Josephus' Report About How First-Century Christians Defined Jesus' Resurrection

I've said a lot about Tom Schmidt's book on Josephus and Jesus that came out last year. You can read it for free by accessing it at the page just linked.

See the range of possible translations of Josephus' passage about Jesus on pages 138 and 204, for example. In all of the translations, Jesus is referred to as being thought to be "alive again" just after his crucifixion is referred to. The crucifixion context suggests a physical resurrection of the same body that died, and the term "again" does as well.

Similarly, see the apparently first-century Jewish material Justin Martyr cites in section 108 of his Dialogue With Trypho. I discussed it in a post several years ago. That first-century Jewish material likewise assumes a Christian view of the resurrection that involves the return to life of the body that died.

So, we have multiple first-century Jewish sources telling us how the early Christians viewed the resurrection. They didn't think it was spiritual rather than physical. They didn't think it involved a new body instead of the one that died. Rather, they thought it was a resurrection of the dead body.

These Jewish sources were in a good position to know what the earliest Christians said about the subject, and it was in their interest to notice and make an issue of a change in the Christian view over time, if there was a change. Read Schmidt's material on Josephus' sources, for example.

New Projects From A Group That Funded Tom Schmidt's Book On Josephus And Jesus

I've written some posts that cite Tom Schmidt's recent book on Josephus and Jesus. He recently mentioned that an organization that funded his book is in the process of making a documentary about it, and they've referred to other projects they're working on. Here's something from a page at their web site about their projects:

"Other projects of ours span biblical times to well into the Christian era. They include new evidence regarding the extraordinary spread of ancient Christianity in East Asia, a new discovery of perhaps the earliest Christian artifact, new testimony concerning the famous darkness of the crucifixion, among others."

Josephus' Potential Sources On Jesus

What's quoted below is from Tom Schmidt's recent book on Jesus in Josephus. This is an overview of Josephus' potential sources from whom he got his information about Jesus. The cumulative effect is especially significant. How likely is it that somebody would live where Josephus lived, have the parents Josephus had, know the other people Josephus knew, etc., yet not learn anything about Jesus from any of those non-Christian sources or only receive information that was false or unreliable? It seems very likely that Josephus got reliable information about Jesus from multiple non-Christian sources on multiple occasions. Schmidt writes:

Non-Christian Corroboration Of Early Christian Miracles

"In fact, Jewish sources otherwise critical of Jesus repeatedly admit that he did work what we would call ‘miracles’. We see this most strikingly in the ‘Jew of Celsus’ (c.150 ce) who says that Jesus did perform παράδοξα, using the precise word deployed by the TF [Josephus' primary passage about Jesus]. Justin the Martyr further says that Jews believed Jesus worked miracles by magic, and a similar claim is time and again lodged against Jesus by Jewish authorities in the Gospels themselves. The Babylonian Talmud also criticizes Jesus ‘because he practiced sorcery’ (שכישף). And the Jerusalem Talmud states that Jesus’ followers could heal in his name, yet it still cautions faithful Jews not to be persuaded by them. The versions of the Jewish Toledot Yeshu (second–fifth centuries), an early account of Jesus, are highly critical of him, yet records all sorts of miracles that Jesus worked including even raising the dead. Likewise, a second- or third-century Jewish-Christian document, perhaps called the Ascents of James, reports that Jews would accuse Jesus of performing miracles like a sorcerer might do. Pagan sources also spoke similarly, as with the Milesian Apollo, who acknowledged that Jesus did ‘miraculous deeds’ (τερατώδεσιν ἔργοις) and the anti-Christian writer, Porphyry, effectively agrees....Porphyry admits that the apostles did miracles (Jerome, Tractatus de Psalmo 81; found in Morin vol. 3.2 p. 80 lines 21–2). Similarly, Arnobius engages with an opponent who alleges that Jesus worked miracles through the knowledge of secret, magical arts or because he was a kind of demigod of old; see respectively Arnobius, Against the Nations 1.43, 53, and 1.48–9." (T.C. Schmidt, Josephus And Jesus [New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2025], 74 and n. 85 on 74)

There are other examples that could be cited. Schmidt's book is about Josephus, and he argues that Josephus corroborates Jesus' miracles. I've discussed other examples not mentioned by Schmidt elsewhere, like here and here. Notice the diversity of sources: mainstream Christian, schismatic, heretical, Jewish, and pagan.

Another category that should be taken into account is prophecy fulfillment. It's distinct from what Schmidt is addressing, but is relevant to non-Christian corroboration of early Christian miracles. Many ancient non-Christian sources corroborated facts of history related to Christianity that line up well with Old Testament prophecy: the timing of Jesus' life (in connection with Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy), the Bethlehem birthplace (in connection with Micah 4-5), the penal practices of the Roman empire (crucifixion and various practices associated with it in connection with passages like Psalm 22 and the third Servant Song in Isaiah 50), the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (in connection with Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy), etc. We've discussed such prophecies, their fulfillment, and non-Christian corroboration of the fulfillment, like in the posts gathered here. As with the sort of miracles Schmidt is focused on, the corroboration here comes from a large number and variety of sources, from the first century onward.

Why do so many early sources say nothing about Mary's perpetual virginity while suggesting they rejected it?

