However, according to Painter unlike the Testimonium this issue has not generated a great deal of controversy, although viewed as a potential reason for doubting authenticity.

Louis Feldman has stated that in the period from 1937 to 1980 at least 87 articles had appeared on the topic, the overwhelming majority of which questioned the total or partial authenticity of the Testimonium.

Andreas Köstenberger states that the fact that the 10th century Arabic version of the Testimonium ( discovered in the 1970s ) lacks distinct Christian terminology while sharing the essential elements of the passage indicates that the Greek Testimonium has been subject to interpolation.

Wells has argued against the authenticity of the Testimonium, stating that the passage is noticeably shorter and more cursory than such notices generally used by Josephus in the Antiquities, and that had it been authentic, it would have included more details and a longer introduction.

A final argument from silence relates to Josephus ' own writings and questions the authenticity of Testimonium based on the fact that it has no parallel in the Jewish War, which includes a discussion of Pontius Pilate at about the same level of detail.

Kenneth Olson has argued that the entire Testimonium must have been forged by Eseubuis himself, basing his argument on textual similarities between the Testimonium and Eseubuis ' writings in the Demonstrations of the Gospels.

However, Louis Feldman has presented arguments that Origen may have seen a copy of the Testimonium ( in a different form than quoted by Esebeius ) and not commented on it for there was no need to complain about its tone.

Alice Whealy, who supports the partial authenticity of the Testimonium, has rejected the arguments by Kenneth Olson regarding the total fabrication of the Testimonium by Eusebius, stating that Olson's analysis includes inaccurate readings of both the works of Josephus and Eusebius, as well as logical flaws in his argument.

Robert Van Voorst states that most modern scholars believe that the Testimonium is partially authentic, and has a reference to Jesus.

The long one has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum.

The fuller reference to Jesus contained in our existing manuscripts, the famous and disputed passage known as the Testimonium Flavianum, considered by many specialists to contain later interpolations, is nevertheless believed by some scholars to preserve an original comment regarding Jesus as well, although there has been no consensus on which portions of it have been altered, or to what degree, with different scholars presenting their own independent versions of the Testimonium.

Wells has noted that the Testimonium was unknown to Origen, stating " Origen could not have known it because in his polemic against Celsus he professes admiration for Josephus ' although he did not believe in Jesus as Christ ', whereas in the interpolated passage Testimonium Josephus is made expressly to say of Jesus ' he was the Christ '.

Vermes states that if the Testimonium had been the work of a Christian forger, it would have placed blame on the Jewish leaders, but as is it is " perfectly in line " with the atitude of Josephus towards Pilate.

The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation.

The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation.

Zvi Baras, on the other hand, believes that the Testimonium was subject to interpolation before Eseubuis.

The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation.

James Dunn states that there is " broad consensus " among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.

James Dunn states that the works of Josephus include two separate references to Jesus and although there are some interpolations in the Testomonium, there is " broad consensus " among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.

Although Origen makes no direct reference to the Testimonium, scholars such as Louis Feldman and Zvi Baras have presented arguments that Origen may have seen a copy of the Testimonium and not commented on it for there was no need to complain about its tone.

A number of scholars argue that the reference to Jesus in this later passage as " the aforementioned Christ " relates to the earlier reference in the Testimonium.

Drawing on these textual variations, scholars have suggested that these versions of the Testimonium more closely reflect what a non-Christian Jew may have written.

While early scholars considered the Testimonium to be a total forgery, the majority of modern scholars consider it partially authentic, despite some clear Christian interpolations in the text.

Some scholars have attempted to reconstruct the original Testimonium, but others contend that attempts to discriminate the passage into Josephan and non-Josephan elements are inherently circular.

Almost all modern scholars reject the total authenticity of the Testimonium, while the majority of scholars still hold that it includes an authentic kernel.

Paul L. Maier, and separately Zvi Baras state that scholars generally fall into three camps over the authenticity of the Testimonium: 1.

Craig Evans ( and separately Robert Van Voorst ) state that most modern scholars accept the position that the Testimonium is partially authentic, had a kernel with an authentic reference to Jesus, and that the analysis of its content and style support this conclusion.

While before the advent of literary criticism most scholars considered the Testimonium entirely authentic, thereafter the number of supporters of full authenticity declined.

However, most scholars now accept partial authenticity and many attempt to reconstruct their own version of the authentic kernel, and scholars such as Geza Vermes have argued that the overall characterizations of Jesus in the Testimonium are in accord with the style and approach of Josephus.

Goldberg's analyses suggested three possibilities, one that the matches were random, or that the Testimonium was a Christian interpolation based on Luke, and finally that both the Testimonium and Luke were based on the same sources.

The Testimonium is likely the most discussed passage in Josephus and perhaps in all ancient literature.

Feldman states that " The most likely assumption is, then, that the ' Testimonium ' as read by Origen contained historical data in a neutral form.

Louis Feldman states that it is significant that the passages on James, John and the Testimonium are found in the Antiquities and not in the Jewish Wars, but provides three explanations for their absence from the Jewish Wars.

The earliest surviving Greek manuscript that contains the Testimonium is the 11th century Ambrosianus 370 ( F 128 ), preserved in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan, which includes almost all of the second half of the Antiquities.

Scholars also point to the silence of Photios as late as the 9th century, and the fact that he does not mention the Testimonium at all in his broad review of Josephus.

Chilton and Evans state that the general acceptance of the authenticity of the James passage lends support to the partial authenticity of the Testimonium in that the brief reference to " Jesus, who was called Christ " in Antiquities XX, 9, 1 " clearly implies a prior reference " and that " in all probability the Testimonium is that prior reference ".

In 1836 the apostles wrote a manifest, called the Testimonium, to all church and state leaders of the Christian countries.

Scholars have differing opinions on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, a passage usually called the Testimonium Flavianum.

Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.

The Testimonium Flavianum ( meaning the testimony of Flavius < nowiki ></ nowiki >) is the name given to the passage found in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities in which Josephus describes the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the Roman authorities.

Book 20 of the Antiquities do not appear in any other versions of Josephus ' The Jewish War except for a Slavonic version of the Testimonium Flavomium ( at times called Testimonium Slavonium ) which surfaced in the west at the beginning of the 20th century, after its discovery in Russia at the end of the 19th century.

In 1971, a 10th century Arabic version of the Testimonium due to Agapius of Hierapolis was brought to light by Shlomo Pines who also discovered a 12th century Syriac version of Josephus by Michael the Syrian.

These additional manuscript sources of the Testimonium have furnished additional ways to evaluate Josephus ' mention of Jesus in the Antiquities, principally through a close textual comparison between the Arabic, Syriac and Greek versions to the Testimonium.

The arguments surrounding the authenticity of the Testimonium fall into two categories: internal arguments that rely on textual analysis and compare the passage with the rest of Josephus ' work ; and external arguments, that consider the wider cultural and historical context.

The external analyses of the Testimonium have even used computer-based methods, e. g. the matching of the text of the Testimonium with the Gospel of Luke performed by Gary Goldberg in 1995.