1. Introduction

In this article, I delve into some parallels found in the scholarly analysis of two important literary works: the Testimonium Flavianum by Josephus (Antiquities 18.63–64) and the Olivet Discourse in the gospel of Matthew (Matthew 24–25). These texts have been at the center of countless academic discussions, often hindered by methodological presumptions that obscure their historical backdrop. T.C. Schmidt’s recent research in Josephus & Jesus (Oxford University Press, 2025) introduces a novel outlook on the Testimonium, proposing a critical depiction of Jesus that challenges existing ideas of forgery or Christian tampering. Similarly, interpretations of Matthew’s Olivet Discourse frequently rely on futuristic, end-of-our-world binaries, thus veiling the veracity of its prophetic message within the first century. By identifying shared weaknesses in the analytical methods applied to these writings, this study advocates for a historically conscious approach to unveil their original intentions and significance.

2. Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum: A Historical Reassessment

According to Michael Hardwick’s revised doctoral dissertation, which examines how early Christian writers utilized Josephus as a historical source, “Josephus occupies a place in Christian literature second only to the Bible itself in importance.” “For the Church,” Hardwick continues, “the Jewish historian has been the extra-biblical historical authority for the biblical and intertestamental periods as well as the history spanning the life of Jesus and the early Christian community.”¹

Among all compositions by Josephus, one passage within his Antiquities of the Jews has long been a topic of debate.² Scholars label this contentious excerpt as The Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.63–64), the overwhelming majority of whom interpret it in the following manner:

And in this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man, for he was a doer of miraculous deeds, a teacher of men who receive truth with pleasure. And he led many from among the Jews and many from among the Greeks. He was the Christ. And, when Pilate had condemned him to the cross at the accusation of the first men among us, those who at first loved him did not cease to do so, for he appeared to them alive again on the third day given that the divine prophets had spoken such things and thousands of other wonderful things about him. And up till now the tribe of the Christians, who were named from him, has not disappeared.³

Notice the important phrases translated (in bold) above. The sweeping consensus among scholars is that this passage speaks positively of Jesus, describing him as a wise man who performed miracles, was believed to be the Christ, and was seen alive after his death by his followers. The apparent incongruity of such positive Christian testimony from a well-known, non-Christian contemporary of Jesus’ disciples has driven scholarly skepticism for generations even to this day.

Although initial scholarly objections to the Testimonium’s authenticity were raised in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, a turning point in the history of its reception occurred during the mid-seventeenth to mid-eighteenth centuries in which the bulk of scholarly opinions viewed the Testimonium as a complete forgery.⁴ According to historian Alice Whealey, this position grew stronger and reached its peak in the late nineteenth century; it wasn’t until the twentieth century that the scholarly consensus officially shifted away from a preferential view of forgery and started leaning heavily in the direction of quasi-authenticity:

This preponderance of intellectual opinion, which denied the authenticity of the [Testimonium’s] text, would continue into the nineteenth century. Yet in the twentieth century controversy over the text was revived… [T]he weight of scholarly opinion moved from a complacent consensus that the text was a forgery in the nineteenth century to the climate of controversy that is still with us today.⁵

This contemporary “climate of controversy” not only involves some old-school proponents of the Testimonium’s total forgery but also a much larger demographic convinced of the Testimonium’s interpolation. Put simply, this new consensus imagines core parts (i.e., the “non-Christian” parts) to be authentic while imagining the remainder to be later scribal insertions by an unknown “Christian hand.”⁶ In his commentary on Josephus’ Antiquities, Daniel R. Schwartz offers a helpful summary of this new consensus; he too thinks that “the likeliest” view of the Testimonium is that it’s only partially authentic due to obvious interpolation. On that he writes,

Josephus wrote something about Jesus, which probably included something about tumults associated with him (cf. Luke 13:1) but did not make affirmative statements about Jesus’s messiahship and resurrection but rather reflected them as what Christians believed—and Christian copyists refashioned the text to their liking. Indeed, “the majority view still is that Josephus did write a passage about Jesus, which was later adapted by a Christian scribe or editor.” (van Henten 2020: 365).⁷

Although it’s encouraging to find twentieth-century critics pointing to the Testimonium’s Christianized language, particularly phrases like “He was the Christ,”⁸ as evidence of partial-authenticity instead of wholesale forgery,⁹ modern scholarship still leaves us with a conceptual binary: either the Testimonium is a complete forgery or it’s an interpolation.¹⁰ Only in the early twenty-first century has rigorous, in-depth research challenged this dominantly negative consensus about the Testimonium, pointing out how such binary dogmas of forgery versus interpolation rest on methodological assumptions that are fundamentally flawed.

