Outside of the Sacred texts, a unique testimony of Jesus existence written in 91AD
(twitter.com)
๐โ๐โ๐๐๐๐ธ๐ ๐๐ธโ๐ฝ๐ธโ๐ผ
Comments (84)
sorted by:
Yes, that is a writing from Josephus, a Jewish historian of that time. Tacitus and Pliny the Younger are also historians from around that time that testify of Jesus' life.
You understand many biblical scholars consider the Josephus references to Jesus to be a forgery by Eusebius?
The majority believe the paragraph is original with a bit of interpolation. I was challenged by an unbeliever (who has asked me not to ping him) to read one of those very few scholars who consider the whole thing a forgery. I went into it believing Josephus made 1.5 references to Jesus; the so-called scholar wants to teach that Josephus made 0 references to him; but I came away believing that Josephus actually makes 4.5 references to Jesus!
The primary reasons people cast a shade on this passage are (1) they didn't understand Josephus's neutral language, such as saying he was the Christ and separately he was called the Christ, was not regarded as the hard boundary line we regard it as now; (2) they think that Origen's unhelpful dismissal of Josephus indicates that Josephus said something different than every manuscript of him says; (3) they then invented rationalizations to wrest this passage out of Josephus, contrary to how they treat every other paragraph in him as genuine and source-based; (4) they argued from silence in many ways by laying false expectations on how people should have handled this passage the first thousand years.
Once I realized that it had been demonstrated that Josephus's primary source was Luke 24 and then independently statistically verified this year, I recognized that both direct references to Jesus were genuine (I listed 29 textual reasons) and every word can be defended as being from Josephus by comparison to his corpus and his paraphrasis. (Along the way I found that Josephus's half-reference to the myriad tumults in Herod's time, and his two references to Herod's kin plotting against a king of their own race, were in fact best fit to no person other than Jesus and the slaughter of the innocents.) So I thank God for atheists whose arguments are so lame that they renew and strengthen my faith in God.
u/BoiledRhombus
Others have analyzed the passage and found it to be inauthentic. It is written as if it were centuries later.
https://vridar.org/2015/01/16/fresh-evidence-the-jesus-passage-in-josephus-a-forgery/
Abstract of paper by Paul Hopper:
Josephus in the Jewish Antiquities introduces Jesus the Messiah into his history of the Jews, and appears to report events corresponding closely to those of the Gospels, including Jesusโs crucifixion on the orders of Pontius Pilate. A longstanding dispute exists about the authenticity of this text. The present article offers a narratological analysis of the passage, comparing the styles of event reporting in the passage with the three other episodes in Josephusโs Pontius Pilate sequence. The study concludes that the uses of the Greek verb forms such as aorists and participles are distinct in the Jesus passage from those in the other Pilate episodes, and that these differences amount to a difference in genre. It is suggested that the Jesus passage is close in style and content to the creeds that were composed two to three centuries after Josephus.
If you looked at my article, you'd see that I demonstrated that Hopper was the outlier who disagreed with everyone before, and everyone after. IMHO Hopper's work was completely debunked by Goldberg 2022 and Schmidt 2025. The reason for Hopper's observations was that Josephus, who usually paraphrased from traditional Jewish or Roman sources, paraphrased the testimony from Luke 24 instead, which had the apologetics cast to it that Hopper observes, even though a comparison shows that Josephus was deliberately softening Luke's language.
Since scholars agree that 1 Cor. 15:3-4 represents an oral creed composed 2-5 years after the crucifixion, there was plenty of apologetics genre floating around before Josephus so that we don't have to relegate it to 300 years later. Schmidt 2025 shows that all the language of the testimony is specifically and statistically Josephan, and even Louis Feldman, who rejects the passage, only finds three phrases that he can rank as definitely not Josephan, but his methodology is suspect ("wonders" and "tribe" are common enough in variation and "still to this day" is very generic).
Scholars who express doubt about the authenticity or reliability of specific passages in Josephus's writings, particularly his mentions of Jesus (known as the Testimonium Flavianum and the reference to James), include:
Many biblical scholars get a bunch of stuff as wrong as rain. Biblical scolars have the same problem as all scholars. They only eat what the endorsers of truth tell them to eat. Want to learn. Study for your self. Apply the principles of how the bible interprets itself. Then you can stop guessing.
