Josephus’ testimony on the crucifixion of Christ

 

Does the testimony of the historian Josephus prove the crucifixion of Christ?



Christians cite a group of sayings and writings of pagan historians and also Jewish sources in order to prove the crucifixion of Christ historically as if it were an uncritical fact. Among these historians is the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius, who was born in 37 AD. He is the one we will talk about today and refute the words that Christians cite as evidence and that are attributed to Josephus. The refutation and analysis will be scientific and academic. We will refute all Christian allegations about what is called the Flavian testimony (Josephus’s testimony Testimonium Flavianum). The text of Josephus’s words that Christians cite

“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love [him] did not cease. On the third day he appeared to restore them to life. For the prophets of God had prophesied these and myriads of other marvelous [things] about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still up to now, not disappeared.

(Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3)

Translation

“There was at that time a wise man named Jesus, if we may call him a man, for he did wonderful works and was a teacher of those who gladly received the truth. He drew to himself many, both Jews and Gentiles. He was the Christ.

And when Pilate, at the command of our rulers, had condemned him to be crucified, his followers, who had loved him from the beginning, did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as the prophets of God had foretold of these and a thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the community of Christians, called after his name, exists to this day.

These are the words of Josephus that Christians cite as evidence for the crucifixion of Christ.

Dear reader, it is enough for you to look at the parts that I have highlighted in red to know that this statement is forged and attributed to Josephus. How can Josephus say that Jesus is the Christ and that he rose from the dead as the prophets predicted

and that he is more than a man (i.e. a god) while he - Josephus - is a Jewish man, rather a Pharisee Jew, and he defends Judaism in his writings???

But the funny thing is that one of the Christian defenders has a dedicated website on the Internet in which he responds to the doubts about Christianity - of course with lies and deception and not with evidence - and unfortunately many simple and common Christians believe him, as this Christian defender says:

But before we jump to unsubstantiated assumptions , what is the evidence that Josephus was not a Christian or an Ebionite Jew and did not want to state that,

or even that he was not a Christian or an Ebionite but a historian who mentions the widespread matter neutrally,

or that he was a Jew who rejected Christianity and accepted it at the end of his life?

The Christian wants evidence that Josephus did not believe in Christianity????

In fact, this indicates the low educational level of the Arab Christians, or that they deceive the simpletons and laughed at them.

It is known to everyone that Josephus was a Pharisee Jew who defended Judaism and did not accept Christianity and died a Jew according to the writings of

the scholar Origen (one of the Church Fathers in the third century AD). He was familiar with and knowledgeable about the works of Josephus, and even quoted from them a lot in his arguments, debates, and defense of Christianity. He even quoted from the same book that the Christians cite to prove the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Origen says in his book Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 47:

Contra Celsum, Book I chapter 47

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as somehow accepting John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins , is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews , Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ , in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm

Origen says quite clearly that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Messiah.

Both of these Origen's prove two things.

1- Josephus did not believe in Christ and did not embrace Christianity.

2- The words that the Christians cite and attribute to Josephus are forged and not the words of Josephus. If these were really his words, Origen would not have said that he did not believe in Christ. Origen would have cited this paragraph or referred to it. However, Origen does not know anything about this paragraph that talks about the death and resurrection of Jesus, even though he is familiar with the writings of Josephus and was quoting from his works and from the same book in which we are supposed to find this fabricated paragraph.

What is strange and sad is that we find a famous Christian website, namely the website of Anba Takla, lying and claiming that Origen cited this distorted and fabricated paragraph where he says:

He also said in his book: “The Antiquities” meaning the Antiquities: “There was about that time (i.e. in the time of Herod Antipas) a wise man called Jesus - if it is permissible to call him a man - because he performed amazing works that attracted a large number of Jews and Gentiles to him. Pontius Pilate sentenced him to be crucified at the insistence of the leaders of our people. But those who loved Christ did not leave him, and here they remain to this day and are called Christians in reference to him” (Book 18: 3) (See Josh McDowell - Evidence Demands a Verdict - pp. 108, 233, and Ruth Clifford - The Trial of the Christian Faith - translated by Raafat Zaki, p. 103, and Father Hanna Girgis Al-Khudary - History of Thought, Vol. 1, p. 149).

This text was cited by both Origen and Eusebius in the third and fourth centuries AD, and Professor Abbas Mahmoud Al-Akkad also referred to this text in his book: “The Genius of Christ.”

https://st-takla.org/books/helmy-elk...88%D8%AF%D9%8A

There is no power or strength except with God

They lie like this either knowingly or out of ignorance, and of course no one will question the simple Christians who mislead them and lie to them. To God we belong and to Him we shall return.

Indeed, Josephus, after writing this book “The Antiquities”, wrote another book several years later in which he defended Judaism and tried to prove that it was the true religion. This book is “Against Apion”.

