All these hopes were shaped by ordinary people struggling under oppressive rules.

Here is a second summary on my paper, Jesus and the Sign Prophets:

Allen takes a hard look at the historical Jesus but not the way you are used to hearing about him. Instead of treating Jesus as a totally unique phenomenon, Allen compares him to a broader category called the Sign Prophets, a term established by earlier scholars such as P. W. Barnett. To see Jesus as one among several Sign Prophets active around the time of Roman occupation of Judea, places Jesus into his actual historical context. If you really want to understand Jesus and what kind of movement he led, shouldn’t you look at other similar prophetic figures that existed at this time? Theudas, the unnamed Egyptian Sign Prophet or the unnamed Samaritan Te’heb (restorer) would gather a crowd promise some dramatic Sign or act of deliverance and you won’t be shocked by this, they would always end up with a bleak outcome- Roman authorities did not appreciate folks who gathered big excitable crowds promising divine intervention. The crowd gathered believed in real hope and truly believed that the biblical re-enactment by the Sign Prophets active around this time, would actually happen just as it did in the past according to their scriptures. It is better to see Jesus as a product of his time, immersed in hope and desperation. Really believing God could help their hopeless situations.

Now for the third summary on my paper- Josephus on Jesus, New evidence for the one called ‘certain man’ :

David Allen shines a spotlight on a fascinating variant, one piece of textual variant which may tip the scales in this debate- this is the ‘certain man’ reading. In really early Syriac manuscripts [the Syriac translations are the earliest we have of a physical copy of the TF]  of Eusebius Church History, instead of saying Jesus the passage starts out calling him a ‘certain man’ – wow right, that’s a lot less specific, and it kinda lines up with Josephus’ vibe when he talks about other trouble making prophets. Like the ‘Egyptian sign prophet (not named) or the Samaritan Te’heb (also not named). These Prophets who stirred up the people and usually ended up badly. Why is that phrase ‘certain man’ so important, well if Eusebius the church historian who quoted or maybe edited Josephus, had invented this passage from thin air, or made it up to help his fellow Christian’s [in combatting the anti-Christian polimicists] you’d think he’d call Jesus by name, right, but instead this earlier Syriac translation possibly made while Eusebius was still alive uses a kinda vague anonymity almost like Josephus’ standard way of describing controversial figures. It gets more interesting when the ‘certain man’ is not just in the Syriac manuscript, Allen points out a similar variant popping up in the Slavonic and he shows support for the ‘certain – tis’ reading in Greek manuscripts and Armenian manuscripts of Eusebius. So there is a real pile of manuscript support here. … So what’s the big take away here. When we look at Josephus and this crucial Testimonium Flavianum passage, the evidence that early versions said more generically ‘certain man’ – the story wasn’t about some uniquely special figure singled out for worship, but more about how Josephus always wrote about messianic claimants, just like that Egyptian or Theudas or Jonathan the Weaver, just troublemakers in a long crowded list. Josephus was not in the business of glorifying Sign Prophets but ultimately saw them (along with the maladadministration of local Roman govenors and High Priests violating Jewish law eg Ant. 20.216-23) as one of the root causes for the outbreak of the Roman Jewish War of 66-70 CE.] The paper argues that the most original version of the passage probably described Jesus a ‘certain man’ and that phrase fits Josephus pattern for describing minor disruptive prophets and that later scribes started adding Jesus’ name, tweaking the passage and layering on more Christian ideas [creeds].

And here is a fascinating extract from this paper:

The best catch by Schmidt is that Josephus would have been only one step away from people that actually met Jesus at his trial, this is known from the phrase “first men among us” i. e. The Jewish aristocrats including the High Priest party, people belonging to Josephus’ class. [*] These High Priest collaborators had their own spy network to rat Jesus out.[1] Something similar had happened Jonathan the Weaver, “those of the greatest dignity among them informed Catullus, the governor of the Libyan Pentapolis, of his march into the desert, and of the preparations he had made for it.” (War 7.439).

---

[*] Thomas Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, New Evidence for the one called Christ, (Oxford, 2025).

[1] David Allen, Jesus Realpolitik, JHC 20.2, forthcoming.

 

And this summary is from my paper How Josephus Really Viewed Jesus:

He aligns Jesus with Jewish Sign Prophets, charismatic figures of the era who promised eschatological signs and divine interventions. They often led followers into re-enactments of great scriptural events expectant of divine intervention that never quite materialized. This characterization offers intriguing parallels between Jesus and other figures such as Theudas or the Egyptian who Josephus also wrote about. Allen’s reconstructs how Josephus might have originally described Jesus suggesting layers of later Christian tampering which obscured the original portrayal. He discusses how Christians interpolations, additions in other words might have seeped into the passage over the centuries. For instance some Christian scribes added phrasing like “he was the Christ” [missing from Origen, Pseudo-Hegisippus and the Slavonic] to re-enforce theological narratives. These additions would not reflect Josephus’ view of Jesus. Digging deeper to get the real Josephan view of Jesus, you will find many of the Sign Prophets promised radical change with divine acts similar to the Exodus or other pivotal events in Israel’s history described in the Torah. These promises were expected to signal the end times. Allen’s work suggests Jesus could have been perceived similarly, leading followers to Jerusalem in a re-enactment further backed by eschatological hope. Early forms of the TF did not even name Jesus which is similar to how Josephus described these other Sign Prophets- [he hardly even knew their names. He could name one or two, but didn’t know the names of the rest]. The opening of the TF, Jesus was described as a ‘certain man’. To enquire about Jesus through the lens of Josephus invites us to examine history in its raw unpolished form.

The Testimonium Flavianum (TF) has become centre stage in historical Jesus research again! This is mainly due to the collapse of the TF skeptics who argue for a wholesale interpolation by Eusebius. That is no longer an academic go go. As I have stated in my latest paper,

“As far as this paper is concerned that debate is over. The variant ‘certain man’ as seen in a very early Syriac variant blows that hypothesis out of the water [contained in MS British Library Add. 14,639]. The Syriac translater was translating Eusebius Church History book shows us that “certain man” was originally written by Eusebius. [This Syriac manuscript witness is centuries earlier than the Greek manuscript witnesses]. If Eusebius made up the TF from scratch he would have written “Jesus”. This shows that Eusebius had used an earlier form of the TF circulating at that time as his source.”[1]

Over recent posts I have reconstructed this original TF and one line that exists in the textus receptus (i. e. the extant passage in the Greek Antiquities manuscripts) and definitely existed in the original TF was:

And when at the indictment of the first men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to a cross

καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει (endeiksei) τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾿ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ (stauro) ἐπιτετιμηκότος (epitetimekotos) Πιλάτου (Pilatou) (Ant. 18.64).