I have studied a fair bit over the years I guess. I have never found anything to make me think it is anything but an invented control system. They were able to achieve destruction of traditional belief systems from all over Europe in favor of the jew-deifying religion. You literally worship jewishness. How could anyone think it is real? It's truly mind-boggling to think you still believe like your life depended on it all this time after it was foisted on your ancestors.
So you're saying the religion that called the Jewish leaders a brood of vipers and the children of the Devil is somehow worshipping Jews? That's pretty crazy. The whole New Testament completely disagrees. Not to mention that Christians were dying at the hands of the Jews simply for believing it. Their own Talmud calls Jesus a sorcerer and blasphemes Him with vitriol. Also, the apostles were Jewish and were brutally murdered for their faith. It makes zero sense that it was some psyop.
Your god said jews are his favorite. He magically impregnated a jew, making his son a jew.
Ok, then according to atheism scholars, atheism is wrong!!
jesus christ
is Lord. You reject Him yet misuse His Name. Oh my UltraMagaOK!!!!!
Any historian of the time actually meet him? Those 3 were born after Jesus died.
If you knew anything about ancient history, you'd know that no one wrote historical accounts during someone's life. The earliest document we have that records the life of Alexander the Great was written 400 years after he died. We do have 4 accounts of Jesus' life from people who knew Him, but you won't accept them because they're in the Bible.
You answered my question saying there are none outside the bible. No need to put words in my mouth, thats bad form.
Was I wrong?
Your answer helps determine that. Shockingly sometimes a question is a question.
So which answer determines what outcome? Example: If he answers "yes" does that make him right or wrong?
What do you retards not understand what a question is. Holy fuck you are a dipshit. If youre gona bring up non bible historians, give me a single reliable source who met him, thatd be important to know.
"Jesus"- the name was a Greek invention. The sound the letter J makes has never existed in the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin languages. The letter J was first used a couple of centuries after this alleged writing.
Christ's name was Yeshua
If, in this writing, it said a "...man named Yeshua (whom we now call Jesus)..." it would be more believable.
I am a Christian and I do believe Christ was a living man. But I also know the powers that be like to obfuscate the truth.
I don't know why people get so offended about this. When Passion of the Christ does it, everyone loves it. When we bring it up, we piss people off.
If we properly translate his name, we would call him Joshua. Just like Joshua son of Nun. Slap on a Y, and guess what? We have his real name.
Updoot for your post. Its what that name represents the devil fears. A man who defeated death and put satan inder the feet all who believe. When a person is born again of Gods Spirit thr devil k ows what that person has. When thr person knows it too amd stands in thst truth, satan crumbles. Greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world.
Whyโd you get -1โed? Have my updoot.
Also note that โYeshuaโ is quite possibly still incorrect, though I certainly wonโt insist on it - all translations are going to be somewhat inaccurate, and itโs probably not the most important piece of the puzzle. Still, go back to the original Hebrew, written Hebrew of the time having no vowels. Odd how things donโt line up when theyโre cross-referenced, neh?
Think โYโshuaโ -> โYeshuaโ and what implications that might have, grammatically.
Of course I can see where people might also be inclined to go to that translation: https://files.catbox.moe/wywxxy.jpeg
I donโt claim to know THE Truth of the situation, just seems worth thinking about.
"Jesus" is an English invention, from Latin Iesus, from Greek Iesous, from Aramaic Yeshua (Y'shua), from Hebrew Yehoshua. Josephus just says "Iesous" the same as the Gospels do. "Yesou-" is the standard transliteration into Greek since they have no shin nor ayin, and "-s" indicates that it's a man's name.
On occasion writers might want to copy a word from a different language than they are writing in, in which case he could have tried to say "Yeshua, that is, Iesous"; but that could only be done either by (1) using a form of Hebrew alphabet, which Josephus knew but declined due to his audience, or (2) attempting a closer transliteration, which would still come out like "Iesoua" and would be relatively unnecessary. However, there's new strong statistical evidence (see the next comment I post) that Josephus's paragraph used Luke 24 as its source, which was Greek, so he might not have even thought to transliterate, the same as when he referred to any other person of the same name like Joshua ben Nun.