How do these people claim that there is no evidence that Josephus did not convert to Christianity?

Scientific refutation of this paragraph

It is very easy for a Christian to fabricate this paragraph, especially since Josephus’ writings were in the hands of Christians and reached us through Christians and not Jews, as

Some people think

As we have proven above, when Josephus wrote the book “The Antiquities”, he was Jewish and not Christian, and this confirms that this paragraph is forged because:

First: Internal evidence (from within the paragraph itself)

1- This phrase ((If we were to call him a man, what is higher than this (i.e. God)) cannot come from a Jewish person who does not believe in Christianity, especially a Pharisee like Josephus.

2- A Jew cannot say or testify that Jesus is the Christ and not embrace Christianity, and Josephus did not embrace Christianity.

3- It is impossible for a Jew like Josephus to say that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day as God’s prophets had predicted.

These conclusive reasons from the same paragraph prove without a doubt that this paragraph is forged and fabricated and not from the words of Josephus.

Second: Evidence from outside the paragraph

- This paragraph was not quoted or referred to by any of the early Church Fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen (who was familiar with the writings of Josephus and quoted from them frequently and testified that Josephus was not a Christian), nor anyone before the fourth century AD until this paragraph first appeared in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea (who is accused of fabricating this paragraph, as we will see later).

partial distortion theory

There are a number of scholars who say that Josephus originally spoke about Jesus, but Christians distorted and added to Josephus’ words the resurrection of Christ and that he was more than just a man.

So the paragraph that scholars believe Josephus wrote (of course, this is just a guess, inference, and assumption from these scholars) is:

“There was at that time a wise man named Jesus, for he worked wonders and was a teacher of those who gladly received the truth. He drew to himself many, both Jews and Gentiles.
And when Pilate, at the command of our rulers, condemned him to be crucified, his followers, who had loved him from the beginning, did not leave him. And the community of Christians, called after his name, exists to this day.

This is the theory of restoring Josephus’ words, as scholars assume that Josephus said these words about Jesus and did not speak about the resurrection, but this theory faces difficulties and obstacles and is not acceptable because of:

1- These scholars did not provide evidence for this conclusion and assumption, and we do not have any original manuscript of Josephus to confirm what he said and what he did not say.

2- It is not easy according to grammatical and linguistic rules to separate the text or sentences, and there is no evidence to delete some words and keep others.

3- The text in its current form is found in all available manuscripts of Josephus - noting that the oldest manuscript of this speech that contains this text dates back to the eleventh century AD, 1000 years after the original text was written. See James Carleton Paget, Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity, pg. 209.

This is a picture of the oldest manuscript of this alleged certificate.

4- If these scholars acknowledge that the Christians tampered with Josephus’ words and added words, then what guarantees us that they did not add words related to the crucifixion of Christ as well?

5- If the Christians added words to Josephus’ text, then this entire text is doubted, and the Christians use it as evidence, and whatever is subject to possibility invalidates the evidence.

There is an Arabic manuscript of the alleged Flavian Testimony, which dates back to a person named Agapius. It was discovered by the scholar Shlomo Pines of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and it is relied upon by supporters of the partial authenticity of the text of the Testimony.

This is the text of the speech mentioned by Agapius.