The balanced distinction between endeiksei (verb endeichnumi) writ of indictment, attributed to Jewish leaders, and the act of awarding sentence (epitiman stauro) is not likely to be the work of a Christian interpolator …Such an interpolator would scarcely have been content with reproaching Jewish leaders for drawing up an indictment against Jesus whilst stating that the imposition of sentence by crucifixion was an act of Roman justice.[2]

The best catch by Schmidt is that Josephus would have been only one step away from people that actually met Jesus at his trial. This is known from the phrase “first men among us” i. e. The Jewish aristocrats including the High Priest party, people belonging to Josephus’ class.[3] These High Priest collaborators had their own spy network to rat Jesus out.[4] The govenors knew through their own spy networks what was going on and easily prevented all these Sign Prophet movements and their plan of action – usually any actions initiated by the Sign prophet had a bad ending.[5]

This authentic line of the original TF matches another comment made by Josephus about another Sign Prophet. As I observered in my latest paper- “Something similar had happened Jonathan the Weaver, “those of the greatest dignity among them informed Catullus, the governor of the Libyan Pentapolis, of his march into the desert, and of the preparations he had made for it.” (War 7.439). This is similar to what happened in the TF, “when at the indictment of the first men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to a cross” (Ant. 18.64).[6]

In that same paper I identified another original phrase to the TF and that is “certain man.” In really early Syriac manuscripts [the Syriac translations are the earliest we have of a physical copy of the TF]  of Eusebius Church History, instead of saying Jesus the passage starts out calling him a ‘certain man’ (MS British Library Add. 14,639). This was a common way for Josephus to describe many of the Sign Prophets he reports about. This would be another connection of the original TF to other Sign Prophet passages found in Josephus.

As I have given examples of this where Josephus hardly even knew their names:

[The] ‘Egyptian’ (War 2.261-263; Ant. 20.169-172) who led a revolt of thousands according to War or 600 according to Antiquities and yet he could only call him the ‘Egyptian’. Same goes for the ‘Samaritan’. (Ant 18.85-87). He was known as ‘“A man who made light of mendacity’ (Ant. 18.85). The Sign Prophet under Festus was known as ‘certain man sorcerer’ (tinos anthrōpon goētos) (Ant. 20.188). The earlier reading of the TF opened with “There arose about this time a certain man” (Ant. 18.63 original reading as witnessed by Syriac EH variant in MS British Library Add. 14639, Slavonic II.IX.3(b)).[7] The Slavonic has also preserved the earlier reading of the opening line of the Baptist passage, “And at that time a certain man” Slavonic II.VII.2(b).[8] This all shows the comparative passages with the TF (i. e. The other Sign Prophet passages) are very similar to the original TF penned by Josephus. They were all very minor figures where Josephus hardly even knew their names.

This solves the puzzle as noted by Schmidt why Josephus did not mention Jesus in the War book[9], Josephus thought no more of Jesus than what he thought of other similar Sign Prophets such as Theudas (Ant. 20.97-99) and the ‘Samaritan’ Te’heb (Ant. 18.85-87)

Another puzzle brought up by Paula Fredrikson, of Jesus being crucified alone and his group was not like the others is false as we have historical examples that this was nothing new.[10] – Theudas head was displayed alone in Jerusalem (Ant. 20.98).

And this presumption that Jesus was crucified alone cannot be taken for granted as Bermejo-Rubio has suggested that the others crucified with Jesus (according to the gospels), could have been his followers.[11]

More puzzles answered from the TF and Sign Prophet passages are easily answered such as what was Jesus doing in Jerusalem, what was his plan of action and how did he end up on a cross. By triangulating the Sign prophet passages and the gospels, this becomes apparent. In the gospels, Jesus expecting the Temple to be rebuilt without human hands is very Sign Prophet territory there. It is similar to the unlikely claims of other Sign Prophets such as Theudas saying he would part the Jordan (Ant. 20.97) or the Egyptian saying Jerusalem walls would fall (Ant. 20.170).

The study of the TF and Sign Prophet passages also helps to explain the rise of Christianity. The plan of action Jesus wanted to achieve is that God would turn up, this was to “force the end” – force god to turn up in a new age. Typically both the Sign Prophets and their followers were brought up on stories on how God had intervened on behalf of the Jewish people, “God had once parted the sea, had produced manna in the wilderness, had caused the sun to stand still, had brought down the walls of Jericho.”^[12] Josephus shows many movements very like “Proto-Christians” actually existed, making it no surprise that a movement like Christianity arose in the aftermath of Temple Destruction. When Solomon Zeitlin read the passage on the Sign Prophets under Felix it led him to note: “Apocalyptists who are the forerunners of the Christian movement.”[13] Josephus said of this particular movement – “men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration … went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty.” (War 2.258-60). Like most movements that gathered a crowd, this movement like the other Sign Prophet movements made the Roman govenors nervous and Felix “thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt” (War 2.260). Antipas had the same fear of John the Baptist, “Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion” (Ant. 18.117). After the ‘Samaritan’ Sign Prophets fiasco, an embassy went to Vitellius, to complain Pilate to his boss-  “for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate.” (Ant. 18.88). So here again Pilate had suspected revolt, and Pilate would have reported that to Vitellius. Thus you have the Samaritan envoys denying this. The same would have happened Jesus’ gathering, Pilate would have suspected revolt and sent troops. At least this historical reality is reflected in John 18:12 where he claims Romans soldiers speira arrested Jesus.

All these movements made the various Roman govenors nervous and through their spy networks were stopped in their tracks before they could implement their plan of Action.

How these Sign Prophets gathered their crowds was from convincing the crowds of their skills as a prophet like Moses. This made Josephus describe many of the Sign Prophets as a gōes = γόης. Theudas under Fadus was described as γόης τις (“certain magician”)(Ant. 20.97). Under Felix a load of Sign Prophets were described as γόητες καὶ ἀπατεῶνες (“imposters and deceivers”) (Ant. 20.167). Also under Felix the Egyptian Sign Prophet was referred to as γόης καὶ προφήτου – goēs κai prophēton (sorcerer and prophet) (War 2.261). Josephus described the Sign Prophet under Festus who promised them freedom and divine deliverance from their miseries as a τινος ἀνθρώπου γόητος – tinos anthrōpon goētos (‘certain man sorcerer’) (Ant. 20.188). Originally Josephus would have seen Jesus as a gōes (wizard) and this would be reflected in the phrase ‘doer of strange works.’ This phrase may be original but read negatively. The anti-Christian polemicists may have got the impression that Jesus was a γόης (goēs) from the original TF containing παραδόξων. Celsus picks out that exact word describing Jesus as such in Contra Cels. 1.6. Josephus describes the miracles of Pharoahs court magicians as performing a παράδοξον before Moses by turning their staffs into snakes (Ant. 2.285–6). Other anti Christians also suspected Jesus of magic such as the Jew interlocutor of Justin Martyr (Dial. 69.7).