I downvoted Crock (but then reversed it), because he was falling for a seed of doubt that was sown in the 19th century and using a rationalization to perpetuate that doubt. There is no reason for doubt based on our distance from the texts, because when we pick up the culture of the texts the alleged reasons of distance disappear. The lack of vowels didn't cause anyone to have trouble reading the words "Yehoshua" and "Yeshua", with slight variation possible similar to other words. He was Yehoshua in the Hebrew synagogue, Yeshua in the Aramaic street, Yeshu in the Galilean gutter, Iesous in the Greek market, and Iesus in the Latin court.
Your link shows the word "yeshu'ah", salvation, which is close and cognate but not a homonym. People knew this related form (feminine) was similar, but when necessary they could emphasize the different ending to indicate which was meant if there was confusion.
u/CrockOSuds
" I am a Christian and I do believe Christ was a living man."
Then you do not believe the Gospels? All the Gospel writers went willingly to their deaths for their belief in Jesus, the Son of Man was also Jesus was the Son of God. I do not know what you base you belief in if you do not believe the Gospels that testify that Jesus was fully man and fully God! Jus sayin.
Why are you trying twist what he said through strenuous specificity? Just because he was saying one thing didnโt mean he was trying to exclude the other. God I fear what so many of you are like at real-life parties.
I did not twist anything. Some people can't handle the truth!
Thats what many who dont know the truth say. Some ares tuck still in romish fables some are not.
Jesus was fully man and fully God.
John, James, Judges, Jude, Joseph, Jerusalem, Jabez,....
Peter, Paul, and Mary
What?
I have josephis writings. Been reading them for 40 years. Very enlightening.
Famous for doing miracles but you have to seek for generations after he died to find a single mention.
If you wanted evidence, you would easily find it.
I always want evidence and I have looked.
Where have you looked? Where have you refused to look?
The bible and history in general
Do we have any evidence that you looked?
For starters my post history here. Beyond that you will just have to have faith.
Scholars recognize the creed circulating about his death, burial, and resurrection reached memetic form 2-5 years after his death as evidenced by 1 Cor. 15:3-4 which is the same generation. There are other evidences of the same generation that are too many to list. Plus, historians rarely ask for evidence from the same generation for verifiying the lives of comparable people like Julius Caesar or Simon Magus, so your standard is arbitrary in the first place.
There is this for a contemporary accounts of Jesus: https://archive.org/details/archkovolumeorth028454mbp
Nice compilation, this "Archko Volume". Pretty sure those have been catalogued by Charlesworth and dated as not contemporary, such as Acts of Pilate. They would follow the genre of pious fiction. Will review and be happy to get back to you.
Thank you, I look forward to seeing your review. Happy New Year.
Well, I'm disappointed, I was thinking of a different Acts of Pilate, which with the Report of Pilate and Letters of Pilate are all from early church, maybe 4th or 5th century.
I should've been more suspicious based on the Table of Contents having excessive specificity, but I slogged through Rev. William Mahan's Archko Volume and its turgid, repetitive, circuitous prose to the point of falling asleep, making it to page 38 before giving up on his introduction and looking for alternate sources.
Sure enough, the Cumberland Presbyterians suspended Mahan from the ministry for one year in 1885 because he had literally plagiarized Ben-Hur, as Lew Wallace himself testified to them. Mahan then just had the work republished without the offending chapter, unrepentant. Mahan's initial document, an Acts of Pilate, was later found to be plagiarized from "Ponce Pilate a Vienne" by Joseph Mery in Revue de Paris 1837. So it's pretty clear the whole thing was invented for its sales power.
Mahan invents references that would make a hallucinating AI blush. At one point he omits an entire print line from Wallace, supplying the word "anuman" where Wallace had hyphenated Anubis and Ahriman on two consecutive lines. (Wikipedia says this fact is in Edgar Goodspeed, Modern Apocrypha, Boston, 1956, p. 52, but it's actually on pp. 36-37 of that edition.) Mahan describes five different people who allegedly helped him locate and translate the documents, but none were found to exist (as Goodspeed evidences), and his professed itineraries and correspondences did not accord with reality. His plagiarism was held in exceptionally low esteem by all that Goodspeed interviewed.