T.C. Schmidt’s work Josephus & Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ offers this very thing. His probing investigation delivers a fundamental challenge to inherited dogmas orbiting the Testimonium’s authenticity. By offering a fresh interpretation of the passage based on a much closer historical, literary, and linguistic analysis than scholars preceding him, Schmidt concludes that Josephus portrays Jesus in a noticeably skeptical light. Josephus emphasizes Jesus’ “miraculous deeds” and teachings as though seemingly gullible people believed he was the Christ. This new perspective reveals Josephus’ doubts rather than unwavering support for Jesus. In doing so, Schmidt’s research undermines and overturns the misleading conjecture of scholars who insist upon the traditional binary dogmas of forgery versus interpolation. Schmidt’s deep, scholarly reconstruction of the manuscript tradition produces the following (and dare I say, completely plausible and highly probable) translation of Josephus’ Testimonium:

And in this time there was a certain Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man, for he was a doer of incredible deeds, a teacher of men who receive truisms with pleasure. And he brought over many from among the Jews and many from among the Greeks. He was thought to be the Christ. And, when Pilate had condemned him to the cross at the accusation of the first men among us, those who at first were devoted to him did not cease to be so, for on the third da y it seemed to them that he was alive again given that the divine prophets had spoken such things and thousands of other wonderful things about him. And up till now the tribe of the Christians, who were named from him, has not disappeared.¹¹

“Interpreted this way,” Schmidt writes, “it is clear that the TF [Testimonium Flavianum] has nothing suspicious about it.” Furthermore, Schmidt’s analysis of Josephus’ writing style pushes back against artificial prejudices and uncovers many well-attested meanings in the Testimonium that differ from traditional interpretations. For example, the introductory phrase about “a certain (τις) Jesus,” which appears across various textual witnesses,¹² introduces noticeably negative accounts of characters elsewhere;¹³ the qualification “if indeed one ought to call him a man” also represents Josephus’ skepticism rather than nascent Christological speculation. Most significant, however, are phrases like “a doer of remarkable (παραδόξων) deeds,” which consistently suggest suspicion rather than endorsement,¹⁴ while terms such as “brought over” imply negative connotations of ominous, misleading circumstances.¹⁵ Best of all, every bit of Schmidt’s data comports with early Christian citations and references to the Testimonium as a neutral or ambiguous account of Jesus. Schmidt combs through the history of early Christian citations to challenge the idea that they adjusted the Testimonium to promote positive evidence of Jesus as the Christ.¹⁶ When examined very closely, Josephus doesn’t write anything suspicious and neither do early Christian commentators. What remains curious is the imaginary binary of forgery versus interpolation.

3. Matthew’s Olivet Discourse: Challenging Futuristic Binaries

Schmidt’s findings highlight the importance of reevaluating assumptions in biblical and non-biblical scholarship. Just as misunderstandings have clouded the interpretation of the Testimonium, similar issues affect the study of Jesus’ statements in the Gospel of Matthew, especially its version of the Olivet Discourse. Historians and theologians are not immune to imbibing systemic errors; they can and do spread them. Just as academia inherits and pushes peculiarly influential traditions upon the Testimonium (forgery versus interpolation), Matthean scholarship frequently forces Jesus’ Olivet Discourse into inappropriate binaries (full-futurism versus partial-futurism) that obscure rather than clarify the author’s original intent.¹⁷

The scholarly treatment of the disciples’ questions in Matthew 24:3 exemplifies this problem. Modern intellectuals routinely assumethat the disciples understood “the end of the age” as referring to the end of the “physical” world or “redemptive” history when so-called “cosmic” signs and “global” catastrophes have yet to take place in history.¹⁸ Such anachronistic assumptions then generate interpretive problems about temporal relationships between Jerusalem’s destruction and “eschatological” fulfillment despite the plethora of substantial evidence that first-century usage of this terminology refers to the end of the (then) present age coterminous with Israel’s (then) temple-centered, cosmological system of social and national identity (as well as its economic and political activity).¹⁹