Here is the opening of another paper of mine:[14]

All the Sign Prophets gathered a crowd to re-enact some great scriptural event. Two obvious examples reported in Josephus were Theudas splitting the Jordan (Ant. 20.97; cf. Exod. 12:29-14:30; Josh. 3-4) or the Egyptian saying the walls would fall (Ant. 20.170; cf. Josh. 6:20). The gospel of Mark hints at a similar type of claim Jesus made of destroying and restoring the Temple (Mark 14:57-58) and the gospel of John actually puts it into Jesus’s mouth (John 2:19). Destroying the Temple and expecting it to be rebuilt without human hands (Mark 14:58, Acts 7:48)  is very Sign Prophet territory there. Therefore the gospel of Johns understanding that Jesus made a claim like this is very fitting to the historical context and was likely. As Paul Anderson has noted, “two Markan passages appear to corroborate knowledge of a Jesus saying that is found only in John,”[15]

The first indication of the Temple built by Gods hands and therefore we could infer not by human hands is in the song of Moses and Miriam-

You will bring them in and plant them
on the mountain of your inheritance—
the place, Lord, you made for your dwelling,
the sanctuary, Lord, your hands established (Exodus 15:17).

The Temple is built there by Gods hands.

From the time of Ezekiel visions a new Temple were envisioned (Ezekiel 40-48). Or the heavenly Temple in 1 En. 14:8–25 could have been envisioned. The Temple scroll also fantasised about a new better Temple (11QT). 

1 Enoch 90:28-29 suggests a Temple not built by human hands, The Temple Scroll suggests it too – (11Q19-21, 4Q524, 4Q365a). By the time the letter of the Hebrews was written, mostly by a gentile dominated Jesus movement trying to re- convert Jewish people into the movement- made Jesus out to be the High Priest of a heavenly Temple (Heb. 6:19). As Jesus was not a Levite they made him belong to the “order of Melchizedek” instead. This heavenly Temple was a better copy than the earthly Temple (Heb. 8:5-6). John of Patmos also picked up on this fantasy of a new Temple “I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.”(Rev. 21:2-3)

As a similar historical comparison, the Samaritan had tried to revive the Temple cult in Mount Gerizim, when he claimed the Temple vessels of Moses were buried there. (Ant. 18.86-7). This is another historical example supporting the Sign Prophet hypothesis for Jesus who had wanted a rebuilt pure Temple! The Samaritan merely wanted to revive the Temple cult at Mt. Gerizim just as Jesus who had wanted a rebuilt pure Temple! Both incidents ended in disaster. The vessels were probably instruments used for Temple duties and would connect this Samaritan figure to Moses (Deut. 27:1-2). As a side note the gospel of Mark portrays “Jesus as refusing to allow “anyone to carry a vessel through the Temple,” alluding to Zech 14:20. Jesus not allowing anyone to carry “anything” through the Temple seems to refer to sacred vessels – skeuos (Mk 11:16). [*]

So Jesus plan of action at the Temple was similar to other plan of actions by other Sign Prophets who gathered crowds and expected divine intervention. All ended in disaster.

Many actions of the Sign Prophets actually cohere quite well with the actions of Jesus. John the Baptist gathered a crowd making Antipas nervous and cutting off his head. Theudas was re-enacting the Exodus hoping God would turn up, like the Baptist he got his head cut off. Jesus gathering a crowd in Jerusalem resulted in his execution. The ‘Egyptian’ Sign prophet gathering at the mount of Olives, re-enacted Zechariah’s prophecy that the feet of the messiah would touch the ground there. All these actions were in keeping with their apocalyptic view of a new age starting. This new age would inaugurate the “kingdom of God” that Jesus had told his followers that was coming soon! Obviously to the Roman authorities this Kingdom of God is a no no, as the Kingdom of Rome is the realpolitik.

All the Sign Prophets were expecting divine intervention as it makes no sense to go against the might of the Romans with an unorganized band rabble. It was a common theme in the Tanakh to expect divine intervention in battle, such as the Lord sending hailstone against the enemy (Josh. 10:11) or the sun standing still (Josh. 10:13). The Sign Prophets all expected divine intervention to overcome their adversaries.

Here is a realistic reconstruction of what Josephus originally wrote about Jesus before it had been touched up: (Black text is reconstruction, Red text is commentary):

There arose about this time a certain man, a sophist and agitator. He was a doer of strange works.

[some eschatological sign similar to other sign prophets could have been the following: 

For they said he was a prophet and the Temple would be destroyed and 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.]

[So Pilate sent forces, footmen to slew them and seize a number of them along with the certain imposter.] 

And when at the indictment of the first men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to a cross. Yet this tribe has until now not disappeared.

(Reconstructed model Ant. 18.63-64)

 

What my friends say!

Roberto Gordillo Castillo (from the Spanish historical Jesus Group):

Dave Allen’s article represents a remarkable contribution to the study of the Testimonium Flavianum (TF), since it offers solid arguments to consider this passage, once purified of Christian interpolations, as a privileged window towards the understanding of the movement of Jesus within the broader context of the so-called Sign Prophets described by Flavius Josephus.

Allen manages to place Jesus of Nazareth in the same category as figures such as Theudas, the Egyptian Sign Prophet or the Samaritan Te’heb, all of them apocalyptic characters who mobilised crowds with symbolic gestures intended to reproduce biblical events and “force divine intervention.” This framework is methodologically convincing: it allows to overcome both excessively apologetic and sceptical readings, and places Jesus in a typology already known in the Judaism of the Second Temple.

The recovery of expressions such as “a certain man” or the reference to the condemnation by Pilate “at the behest of the first men among us” reinforces the idea that Josephus treated him like other minor Messianic leaders, without singularising him or giving him greater relief than the rest of the Sign Prophets. This frame also explains why Joseph does not mention it in the Jewish War: for him, Jesus was not more significant than those other ephemeral characters.

Dynamics of elites and espionage networks:

Allen’s analysis highlights a fundamental aspect to understand the realpolitik of Roman Judaea: the active collaboration of Jewish priestly and aristocratic elites in the repression of prophetic movements. As shown by the parallels with other cases related by Josephus, these elites used networks of informants and whistleblowers to detect possible agitations, denouncing them to the Roman governors before they turned into open revolts.

In this sense, the accusation against Jesus by the “first men among us” reflects a recurring pattern: the collaborationist elites quickly suffocated the apocalyptic initiatives that could destabilise the fragile peace with Rome. The TF, read in this way, fits with the policy of repressive prevention characteristic of the Pax Romana, which combined systematic surveillance with exemplary measures such as public executions.

Contributions to the understanding of early Christianity

The framing of Jesus as a Sign Prophet also offers a convincing explanation of the genetics of Christianity. Similar movements, which appealed to foundational miracles and the imminence of the Kingdom of God, were already circulating in Judaea in the first century. As Allen points out, Christianity did not emerge ex nihilo, but as a variant of those apocalyptic currents, which only after the destruction of the Temple and the failure of other figures acquired a greater projection.