Likewise Josephus the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance of the Jews: At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. Translation Likewise Josephus the Hebrew (Jew). For he says in his treatises that he wrote about the rule of the Jews: At this time: There was a wise man whose name was Jesus. His conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and from other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who became his disciples did not abandon his following. And they said that he appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was probably the Christ about whom the prophets told of the wonders. But this text mentioned by Agapius is not from an independent manuscript of Josephus's manuscripts, but from the work mentioned by Eusebius, as proven by the scholar specializing in Josephus' works, Alice Whealey. Alice Whealey, “The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic,” New Testament Studies 54.4 (2008) pp. 573-90. As shown in the following diagram Even the scholar Shlomo Pines, the discoverer of Agapius’ text, says that Agapius’ words were translated from a Greek manuscript and that the reason for the difference is the translations and the presence of errors in these translations. “Agapius' Arabic text of the Testimonium is in all probability translated from a Syriac version of the Greek original. It is highly probable that in the course of these translations, and also as a result of scribal errors, some alterations, not due to a deliberate attempt at distortion, were introduced into the text.” Look:- Shlomo Pines, “An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications”, p. 23, Eusebius and the forgery of testimony As we mentioned, this alleged passage attributed to Josephus was not referred to or quoted by any scholar or father of the Church until the fourth century, when the first mention of this alleged text appeared for the first time in the works of Eusebius of Caesarea. This casts doubt on the authenticity of this alleged paragraph and that Eusebius is the fabricator and forger of this text attributed to Eusebius. Ken Olson, a scholar at Harvard's Center for Hellenic Studies, says: “Both the language and the content have close parallels in the work of Eusebius of Caesarea, who is the first author to show any knowledge of the text. Eusebius quotes the Testimonium in three of his extant works: the Demonstration of the Gospel 3.5.106, the Ecclesiastical History 1.11.8, and the Theophany 5.44. The most likely hypothesis is that Eusebius either composed the entire text or rewrote it so thoroughly that it is now impossible to recover a Josephan original. Translation:- "Both the language and the content have a close resemblance to the work of Eusebius of Caesarea, the first author to show any knowledge of the text. Eusebius quotes the testimony in three of his surviving works: the Demonstration of the Gospel 3.5.106, the Ecclesiastical History 1.11.8, and the Theophany 5.44. The most likely hypothesis is that Eusebius either composed the entire text or rewrote it so completely that it is now impossible to recover an original copy of Josephus." The arguments and evidence that Christians use to prove the authenticity of the Flavian testimony condemns Eusebius. Christians use some arguments from the paragraph to prove that the writing style is not Christian but Josephus’s and that this paragraph is authentic. These arguments are mentioned to us, for example, by Robert Van Voorst in his book Jesus Christ, Outside the New Testament, An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, which is available in Arabic. However, all this evidence supports the view that Eusebius is the one who forged this testimony, as we will see. 1- The paragraph calls Jesus a “wise man.” Christians say that this praise is not the praise that one would expect from a Christian, as it is an uncommon expression among Christians. They also mention that Josephus used it a lot. Comment: What is the problem with a Christian calling Jesus a wise man?? There is no problem. Eusebius uses the same expression about Jesus as a wise man in (Prophetic Eclogues (PG 22, 1129). 2- The Christians say that the phrase (did wonderful deeds) is difficult for a Christian to write. Comment: We do not find this phrase anywhere other than this fabricated paragraph in the works of Josephus, but surprisingly we find it a lot in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, who is accused of fabricating the paragraph, where Eusebius applies it to Jesus or God in his book Ecclesiastical History 1.2.23 and his book The Life of Constantine 1.18.2. 3- The Christians say that it is difficult to imagine that a Christian would use the word ((joy)) to describe the followers of Jesus in the following sentence He was a teacher for those who accepted the truth with joy. Indicating the doctrine of pleasure, Eusebius also has no problem using the word pleasure. For example, he praises the Christian martyrs who received death with pleasure in his book Martyrs of Palestine 6.6 and also in his book In Praise of Constantine 17.11. * Note: - Sentence “teacher of human beings” i.e. Jesus is not found anywhere else except in this alleged passage from the writings of Josephus, but it is found in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. Praeparatio Evangelica 1.1.6-8 (Demonstratio (3.6.27; 9.11.3) 4- Christians say that the sentence And attracted to him many Jews and Gentiles alike. It could not have been written by a Christian because Jesus did not attract many non-Jews and many of them did not follow him. Comment This argument assumes that all ancient Christians read the Gospels in the same way that critics and historians read them today, but this is not true. Eusebius, for example, says in his writings that Jesus brought crowds of Jews and pagans under his authority. Demonstration 3.5.109 He also said that Jesus freed everyone who came to him from the sin of polytheism. Demonstration 4.10.14 And Jesus revealed the power of his divinity to everyone equally, whether Jews or Greeks. Demonstration 8.2.109 Eusebius also says that Jesus' miracles became so well known that crowds came to him from distant foreign lands seeking healing. Demonstration 1.13.1 5- Christians say that the sentence His followers who loved him from the beginning did not leave him. It is in the style of Josephus and is not expected to have been written by a Christian scribe. Robert Van Voorst also says that the love of Jesus' followers for him according to this sentence and not Jesus' manifestation to them after the resurrection is the basis for the continuation of Christianity and the continuation of Jesus' followers in following him. Commentary The claim that the passage is "in the style of Josephus' writing" is mere