Scholars also habitually assume a certain order to Jesus’ responses (starting at Matt 24:4). Jesus is asked one question (first) about Jerusalem’s destruction, followed by a second question (last) about the supposed end of our world (Matt 24:3). Following that, the same people presume that Jesus responds in the order he was asked, from first to last; Jerusalem’s destruction is tackled first, followed by the world’s catastrophic end. This also generates embarrassing problems such as positing that Jesus’ disciples were confused, while modern scholars remain the enlightened ones devoid of confusion. Or, worse, even when the apostles are not accused of being confused, intellectuals still imagine Jesus to be reading his disciples’ minds and answering their “tangled” query with careful precision.²⁰ In doing so, Jesus distinguishes between the (supposed) two events asked of him, that is, Jerusalem’s destruction and the futuristic end of the cosmos. I describe this scenario as “worse” because, even under this imaginary scenario, Jesus does not communicate clearly enough; that much is evident across two thousand years of disjointed expositions of the Olivet Discourse since Matthew composed his Gospel; either Jesus responded with careful precision and thousands of expositors have botched its interpretation or two thousand years of garbled, inconsistent scholarly rationalizations have infallibly imputed an aura of the highest accuracy upon the prophetic meaning of Jesus’ most obscure responses.

As I have argued in principle across Reading Matthew, Trusting Jesus: Christian Tradition and First-Century Fulfillment within Matthew 24-25 (Monroe, LA: Theopolis Books, 2024), only by removing anachronistic presuppositions of futuristic, end-of-our-world binaries can these interpretive problems be eliminated entirely. Moreover, as I show across hundreds of pages of research, it is clear to every generation of scholars that the disciples asked coherent questions about related first-century events (Matt 24:3), and Jesus provided equally coherent answers about the first-century events they had in mind. According to Matthew, Jesus does so by responding to their last question first and their first question last (Matt 24:4–25:30). By responding to their last question first and their first question last, there are no futuristic binaries to be discovered across Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse.

It is evident that Jesus begins (24:4–22) by responding to their last question (about the “end of the age”), and he finishes (24:36–25:30) by addressing their first question (about “when” these things will happen).As long as scholars continue to view these same initial responses (24:4–22) as containing clear expectations of fulfillment in first-century events (especially those leading up to Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70), and they see Jesus’ final remarks (24:36–25:30) as responding to their question of futuristic cosmic catastrophe, fundamental mistakes will be passed on to the next generation of scholars. In Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse, Jesus is not addressing the questions in the order he was asked, from first to last; he is clearly responding to the last question first and the first question last, which indubitably counters the consensus of scholarship over the last millennium and unveils the historical veracity of Jesus’ message that Matthew intended to convey.²¹

Just as Josephus’ Testimonium need not be either Christian propaganda or complete fabrication, the Olivet Discourse need not conform to purely futuristic expectations or bifurcated futuristic expectations. A first-century interpretive approach to Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse does not diminish its theological richness or contemporary relevance. Rather, by recovering Jesus’ original intent according to Matthew’s literary design, we gain access to more of Jesus’ authentic teaching rather than anachronistic reconstructions of confused teaching by errant scholarly guilds. The historical fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecies within the first century demonstrates his prophetic authority and validates his claims about judgment upon covenant unfaithfulness, while the principles he articulated retain enduring significance for Christian discipleship and hope. The scholarly consensus that inherits and passes on interpretive difficulties relies not on a close inspection of so-called “Matthew’s” first-century literary intentionality and fulfillment but on futuristic, methodological assumptions that are fundamentally flawed.

4. Testimonium Negativum: Methodological Parallels and Counter-Testimony

Errors in the scholarly understanding of the Testimonium Flavianum and the Olivet Discourse are due to similar methodological weaknesses. A healthy outlook upon the Testimonium has been limited by debates between complete forgery and Christian interpolation, while the Olivet Discourse is often limited by debates between full-futurism and partial-futurism paradigms. Presuppositional commitments to these binary results can obscure the original context and literary intentionality of the author. Schmidt’s research emphasizes the need to reassess preconceptions in academic studies of biblical and non-biblical sources. His examination indicates that Josephus’ doubtful attitude corresponds with early Christian references, negating the necessity to suspect crafty Christian alterations. Likewise, a careful examination of the Olivet Discourse within its first-century setting, as structured by Matthew, demonstrates that Jesus’ remarks—responding in the particular order of the last question asked to the first—tackle specific and context-based inquiries regarding the conclusion of the temple-focused era, rather than a cartoonish, universal end of our world.²²