Dave Allen’s work demonstrates quite clearly that the Testimonium Flavianum, without Christian interpolations, is a useful and coherent source to place Jesus in his real historical context: that of the Sign Prophets of the Second Temple, guarded and repressed by a combination of collaborationist aristocracy and Roman power. This approach allows us to understand the dynamics of resistance movements, the role of Jewish elites as guarantors of imperial stability and the functioning of “Roman peace” as a peace sustained by preventive force and social control.

Miguel Carpio García also from the Spanish group:

Made a brilliant observation about the first set of martyrs, those gathered by Jesus who may have been slaughtered were forgotten about. It is only the later generations of followers who were executed in the name of Jesus that are remembered.

Dave, the whole of your work solves some of the most complicated difficulties that can be presented about the historical Jesus from an exegetic and social history point of view. To try to move forward, I propose two items that, in my opinion, are pending. Namely: 1) on the ‘collective’ crucifixion, is there any possibility that two of his supporters who, crucified with him, were ignored and vilified later by his movement were arrested in the brawl of the ‘arrest of Jesus’? Man, Fernando Bermejo Rubio holds it, although in the 2023 edition of his book that I have (I have almost everything that is published about historical Jesus), he limits himself to affirming an ‘objective connection’, namely, or that they were ‘disciples of Jesus’, or that they were ‘sympathizers’ or that they were from ‘a different dissident group’ (that they coordinated their action with that of Jesus or that they simply coincided in time?), page. 156. Conceivable, but very very unlikely. Well, I don’t know any historical social movement, do you know any? That despised its martyrs (how else to qualify those who are crucified for defending the master? No how wrong they were). Calling them, Mark and Matthew, lestés, bandit, not revolutionary concept that did not exist, but gang thief. Or kakourgos-criminal, Luke, thief or murderer. Another thing is that the Jewish aristocracy and, therefore, the temple authorities will apply those terms to those close to a caudillo or popular leader. But their own supporters? It doesn’t make sense. Much more plausible is that, to the hegemonic of the empire, the work was accumulated, in the flammable climate of the Passover of Jerusalem, with various crimes of alleged sedition or attack that, at all, require several simultaneous riots. 2) It is clear where Theudas gets the division of the waters of the Jordan or the Egyptian that the walls would fall or that the feet of YHWH would sit on the olive mountain, etc. But where is Jesus from that the fallen temple would be rebuilt in 3 days by non-human hands? By the way, the other signs, nothing supernatural, that Jesus represented at the entrance to Jerusalem (Zechariah 9:9) or in the expulsion of the merchants from the temple (Zechariah 14:21) and led his own to wait, more than the fall of the temple, for the arrival of the God on the mountain of olive trees (Zechariah 14:4). I repeat the question, the sign of the reconstruction of the temple demolished in 3 days (which I am certain that Jesus presented), what great biblical event or prophecy recreates?

Some of my own thoughts:

It took me 7 years consisting 1000’s of books just to get a basic history. The next quest guys are right- you will only get an outline such as basic things like he was a Jew (without knowing what type of Jew he was).
You also find out that he gathered a crowd, thought with Gods help he was going to start a new age. He was able to gather a crowd easily by making use of and re-enacting scriptural events. Many tried this and were easily squashed. Like so many others like him he was ratted out by the collaborators and was strung up as a warning for others not to threaten Roman security.

---

[1] David Allen, “Josephus on Jesus, New Evidence for the one called a ‘certain man’”, JHC 2026 forthcoming.

[2] Paul Winter, On The Trial of Jesus, (De Gruyter 1974), p. 40. 

[3] T. C. Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, pp.6-7.

[4] David Allen, Jesus Realpolitik, JHC 20.2, forthcoming.

[5] see section “3. Spies, Informers, Horsemen and Cavalry!” Of my paper Jesus realpolitik, JHC, forthcoming.

[6] David Allen, “Josephus on Jesus, New Evidence for the one called a ‘certain man’”, JHC 2026 forthcoming.

[7] 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.261.

[8] Leeming and Leeming (eds.), The Slavonic Version of Josephus’s Jewish War, p.248.

[9] T. C. Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, pp.265-267.

[10] Paula Fredrikson, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, (Knopf Doubleday, 1999), p.244

[11] Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “(Why) Was Jesus the Galilean Crucified Alone? Solving a False Conundrum”, JSNT 36.2,  pp.127–54.

[12] E. P. Sanders, The Historical figure of Jesus, (Allen Lane Penguin Press, 1993), p.262.

[13] Solomon Zeitlin, “The Christ Passage in Josephus”,  Jewish Quarterly Review 18, (1928),  p.236.

[14] David Allen, Sign Prophet Hypothesis for Jesus, JHC forthcoming.

[15] Paul Anderson, The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus, Modern Foundations Reconsidered, (t & t Clark, 2^nd edition 2007), p.160.

[*] Simon Joseph, Jesus and the Temple: The Crucifixion in its Jewish Context, Society of the New Testament Monograhes series 165, (Cambridge, 2016), p.115.

This paper brings the Testimonium Flavianum scholarship right up to date. It recognises the earlier Syriac and Latin versions of the TF are much more valuable for recognising the earlier form of the TF. The physical manuscripts of the Syriac and Latin manuscripts are centuries earlier than that of their Greek counterparts. Therefore an earlier form of the TF, the harder readings such as “certain man” instead of “Jesus” is recognised through textual criticism.

Here is the academia podcast on my paper:

