Slap style sounds like you do Kung fu . <| sep |> Sure . There are two passages in Josephus Antiquities of the Jews that talk about Jesus . The first passage , describing Jesus , was interpolated by Christian apologist , but it was an interpolation of an ORIGINAL MENTION . They embellished an already existing passage . This argument is sustain based in , but no limited to by the following evidence 1 There are two distinct manuscripts witch attest exactly that . An Arabic and Syriac paraphrase of the passage . The Arabic version , does not contain the obvious Christian interpolation and shows a much more neutral description of Jesus while the Syriac version , although more similar to the interpolated passage in Josephus , as a key difference that says that Jesus was believed to be the Messiah and not he was the Messiah . You can read all about it hereAn Arabic Version of theTestimonium Flavianumand its Implications Page 16 for the arabic version and page 26 for the Syriac version . 2 Another evidence is the mention of Josephus by Origen in Contra Celsum and Commentary on Matthew . Origen , in both passages mentions in passing that Josephus talked about the execution of James , the Brother of Jesus and additionally says that Josephus did not believed Jesus to be the Messiah . Why would Origen say anything about Josephus if he did not wrote anything on Jesus ? Because Josephus did wrote something about Jesus that later got embellished by Christian apologist . You might wonder , so what ? Why should we care what Origen has to say ? Well because Origen wrote before Eusebius . Additionally the mention that Josephus did not believed Jesus was the messiah agrees with the Arabic and Syriac version who mention that he was believed to the the Messiah instead of he as the Messiah . The second one is about the execution of Jesus brother James . There is no controversy over that passage what so ever regarding interpolation . Some try to say that the passage is referring to a different James , but that is a really difficult argument to hold . And finally Louis H . Feldman ' s Josephus and Modern Scholarship 1984 surveys scholarship on the question from 1937 to 1980 and consensus is the first passage is a PARTIAL INTERPOLATION and the second is genuine . Louis H . Feldman is one of the most respected scholars regarding Josephus . So to summarize We have a mention of Origen about the Passage of the Execution of James the Brother of Christ and the mention that Josephus did not believed Jesus was the messiah . We have and Arabic manuscript that as a very neutral description of Josephus passage and a Syriac version that possesses the neutral he was believed to be the Messiah . We have scholar consensus that regards the first passage to be an interpolation of an original message and the second to be completely genuine mention . Therefore we can concluded that the hypothesis that the Testimonium Flavianum is an original mention that was later embellishment by Christian apologist is more likely than the hypothesis that it was a complete fabrication that never existed in the original .