Interpreting the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus’ works doesn’t have to be limited to views as either promoting Christianity or being fabricated, just as Matthew’s Olivet Discourse can be examined without assuming a focus on far-off apocalyptic occurrences. Exploring the Olivet Discourse from a perspective of intentional, first-century fulfillment maintains its deep theological meaning and timeless significance. By closely studying Jesus’ teachings as they appear in the structure of Matthew’s account, we can gain a better understanding of his intended message instead of imposing modern newspaper exegesis. Similarly, Schmidt’s examination of the Testimonium offers an interpretation rooted in historical context that goes beyond existing scholarly stances. Conventional academic viewpoints on these writings, which often pose and perpetuate unnecessary interpretive challenges, would benefit from reassessment through historically sensitive approaches that question scholarly consensus, especially when it forms over time in ways that obscure the original intent and enduring value of these texts.

---

Jonathan E. Sedlak is a graduate of the Theopolis Institute. He is an independent scholar based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the author of Reading Matthew, Trusting Jesus: Christian Tradition and First-Century Fulfillment within Matthew 24-25.

---

NOTES

1. Michael E. Hardwick, Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature Through Eusebius, Brown Judaic Studies 128 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 1, emphasis in original. ↩︎
2. According to Daniel R. Schwartz, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 8: Judean Antiquities, Books 18–20 (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 75: “[T]he so-called Testimonium Flavianum, [is] the most famous passage in Josephus…[I]ts authenticity has been the subject of debate for centuries.” Louis H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–1980) (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1984), 680, says, “There is no single topic in connection with Josephus that has occasioned more comment than the question of the authenticity of the so-called ‘Testimonium Flavianum’ concerning Jesus (Ant. 18.63–64).” ↩︎
3. T.C. Schmidt, Josephus & Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2025), 1–2. ↩︎
4. Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum from Late Antiquity to Modern Times, Studies in Biblical Literature 36 (New York: Peter Lang, 2003), 121, 153. ↩︎
5. Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, 169. ↩︎
6. Repeated examples of this are found across twentieth-century scholarship. Commenting on Eusebius of Caesarea’s quotation of the Testimonium, Hardwick takes for granted that “Eusebius’ text included the Testimonium Flavianum, which betrays a Christian hand”; so Hardwick, Josephus as an Historical Source, 84. In passing, Hardwick notes again that “no one reading the Testimonium Flavianum could help but recognize a Christian hand” (86). Joan E. Taylor mentions in passing that “the so-called Testimonium Flavianum…is usually thought to have been heavily altered by Christians, probably in the late third century, to ensure that Josephus’ history cohered with the traditional Christian view of Jesus’ death and resurrection”; so, Joan E. Taylor, John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism: A Historical Study (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 258, n. 85. ↩︎
7. Schwartz, Flavius Josephus, 76, emphasis added. ↩︎
8. In regard to this statement, Schwartz says, “The plain unqualified nature of this declaration, in contrast to ‘Jesus called Christ’ in the reference to him in connection with his brother James at 20.200, is among the reasons to assume the present text has undergone Christian editing”; so, Schwartz, Flavius Josephus, 76. ↩︎
9. It seems that this new trajectory began with Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist according to Flavius Josephus’ recently rediscovered ‘Capture of Jerusalem’ and the other Jewish and Christian sources (New York: Lincoln Macveagh, 1931). ↩︎
10. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–1980), 680–691, offers a chronological arrangement of twentieth-century scholars and their views of the Testimonium. Although he classifies three groups, one of which is for those defending the Testimonium’s authenticity, no scholar has argued for total authenticity of the received Greek text. Moreover, Feldman shows that, practically speaking, the overwhelming scholarly consensus spans across two groups: those who are against all authenticity and those in favor of later interpolation (i.e., partial authenticity with some negative assessments). ↩︎