Podcast

Hey everyone, welcome back to in-depth with academia, I’m Richard Price CEO of academia.edu and today I’m really excited to dig into a fascinating piece of research by David Allen. The title of the paper is “Josephus on Jesus, New Evidence for the one called ‘certain man’”. Ok, maybe you heard of the Testimonium Flavianum or TF for short, it’s that famous passage in the works of the Jewish historian that seems to mention Jesus. Christians get super interested, skeptics get super skeptical and historians get tangled up in endless debates about what was originally written. David Allen’s paper isn’t just another round of- “Did Josephus really mention Jesus?” No it jumps right into the core of this question. What exactly did the earliest version of this passage say about Jesus and how reliable are the words that have come down to us? A lot of people, Believers, academics and interested history buffs rely on this passage as an outside the Bible reference to Jesus. Over the centuries as the TF was copied and translated, and maybe tampered with, differences crept in, some may be major but as we peel back the layers to discover what was added is like playing detective with ancient manuscripts. So anyway David Allen shines a spotlight on a fascinating variant, one piece of textual variant which may tip the scales in this debate- this is the ‘certain man’ reading. In really early Syriac manuscripts [the Syriac translations are the earliest we have of a physical copy of the TF]  of Eusebius Church History, instead of saying Jesus the passage starts out calling him a ‘certain man’ – wow right, that’s a lot less specific, and it kinda lines up with Josephus’ vibe when he talks about other trouble making prophets. Like the ‘Egyptian sign prophet or the Samaritan Te’heb. These Prophets who stirred up the people and usually ended up badly. Why is that phrase ‘certain man’ so important, well if Eusebius the church historian who quoted or maybe edited Josephus, had invented this passage from thin air, or made it up to help his fellow Christian’s [in combatting the anti-Christian polimicists] you’d think he’d call Jesus by name, right, but instead this earlier Syriac translation possibly made while Eusebius was still alive uses a kinda vague anonymity almost like Josephus’ standard way of describing controversial figures. It gets more interesting when the ‘certain man’ is not just in the Syriac manuscript, Allen points out a similar variant popping up in the Slavonic and he shows support for the ‘certain – tis’ reading in Greek manuscripts and Armenian manuscripts of Eusebius. So there is a real pile of manuscript support here. … So what’s the big take away here. When we look at Josephus and this crucial Testimonium Flavianum passage the evidence that early versions said more generically ‘certain man’ – the story wasn’t about some uniquely special figure singled out for worship, but more about how Josephus always wrote about messianic claimants, just like that Egyptian or Theudas or Jonathan the Weaver, just troublemakers in a long crowded list. Josephus was not in the business of glorifying Sign Prophets [but ultimately saw them (along with the maladadministration of local Roman govenors) as one of the root causes for the outbreak of the Roman Jewish War of 66-70 CE.] The paper argues that the most original version of the passage probably described Jesus a ‘certain man’ and that phrase fits Josephus pattern for describing minor disruptive prophets and that later scribes started adding Jesus’ name, tweaking the passage and layering on more Christian ideas [creeds].

Why is this important, because if we base our history on later embellishments, we may miss how ordinary or controversial Jesus seemed to Josephus’ contemporaries. Allen wants us to reflect how our sources get shaped and reshaped through history sometimes re-forcing later beliefs instead of showing us the gritty past as it really was.

Here is a new paper I have submitted for Bobs Journal, enjoy.

https://www.academia.edu/143004444/Josephus_on_Jesus_New_Evidence_for_the_one_called_a_certain_man_

(Updated 11 Aug 2026)

Here is a post showing the updates I did to an old post of mine – The Original Testimonium.

This is necessary as the TF does not only show that Jesus was a historical figure but also shows who he was and his comparable figures – namely the Sign Prophets.

When it comes to Josephus mention of Jesus, the Testimonial Flavianum (TF) we find the passage severely tampered, jam packed with Christian creeds, so much so that I have found four redactional layers! Of late Thomas Schmidt like Whealey before him try to keep the TF intact but really they only get it back to what it was like after Eusebius tampered with it. Schmidt conveniently papers over that the phrase “He was the Christ” is not in Pseudo-Hegesippus rendition of the TF in his book De Excidio urbis Hierosolymitanae (”On the ruin of the city of Jerusalem”).[*] This is a christianized document, so much so, he even has the Jewish leaders proclaiming Jesus as God. In the words of Paget, “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.” [*1] Schmidt is also puzzled that Jerome never uses the most pro-Christian creed, “Jerome never mentions the most pro-Christian statements allegedly present within the TF, especially Jesus rising from the dead, even though he points out positive material about James the apostle and John the Baptist in other parts of the Antiquities. [*2]

Both Whealey and Schmidt only get the more original version of the TF back to what Eusebius originally wrote, as witnessed by the Syriac and Latin translations of Eusebius. These Syriac and Latin manuscripts are centuries earlier than their Greek physical manuscripts. Scribes after Eusebius tampered with the Greek manuscripts to add things like Jesus’ name. This is proved from the variant ‘certain man’ found in one of the Syriac manuscripts discussed below. The best catch by Schmidt is that Josephus would have been only one step away from people that actually met Jesus at his trial, this is known from the phrase “first men among us” i. e. The Jewish aristocrats including the High Priest party, people belonging to Josephus’ class. These High Priest collaborators had their own spy network to rat Jesus out. [*3] Something similar had happened Jonathan the Weaver, “those of the greatest dignity among them informed Catullus, the governor of the Libyan Pentapolis, of his march into the desert, and of the preparations he had made for it.” (War 7.439).

How we know Eusebius was working with a TF circulating at that time is due to a very early variant ‘certain man’ in place of the word ‘Jesus’ found in one of the Syriac translations of Eusebius. The Syriac translater was translating Eusebius Church History book shows us that “certain man” (the harder reading doing textual criticism) was originally written by Eusebius. If Eusebius made up the TF from scratch he would have written “Jesus” in place of ‘certain man’. As seen from the Slavonic it’s hard to see why anyone would drop the name Jesus- unless of course the name was not in the source they were copying.

From the Slavonic (which does not name Jesus in the TF passage) there is evidence that Josephus originally wrote:

“there arose about this time a certain man”

The ‘certain man’ reading is supported by the earliest physical manuscripts that contain the TF- the Syriac translations of Eusebius. Take the example – “there lived in this time a certain wise man named Jesus.” (MS British Library Add. 14.639).

So this variant in the Syriac manuscripts – “named Jesus” or “whose name was Jesus” was probably tacked on by Eusebius.

This shows that Eusebius had used an earlier form of the TF circulating at that time as his source. This is the smoking gun- Eusebius did not write it!

Having the variant ‘certain man’ was very common for Josephus. So we actually have in this phrase what Josephus originally wrote! Josephus often does not name minor figures such as Sign Prophets and other messianic figures. Case in mind is the ‘Egyptian’ (War 2.261-263; Ant. 20.169-172) who led a revolt of thousands according to War or 600 according to Antiquities and yet he could only call him the ‘Egyptian’. Same goes for the ‘Samaritan’. (Ant 18.85-87). He was known as ‘“A man … who made light of mendacity’ (Ant. 18.85). The Sign Prophet under Festus was known as ‘certain man sorcerer’ (tinos anthrōpon goētos) (Ant. 20.188). As the Slavonic witness attests, the earlier reading of the Baptist passage has, “And at that time a certain man.” (Slavonic II.VII.2(b)). And as this blog shows the earlier reading of the TF opened with “There arose about this time a certain man” (Ant. 18.63 original reading).

Let us now show the real significance of the TF by reproducing all the Sign Prophet passages.

Sign Prophet Passages

Jesus Christ

Some important variants….

[About this time there arose a certain man] Syriac EH– MS British Library Add. 14,639 (6th century); Slavonic War II.IX.3(b)

[certain wise man whose name was Jesus] Michael the Syrian, Record of Times 5.10, from MS Edessa-Aleppo Codex f. 50r left column. Schmidt says Jacob of Edessa (c. 708 CE) was the source (Schmidt, 2025:68 and n.37)

[a wise man whose name was Jesus] Arabic recension by later Arabic writer, al-Makīn Ǧirǧis ibn al-ʿAmīd (c.1080 ce), who quotes Agapius quoting the TF in full. (Schmidt, 2025:49) from manuscript Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana Or. 323

[Thought to be the Christ] Jerome, On Illustrious Men 13, MS Vat.Reg.LAT. 2077 (6th- 7th century); Rufinus, History of the Church MSS Clem 6383 (eight century), Clem 6381 (ninth century); Agabius, Book of History AKA Arabic TF; Michael the Syrian, Record of Times.