Tom Schmidt recently published a book arguing for the authenticity and significance of Josephus' material on Christianity. I've written some posts in recent years about the importance of what Josephus tells us about the baptism of John the Baptist. And Schmidt's book reminded me of the significance of Josephus' comments on James' relationship with Jesus as it pertains to the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Think of how many sources in the earliest centuries address issues relevant to Mary's alleged perpetual virginity and not only don't affirm her perpetual virginity, but even use language that's most naturally taken to contradict it: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Josephus, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus. Those are just the sources in the earliest generations of church history. There was ongoing opposition to Mary's perpetual virginity well after the concept became popular in later centuries. The opposition continued into the medieval era. In the earliest generations, the belief that Mary gave birth to other children after Jesus seems to have been the dominant view. Josephus, like the other earliest sources, knew of other language he could have used and did use such language in other contexts ("relative", "cousin", etc.). Think of the cumulative effect of Josephus and the other sources involved. It's highly unlikely that so many early sources would believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, yet not only not refer to it, but even use language that seems to contradict the concept (multiple terms in multiple contexts and multiple types of contexts).

A Reminder Of The Importance Of Josephus' Comments On Baptism

Josephus is an important source on some baptismal issues, but he often gets overlooked or underestimated. He refers to how John the Baptist's baptism wasn't meant to be a means of obtaining justification. Dismissing Josephus as a non-Christian isn't an adequate objection, since the significance of his earliness and his knowledge of recent Jewish history don't depend on his being a Christian. You can be a non-Christian, but still be right about something. And if the advocate of baptismal regeneration wants to acknowledge that John's baptism wasn't justificatory, then he needs to address some implications that follow. John's baptism is discussed and practiced alongside the earliest form of baptism administered by Jesus and his disciples (John 3:22-4:2), and that overlap between the two makes more sense if there was more rather than less continuity between the two. In all likelihood, both John's baptism and the earliest baptism administered by Jesus and his disciples were non-justificatory. So, that gives us a double precedent for non-justificatory baptism. That's another problem the advocate of baptismal regeneration has to address. Furthermore, Peter uses language about baptism similar to the language used by Josephus, which adds further evidence for the conclusion that Peter rejected baptismal regeneration. See here for further discussion of that issue. So, Josephus' comments are relevant to multiple baptismal issues and provide multiple lines of evidence against baptismal regeneration.

The Slaughter Of The Innocents And The Weakness Of Many Appeals To Silence

"Examples abound of cases where we would think a certain writer would surely have reported a certain event or fact, yet he does not do so. Ulysses S. Grant in his memoirs never mentions the Emancipation Proclamation. Should this cause us to doubt other sources that tell us that Lincoln issued it? Obviously not. Two contemporary Romans who describe the eruption of Vesuvius fail to mention the destruction of Pompeii. The church historian Eusebius apparently deliberately suppressed the Emperor Constantine's brutal killing of his wife Fausta and his son Crispus. No doubt Eusebius had his political reasons for doing so, not wholly laudable, but the point is that his mere silence in no way means that Constantine did not carry out the killings. Grafton's highly regarded English Chronicles discuss the reign of King John but never mention Magna Carta. Marco Polo never mentions the Great Wall of China." (Lydia McGrew, The Eye Of The Beholder [Tampa, Florida: DeWard Publishing, 2021], 274-75)

I've sometimes cited Josephus' silence about the Slaughter of the Innocents as an example. Other non-Christian sources provide partial corroboration of Matthew's account of the Slaughter, and Josephus' silence makes sense under a scenario in which the Slaughter did occur. Josephus tells us that he's being selective in which misdeeds of Herod he reports, and the Slaughter has multiple implications supportive of Christianity that neither Josephus nor his Roman audience would want to acknowledge or promote. Why mention an event so supportive of Christianity when mentioning the event can so easily be avoided? See my article on the Slaughter here for further details. Josephus' silence weighs much less than the testimony of Matthew, including the internal evidence for Matthew's account, and the partial corroboration offered by some non-Christian sources other than Josephus. Again, see my first post linked above for more about those non-Christian sources.

Don't Forget About Josephus

There are some contexts in which Christians should be giving Josephus more attention than they typically do. Because Josephus was a non-Christian, he had no dog in some of the fights among the Christians of his day or later generations. And since he was writing so early (the late first century), his comments are more valuable accordingly.

As Steve Mason (a non-Christian scholar who specializes in the study of Josephus) noted, "He [Josephus] also confirms, in case there was any doubt, that James was distinguished by being Jesus' actual brother - a significant point in view of later Christian thinking about Mary's status as 'perpetual virgin' and speculation as to whether Jesus' 'brothers and sisters' were really only spiritual relatives or more distant physical relations." (Josephus And The New Testament [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005], 248) For more about how Josephus supports Mary's giving birth to other children after Jesus, and does so in multiple ways, see Eric Svendsen's Who Is My Mother? (Amityville, New York: Calvary Press, 2001).

On page 214 of his book cited above, Mason quotes Josephus' comments on how the baptism of John the Baptist was non-justificatory and non-regenerative: "They must not employ it [baptism] to gain pardon for whatever sins they had committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already cleansed by right behaviour." (Antiquities Of The Jews, 18:5:2) Given the close relationship between John and Jesus and John's baptism and Christian baptism (as illustrated by John 3:26-30 and Peter's comments in 1 Peter 3:21 that are similar to those of Josephus, for example), it makes more sense to think that there would be more rather than less continuity between the two baptisms. The New Testament evidence suggests that John's baptism was non-justificatory and non-regenerative, and Josephus gives us further reason to reach that conclusion.