11. Schmidt, Josephus & Jesus, 6, emphasis in original. For ease of reading, I have removed Schmidt’s brackets around “thought to be.” Evidence and arguments in favor of this reading is found in Schmidt, Josephus & Jesus, 5–6, 83–92, 137–138, 203–205. ↩︎
12. Schmidt, Josephus & Jesus, 67–69, 135, says: “[T]he word is preserved in the earliest quotation of the TF found in the original Greek of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, as well as in the Syriac and Armenian translations of the Ecclesiastical History. The word is also witnessed in the TF’s Slavonic recension and the Syriac translation of Jacob of Edessa. The term would have struck many readers as communicating derogatory intent, and so omitting the phrase would have made the passage sound more positive in regard to Jesus.” ↩︎
13. This is especially noticeable when compared alongside instances with mere neutral meaning. ↩︎
14. Schmidt, Josephus & Jesus, 73–76, 127–128, 198, 225–227. This is particularly obvious after seeing Schmidt’s evidence for παραδόξων referring to magic and magical deeds. Even Eisler, The Messiah Jesus, 62, admits the text could say Jesus “was in fact a teacher of astonishing tricks” who “seduced many Jews and many also of the Greek nation.” ↩︎
15. Schmidt, Josephus & Jesus, 17, 36, 38, 42, 44, 47, 79–83, 136–138, 208. ↩︎
16. This approach, of course, is not designed to challenge the data showing that later Christians, i.e., not those witnesses of early Christianity’s formative centuries, tampered with manuscripts of Josephus’ works. In other words, Schmidt’s research is not negating, in principle, the claim of Anthony Ellis, “Editing or Censoring the Latin Text of Josephus? Evaluating the Deletions in BnF Lat. 12511,” in A Companion to Josephus in the Medieval West, ed. Karen M. Kletter and Paul C. Hilliard (Leiden: Brill, 2024), 204, about “the long history of Christian readers meddling with Josephus’ writings,” including the Testimonium. ↩︎
17. By “full-futurism versus partial-futurism” I mean end-of-our-world fulfillment (a.k.a., “futurism”) versus a combination of partial first-century & partial end-of-our-world fulfillment. Both outlooks on Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse inculcate a sense of some predictive, futuristic fulfillment to remain until the end of our world. ↩︎
18. On this, see Jonathan E. Sedlak, Reading Matthew, Trusting Jesus: Christian Tradition and First-Century Fulfillment within Matthew 24–25 (Monroe, LA: Theopolis Books, 2024), 98–116. Perhaps the most influential research on this topic, at least within recent decades, has been Edward Adams, The Stars Will Fall From Heaven: ‘Cosmic Catastrophe’ in the New Testament and its World, The Library of New Testament Studies, 347 (New York: T&T Clark International, 2007). Having studied Adams’ entire monograph very carefully as well as corresponding literature analyzed within it, I consider it to be less informative of the so-called “New Testament and its World” (as the book’s title claims) and more of an exercise in persistent question-begging. Although it is an enjoyable scholarly monograph, it comes across as an autobiographical catalogue of Adams’ rationalizations to prove preterist interpretations wrong, and it seems to be guided by presuppositions that exclude evidence to the contrary. Adams’ thesis is, after all, a polemic against N.T. Wright’s views of first-century fulfillment which in turn were critical of views that interpreted the Olivet Discourse as describing an “end of the space-time universe.” ↩︎
19. For a pinpointed set of relevant examples pertaining to “the end,” see Sedlak, Reading Matthew, 76–78, n. 56; 108–1099, n. 98. For a broader survey of the temple-centered connections with that “end,” see pp. 98-116. For further insights of the same, see N.T. Wright’s Gifford Lectures later published as History and Eschatology (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2019) and available online as “Discerning the Dawn: History, Eschatology, and New Creation,” https://ntwrightpage.com/2018/02/28/gifford-lectures/. ↩︎
20. For examples of those who advocate the disciples were confused, see Sedlak, Reading Matthew, especially sections on Calvin (246–254), Lapide (263–266), Wesley (310), and Meyer (349–351). For examples of those who laud Jesus’ mind-reading abilities, see the sections on Bullinger (219–246), Hendricksen (361–364), Ratzinger (364–366), and Carson (367–368). ↩︎
21. On this, see Sedlak, Reading Matthew, 82–98. ↩︎
22. For an explanation of how the so-called “Final Judgment” scene of Matthew 25:31–46 fits into the gospel’s narrative structure, see Sedlak, Reading Matthew, 123–137. ↩︎