(P.S. remember the Latin manuscripts of Jerome and Rufinus are earlier than the Greek manuscripts, the earliest of which are 10th century).

[phrase missing!!] Ps-Hegesippus, Excidio, MS Ambrosianus C 105 inf. (sixth century ce); Origen, Cels 1.47; Malalas, Chronicle; Russian Chronograher, Slavonic

This argues that the Slavonic on top of using Malalas, also used an unremarkable copy of the TF that went east and influenced the Slavonic.

[“deserious of Kingship”] Slavonic

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was a doer astonishing deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of Greeks. He was the Christ. Pilate, on the accusation of the first men among us, condemned him to be crucified, 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 (Ant. 18.63-64).

Reconstructed TF using variants.

There arose about this time a certain man, a sophist and agitator. He was a doer of strange works. [For they said he was a prophet and the Temple would be destroyed and 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. [So Pilate sent forces, footmen to slew them and seize a number of them along with the certain imposter.] And when at the indictment of the first men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to a cross. Yet this tribe has until now not disappeared.

The ‘Samaritan’

But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who made light of mendacity, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there. So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon the roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain. (Josephus Ant. 18.85-87).

But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome Tiberius was dead (Ant. 18.88-89)

 

John the Baptist

Some important variants …

[And at that time a certain man,] Slavonic

[wild man (agrios)  instead of good man (agathos)] Slavonic

[did not deny Baptism was for washing away sins] critical Latin edition LAJ, Rufinus, Origen

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God as a just punishment of what Herod had done against John, who was called the Baptist. For Herod had killed this good man, who had commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, righteousness towards one another and piety towards God. For only thus, in John’s opinion, would the baptism he administered be acceptable to God, namely, For in exactly this way one receiving the baptism appeared to him not to be obtaining a payment for their sinful deeds, but for purification of the body, inasmuch as the soul was already completely purified by righteousness. Now many people came in crowds to him, for they were greatly moved by his words. Herod, who feared that the great influence John had over the masses might put them into his power and enable him to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best to put him to death. In this way, he might prevent any mischief John might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly John was sent as a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Machaerus, the castle I already mentioned, and was put to death. Now the Jews thought that the destruction of his army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure with him. (Ant. 18.116-119).

Theudas

During the period when Fadus was procurator of Judaea, a certain impostor named Theudas persuaded the majority of the masses to take up their possessions and to follow him to the Jordan River. He stated that he was a prophet and that at his command the river would be parted and would provide them an easy passage. And many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt: but sent a troop of horsemen out against them. Who falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befel the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus’s government. (Ant. 20.97-99)

Sign Prophets under Felix

[In the 1920’s when Solomon Zeitlin read the passage on what we now call the ‘Sign Prophets’ under Felix, it led him to note: “Apocalyptists who are the forerunners of the Christian movement.”]

There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, which laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty. But Felix thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt; so he sent some horsemen and footmen both armed, who destroyed a great number of them. (War 2.258-60)

—————————

These works, that were done by the robbers, filled the city with all sorts of impiety. And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God. And many that were prevailed on by them suffered the punishments of their folly; for Felix brought them back, and then punished them. (Ant. 20.167-168)

The Egyptian Sign Prophet

But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him. But Felix prevented his attempt, and met him with his Roman soldiers, while all the people assisted him in his attack upon them, insomuch that when it came to a battle, the Egyptian ran away, with a few others, while the greatest part of those that were with him were either destroyed or taken alive; but the rest of the multitude were dispersed every one to their own homes, and there concealed themselves. (War 2.261-263)

Moreover, there came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more. And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages, and plundered them. (Ant. 20.169-172).

Sign Prophet under Festus

So Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also. (Ant. 20.188)

Temple Prophet of 70CE

The soldiers also came to the rest of the cloisters that were in the outer [court of the] Temple, whither the women and children, and a great mixed multitude of the people, fled, in number about six thousand.  But before Caesar had determined anything about these people, or given the commanders any orders relating to them, the soldiers were in such a rage, that they set that cloister on fire; by which means it came to pass that some of these were destroyed by throwing themselves down headlong, and some were burnt in the cloisters themselves. Nor did anyone of them escape with his life. A false prophet was the occasion of these people’s destruction, who had made a public proclamation in the city that very day, that God commanded them to get up upon the temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance. Now, there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose on the people, who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God; and this was in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes. A man is easily persuaded in adversity: when the deceiver actually promises deliverance from the miseries that envelop them, then the sufferer becomes the willing slave of hope. So it was that the unhappy people were beguiled at that stage by cheats and false messengers of God. Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. (War 6.283- 288).

Jonathan the Weaver

And now did the madness of the Sicarii, like a disease, reach as far as the cities of Cyrene; for one Jonathan, a vile person, and by trade a weaver, came thither and prevailed with no small number of the poorer sort to give ear to him; he also led them into the desert, upon promising them that he would show them signs and apparitions. And as for the other Jews of Cyrene, he concealed his knavery from them, and put tricks upon them; but those of the greatest dignity among them informed Catullus, the governor of the Libyan Pentapolis, of his march into the desert, and of the preparations he had made for it. So he sent out after him both horsemen and footmen, and easily overcame them, because they were unarmed men; of these many were slain in the fight, but some were taken alive, and brought to Catullus. (War 7.437-440).

for a certain Jew, whose name was Jonathan, who had raised a tumult in Cyrene, and had persuaded two thousand men of that country to join with him, was the occasion of their ruin; but when he was bound by the governor of that country, and sent to the emperor, he told him that I had sent him both weapons and money. However, he could not conceal his being a liar from Vespasian, who condemned him to die; according to which sentence he was put to death. Nay, after that, when those that envied my good fortune did frequently bring accusations against me, by God’s providence I escaped them all. I also received from Vespasian no small quantity of land, as a free gift, in Judea (Life 424-25)

Just to read these passages alone will show the significance of the TF and Jesus’ place in history. Here’s a bunch of links to read up on the variants and earlier form of the TF.

Other blogs like this one:

Testimonium among the Sign Prophet passages.

Another nail in the Testimonium skeptics coffin.

Footnotes

[*] Thomas Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, New evidence for the one called Christ, (Oxford, 2025), p.36-37.

[*1] J. Carleton Paget, ‘Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity’, JTS 52 (2001), pp. 539-624 (567).

[*2] Thomas Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, p.38.

[*3] David Allen, Jesus Realpolitik, JHC 20.2, forthcoming.