Sorry to be so negative about it. Peppering others' manuscripts and one's own fantasies with invented words and names and practices that do not and cannot exist in reality does not advance the cause of truth. Goodspeed reports, still p. 37, that Mahan defended himself as follows, indicating that his entire philosophy and approach speaks for itself:
Thank you for that, its settled my mind about it.
Did those people do miracles never seen before or since? A one-time-only jewish wonderman, the true son of god; I would think it would cause a bit of a stir.
What makes you think it didnโt?
No mention of it by anyone
This thread is literally about it being mentioned by somebody. Does that person not count to you or something?
It's a forgery by someone named Eusebius hundreds of years later. Josephus never wrote it.
Do we have any historical records of people promoting "You can do anything, your SELF is Overpowered!"??
I see signs miracles and wonders every day as Gods Word itself says those follow they that believe. Just got a text from someone who God just healed telling us.
I think you outsource your own personal power you were born with to a twisted control system. It still can work but it will never be as powerful as your own mind unencumbered by fictitious beliefs.
I think youโre onto something with this comment, but youโre missing something as well.
Twisted according to whom?
Nope, Christianity has objectively been the most powerful. There are tons of things we can't do. No matter what we do, no matter how hard we try. Fatigue, illness, etc. also short circuit your claim. God has gotten plenty of people through things, just ask them. People have burnt out despite all their self reliance.
Also if someone made up a religion, would they narcissistically try to claim they can do anything or would they try to humbly claim God is better than them and beyond them? Which one aligns with sinful fallen human nature?
According to me. People who believe in god have all those things happen to them. I don't think you are really thinking this through.
Tell me by what power do you operate?
I have thought about this question. Beyond obvious things like other lifeforms on Earth and the power of our home star (nothing to sneeze at when considering universal forces natural or supernatural) and so on I would say I operate on brain power. the power of the human nervous system. Psychic power might be a better term, the power of the psyche. It's not indelibly tied to the body. I recognize out of body experiences including what I would call spirit travel: going places at night in what seems like a dream but seeing verifiable precise details of an unexpected event and retaining those details on waking, then finding out what you saw was exactly accurate.
Quite a few Roman records exist mentioning Jesus. It is clear he existed. I can understand people questioning if he was the son of God. I believe he was.
Oh really.
Yes, really. https://archive.org/details/archkovolumeorth028454mbp
See how easy it is to destroy your illusions?
The Archko Volume is a controversial 19th-century book, compiled by Rev. W.D. Mahan, claiming to be translations of ancient Jewish (Sanhedrin) and Roman records detailing Jesus' life, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection, including a purported official report from Pontius Pilate (Acta Pilata). While presenting itself as authentic ancient documents from Constantinople and the Vatican, scholars widely discredit it as fabricated or plagiarized, with Mahan himself convicted of falsehood, making it a debated text for biblical history enthusiasts rather than a historically accepted source.
Quite. Its a debated text, not one that is in scripture at all.
Seems like it's probably garbage though, huh?
Hey to each his own. I used to sound like you about 40 years ago. God humbled me in the best way and i witness to His power. Just as you try to witness against it.
It's been over 2 millennia.
Now you see why billions of years, life from non life, kind-into-another-kind evolution, and big bang are unbelievable.
But his supposed miracles were the greatest thing ever seen on our planet (discounting perhaps the equally dubious Moses story.) I find it difficult to believe those things happened and no one made any kind of record about it.
I don't believe three out of four of the rest of what you said. Evolution seems pretty solid. Yes, life changes over time. Otherwise it wouldn't have much of a chance.
Its ok friend. This isnt about a religion. Its about a relationship. GOD want one with you. The invitation is wide open and is never withdrawn. Keep quesrioning and questing. What ever your hunger, keep pressing.
Why should I believe that?
"But Jesus doesn't exist! REEEEEEE!!!!"