My last blog blew the “creatio ex nihilo by Eusebius” guys out of the water. Having the variant “certain man” in a very early Syriac translation of Eusebius shows us that “certain man” was originally in Eusebius’s rendition.

A Syriac translator possibly in the lifetime of Eusebius translated Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History into Syriac.

The first treatment of the Greek TF in these eastern languages can be found in the Syriac translations of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (c.313 CE) and his Theophany (c.325/ 6 CE). 

[The] translation date sometime in the fourth century, perhaps during Eusebius’ own lifetime. The manuscript tradition of the Syriac Ecclesiastical History is extremely ancient, being witnessed by a sixth-century manuscript.[1]

The variant “certain man” is witnessed by the following manuscript: MS British Library Add. 14,639.

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 earlier physical Syriac manuscript (earlier by a few centuries!) thus shows the name Jesus was added later to the Greek manuscripts. [2]

I just added this bit to the blog
“There is Syriac variant translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History that has “certain man” in place of Jesus. The phrase is : ““there lived in this time a certain wise man named Jesus.” (MS British Library Add. 14.639 (sixth century)). This supports that Jesus may not have been originally named and that “named Jesus” was tacked on!

My reasoning is taking the evidence of the Slavonic and Syriac manuscripts together.
The Slavonic does not name Jesus probably working off a very early Greek exemplar and the Syriac shows us what probably happened/ the phrase “whose name was Jesus” was probably added to the original passage. Like there is literary no reason to drop the name Jesus or John (as in the case of the Slavonic manuscripts) but there is every reason to add “named Jesus” (as in the case of the Syriac manuscripts). Well there you have it, you have to take all manuscripts into account in order to try and recover the earlier version of the TF.

The early manuscripts lend support that Jesus was probably not named. The Slavonic also shows that this is what happened to John the Baptist passage too. And this is exactly the way Josephus described other similar characters too.”

Again to reiterate, as the Syriac translater was translating Eusebius Church History book shows us that “certain man” was originally written by Eusebius. If Eusebius made up the TF from scratch he would have written “Jesus”. This shows that Eusebius had used an earlier form of the TF as his source.

I had my friend Dr. Richard Miller read over my reconstruction of the TF and he made a slight correction. This is what he had to say:

“I may consider dropping the teacher of men who reverence truth.. was he flattering about any of the other sign-troublemakers ?? Sounds like more creed to me. I would speculate that there may even likely have been something in there even more unsettling.. Consider, late ancient scribes never as a policy rewrote or redacted entire blocks of texts in the civic classical library.”

My own answer is in agreement:

“Josephus could have also described him as a sophist and a later scribe changed this to teacher 😀”

Josephus usually uses the expression σοφὸς ἀνήρ ‘a wise man’, as his highest praise for people. This is the phrase in the Greek manuscripts of the TF but I think that was added by Eusebius. There is only two cases where he uses it: King Solomon and the prophet Daniel; it is not a phrase he uses for the messianic leaders or Sign Prophets he reports. Usually it is not sofos (wise) but sofistēs (sophist) such as Judas the Galilaean who is described as a sofistēs idias aireseos (“sophist of his own sect”) (War 2.118). Anti Christian polemic that could have been working off the original TF suggest that the word sophist was used to describe Jesus, Justin Martyr counters his interlocutor- “He was no sophist, but His word was the power of God.” (1 Apol. 14). Lucian wrote in his satire called The Passing of Peregrinus referred to Jesus as “crucified sophist” (Lucian, Peregr. Proteus, ch. xiii).

Another phrase I answered Miller with is, “Josephus describes Jesus like a gōes and this is reflected in the phrase ‘doer of strange works.” This phrase paradoksōn ergōn poiētēs (‘doer of astonishing works’) where the word παραδόξων often means strange. So this phrase may be original but read negatively. The anti-Christian polemicists may have got the impression that Jesus was a γόης (goēs) from the original TF containing παραδόξων. Celsus picks out that exact word describing Jesus as such in Contra Cels. 1.6. Other anti Christians also suspected Jesus of magic such as the Jew interlocutor of Justin Martyr (Dial. 69.7). For a detailed discussion of this consult Thomas Schmidt new book Josephus on Jesus [3]

And the phrase “certain man” itself puts this passage among the Sign Prophet passages–

This was very common for Josephus not to name minor figures such as Sign Prophets and other messianic figures. Case in mind is the ‘Egyptian’ (War 2.261-263; Ant. 20.169-172) who led a revolt of thousands according to War or 600 according to Antiquities and yet he could only call him the ‘Egyptian’. Same goes for the ‘Samaritan’. (Ant 18.85-87). He was known as ‘“A man who made light of mendacity’ (Ant. 18.85). The Sign Prophet under Festus was known as ‘certain man sorcerer’(tinos anthrōpon goētos) (Ant. 20.188). And as this blog shows the earlier reading of the TF opened with “There arose about this time a certain man” (Ant. 18.63 original reading). This all shows the comparative passages with the TF ( i. e. The other Sign Prophet passages) are very similar to the original TF penned by Josephus. They were all very minor figures where Josephus hardly even knew their names.

By taking this advice on board, my reconstruction is even more realistic- this actually places the TF among other Sign Prophet passages. Eusebius could have filled in the creeds.

Original Testimonium Flavianum among the Sign Prophets.

There arose about this time a certain man, a sophist and agitator. He was a doer of strange works.

[For they said he was a prophet and the Temple would be destroyed and 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.

[So Pilate sent forces, footmen to slew them and seize a number of them along with the certain imposter.]

And when at the indictment of the first men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to a cross.

Yet this tribe has until now not disappeared.

I’ll update my previous blogs with this reconstruction. This is my latest model reconstruction.

My updated blogs so far:

Part one: An introduction to the earlier form of the TF.

Part two: The evidence of the variants of the TF.

Part three: Analysis of the Testimonium Flavianum.

Part four: The Layers of the Testimonium Flavianum.

Eusebius did not write the Testimonium Flavianum.

Another nail in the Testimonium skeptics coffin.

——————————————-

Footnotes

[1] Thomas Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, New Evidence for the one Called Christ, (Oxford, 2025), p.46.

[2] https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/eusebius_history.htm

[3] Thomas Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, pp.73-76.

Those who adhere to the creatio ex nihilo hypothesis of the Testimonium Flavianum by Eusebius (the passage Josephus wrote about Jesus), here is another nail in your coffin. There is a variant that will blow this hypothesis out of the water. The Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History has “certain man” in place of Jesus. This backs up the ‘certain man’ reading of the Slavonic where Jesus is not named. As Schmidt in his new book Josephus and Jesus observes: “In terms of their translations of the TF, the Syriac translator of the Ecclesiastical History does a better job witnessing to the ambiguity of the TF. He preserves the possibly derogatory ‘a certain Jesus’ (Ἰησοῦς τις) as ‘a certain man’ (ܓܒܪܐ ܚܕ)” [1] This reading is supported by a Greek variant in one of the Greek manuscripts of Eusebius – Codex A of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7 that has the word tis (‘certain’). In Codex A of Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7 quotes the TF and has tis after Iēsous referring to ‘a certain Jesus.’ This tis 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 anēr tis (certain man).”[2] Having this phrase also in the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History makes it a certainty that this was the original reading.

There is Syriac variant translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History that has “certain man” in place of Jesus. The phrase is : ““there lived in this time a certain wise man named Jesus.” (MS British Library Add. 14.639 (sixth century)). This supports that Jesus may not have been originally named and that “named Jesus” was tacked on! 

My reasoning is taking the evidence of the Slavonic and Syriac manuscripts together.
The Slavonic does not name Jesus probably working off a very early Greek exemplar and the Syriac shows us what probably happened/ the phrase “whose name was Jesus” was probably added to the original passage. Like there is literary no reason to drop the name Jesus or John (as in the case of the Slavonic manuscripts) but there is every reason to add “named Jesus” (as in the case of the Syriac manuscripts). Well there you have it, you have to take all manuscripts into account in order to try and recover the earlier version of the TF.

This shows a “certain man” instead of Jesus was copied out of Eusebius. Eusebius could have added “whose name is Jesus”. If Eusebius made up the TF he would never have used that phrase- this shows Eusebius copied it from a version of the TF circulating at that time. Having the variant “certain man”  witnessed by the Slavonic, a Syriac translation and partly witnessed by a Greek manuscript variant (Codex A), and an Armenian translation to boot, makes this case too strong for the creatio ex nihilo hypothesis to be tenable. The interpolation of the TF into Slavonic version of Josephus War also does not name Jesus in the passage but refers to him as “there appeared a certain man” (Slavonic War 2.9.3/4). This was very common for Josephus not to name minor figures such as Sign Prophets and other messianic figures. Case in mind is the ‘Egyptian’ (War 2.261-263; Ant. 20.169-172) who led a revolt of thousands according to War or 600 according to Antiquities and yet he could only call him the ‘Egyptian’. Same goes for the ‘Samaritan’. (Ant 18.85-87). He was known as ‘“A man who made light of mendacity’ (Ant. 18.85). The Sign Prophet under Festus was known as ‘certain man sorcerer’ (tinos anthrōpon goētos) (Ant. 20.188). And as this blog shows the earlier reading of the TF opened with “There arose about this time a certain man” (Ant. 18.63 original reading). This all shows the comparative passages with the TF ( i. e. The other Sign Prophet passages) are very similar to the original TF penned by Josephus. They were all very minor figures where Josephus hardly even knew their names.

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 Theophany circa 325/ 6 CE, our physical manuscripts are actually late. (Our earliest of Eusebius Greek manuscripts are in the 10^th century and are tampered with).

We have manuscript evidence that tis was the earlier reading!

Tis (certain) denotes somebody unimportant for Josephus which fits how Josephus really viewed Jesus. The word tis (certain) has much manuscript evidence including our earliest manuscripts. As explained by T.C. Schmidt:

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 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’, JSJ 45.3, p.358.] [*]

The physical Syriac manuscript of Ecclesiastical History that contains the variant ‘certain man’ is from the 6^th century, the manuscript is MS British Library Add. 14,639.[3] So we have the Syriac that actually witnesses earlier phrases that were originally written by Eusebius. According to David Allen, Eusebius original version (the version that contained the variant ‘certain man’ and ‘he was thought to be the Christ’) is known as the middle redaction of the Testimonium Flavianum.[4] The TF was tampered before, by and after Eusebius, all can be seen from textual variants.

To get at the earlier version of what Eusebius originally wrote when copying the TF we have to realise the Syriac language is needed to put back the original Greek of the TF. The same can be said of the Latin. It was Pollard who said, ‘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.’[5] This is also true of the Syriac translations. As Thomas Schmidt said “in the Syriac TF the word mestabrā (‘thought’ or less likely ‘proclaimed’) can also be interpreted as reflecting the meaning of λεγόμενος (‘said’ or ‘declared’) somewhat closely, while the Latin credebatur (‘believed’) follows the meaning too, but more loosely. If it is only λεγόμενος that has been omitted from the TF, then the original phrase was likely ‘He was called the Christ’ (ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος λεγόμενος ἦν).”[6] Two phrases that existed originally in Eusebius’ version was “certain man” and “so called Christ.”

Thomas Schmidt discusses this on page 47 of his new book but only goes so far as to state the word tis (‘certain’) was in the original TF. He dares not to state or admit that the whole phrase ‘certain man’ was in the original TF as that goes against his own thesis of trying to keep the TF intact with a few minor changes.[7] Schmidt like Whealey tries to keep the passage intact so would never admit beyond his own hypothesis to what the actual textual criticism is letting us know.[8]

Schmidt makes a very convincing case that much of the TF that we see as positive would in fact been negative. It is us modern scholars that are reading the TF with Christian’s eyes but when Josephus wrote it, it was much more in keeping with being read negatively. Such things as Jesus followers only thought he was the Christ not that Jesus was the Christ. Both Latin and Syriac versions are used by Schmidt to suggest that Jesus was known as the so called Christ in the TF.[9] Also they only thought he resurrected not that Josephus stated that Jesus actually resurrected.[10]

So all in all we have yet another variant of the TF that shows we have an earlier form of the TF and exposes a pre-Eusebian layer!

PART 2 OF THIS BLOG INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL RECONSTRUCTION. Next blog has a realistic reconstruction after taking advice from my friend Dr Richard C. Miller.
I think we are actually getting closer to what Josephus actually penned about Jesus.

Here is the Syriac translation of Eusebius EH manuscript containing the all important variant ‘certain man’ taken from page 291 of Schmidt’s new book Josephus and Jesus.

 

Here’s a bunch of links:

Part one: An introduction to the earlier form of the TF.

Part two: The evidence of the variants of the TF.

Part three: Analysis of the Testimonium Flavianum.

Part four: The Layers of the Testimonium Flavianum.

---

[1] Thomas Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, New Evidence for the one Called Christ, (Oxford, 2025), p.47.

[2] Fernand Bermejo-Rubio, “Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a “Neutral” Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on Antiquitates Judaicae 18.63-64 Journal for the Study of Judaism, 2014, 45.3, p.358.

[*] Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, p.68

[3] Cit. op. Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, p.47, n.57; Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts, vol. 3 pp. 1039–40 (catalog #1411).

[4] David Allen, “A Proposal: Three Redactional layer of the Testimonium Flavianum” RevBib 85.1-2,(2023) pp.213-216.

[5] Richard M. Pollard, ‘The De excidio of “Hegesippus” and the Reception of Josephus in the Early Middle Ages’, Viator 46 (2015), pp. 65-100 (72).

[6] Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, (Oxford, 2025), p.90

[7] Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, p.47.

[8] Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times, (Peter Lang, 2003).

[9] Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, p.90.

[10] Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus, pp.94-96