speculation. Most commentators have stated that the failure to clarify what his followers stopped doing and leave it to speculation is not the style of Josephus' writing. As for Van Voorst's argument regarding the passage, that he makes the love of Jesus, not the resurrection manifestations, the reason why his followers continue to follow him, it is based on a misreading of the text. The passage clearly says that the resurrection manifestations of Jesus are the reason why his followers do not stop "loving" or continuing to follow him. Eusebius confirms this in his writings. This is the argument of Eusebius, who is accused of forgery, and his style, as Eusebius says: One of the main reasons for the resurrection was Christ's desire to give his followers visible evidence of life after death so that they could continue and spread his teachings. Demonstration 4.12 6- The last argument of the Christians, as conveyed to us by the Christian Robert Van Forst, is that the use of the word “tribe” for Christians cannot come from any Christian writer, and therefore it is from the words of Josephus. Comment There is indeed a Christian writer who used the word tribe or clan to describe Christians and surprisingly this person is ((((Eusebius of Caesarea)))) Robert Van Voorst himself confirms this in the same book in footnote number 39 on page 90 where he tells us that Eusebius in his book Ecclesiastical History 3.3.3 used the word tribe to refer to Christians as in the following picture: - As you can see, all the evidence indicates that Eusebius is the one who fabricated and forged this testimony, and all the arguments that Christians use to prove the authenticity of the paragraph apply to him. Whether Eusebius is the one who forged this testimony - and this is what the evidence actually says - or someone else, or even the testimony is partially correct, it has no value and does not prove anything. Josephus is not a reliable and accurate historian, and he only repeats what was common and widespread and what Christians believe, and it is not from a reliable or independent source. He did not tell us where he got his information from, and no scholar can be certain of the sources from which Josephus got his information, as Forrest himself confirms in his book, “ Now, at the end of our humble research, we present to you the statements of scholars and researchers who confirm that this paragraph attributed to Josephus in its entirety is fabricated. ” * Before I present to you the statements of scholars, I will present to you the words of one of the Christian defenders who lies and deceives the poor and simple Christians and tells them that there is no scholar who doubts the attribution of the paragraph to Josephus and whether it was distorted by a Christian writer or not. But scholars differed as to whether the correct paragraph is the long one as quoted by Eusebius or the short one as quoted by Agapius. This is the text of his words: The difference is whether Josephus’ original words are the long text or the short text (in both cases it testifies to the crucifixion of Jesus). As you can see, lying and deception are the weapons of the people of falsehood. Do scholars differ only on the short or long text, or is it the words of Josephus or an intruder and forged by a Christian or partially distorted? Here are the statements of scholars and researchers (1) Professor Oskar Holtzman (a Christian) spoke about the paragraph attributed to Josephus, which is known as Testimonium Flavianum. In detail, he says: “Origin must still have read something like this in his Josephus; for in two places he tells us that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah (Contra Celsum i. 47; cp. In Matth. On the other hand, Eusebius already (Hist. Eccl., i. 11, and Dem. Evan., iii. 5, 105, 106) contains that passage about Jesus (Jos., Ant xviii. 63 f.)- now given all the MSS.- which, in view of its content and form CANNOT POSSIBLY BE GENUINE. If this section were indeed derived from Josephus, it would mean that he, a Jew, who everywhere steps forward as a champion of his Judaism, first called Jesus a wise man, and then added the hesitating qualification, 'if indeed he may be called a man at all.' The writer then proceeds to justify this qualifying clause by adding further, 'for he was a performer of incredible acts'; though what those acts were he does not tell us. The same passage also goes on to say that Jesus was a teacher of such men as willingly accept the truth. That is to say, Josephus here describes the nature and content of Jesus' teaching by the simple term, 'the truth' (...). Jesus drew to himself those who thirsted for the truth- SUCH A SENTENCE CAN ONLY HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY ONE RECKONED HIMSELF TO BELONG TO THE COMMUNITY OF CHRIST. Again, it is said Jesus, in distinct contradiction to historical fact, 'and many Jews, many also of the people of the Greeks, did he draw to himself.' Josephus the historian, in describing the earthly Jesus, COULD NEVER HAVE MADE SUCH A STATEMENT as that contained in the second clause. But the account goes on to say of Jesus, 'this man was the Messiah.' IF JOSEPHUS HAD WRITTEN THEUS, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONTENT TO DEVOTE ONLY ONE SHORT CHAPTER TO THE ACCOUNT OF JESUS' LIFE; for we must remember that Josephus was a Jew and completely familiar with the Messianic belief. If he could have so written, Jesus must have been for him the man of men, the future lord of the world; At any rate, from this particular passage onwards the fate of Jesus must have seemed important for the whole future development of his narrative. But of this there is not the slightest trace. The only further passage in which Josephus makes mention of Jesus is that already cited (Ant., xx. 200). This circumstance, more than any other, PROVES THAT THE PASSAGE UNDER CONSIDERATION (XVIII. 63, 64) IS NOT GENUINE. This same passage then goes on to speak of the end of Jesus: 'When the chief men among us had notified him unto Pilate, and Pilate had punished him with the death on the cross, those who had formerly loved him fell not away, for on the third day he appeared unto them again alive, as the holy prophets had foretold (and many other wonderful things also); And even down to this present time the Christian folk who are called after him have not ceased to be.' Here, then, the whole body of Old Testament prophecy is referred to Jesus; This is the standpoint of a Christian. Nor is the expression 'the Christian folk' (...) appropriate in the mouth of one who is a Jew and wishes to remain so. The word... really expresses the idea of ​​a common descent; it is precisely the characteristic element of the idea that was manifestly wanting in Christianity, made up as it was of an assemblage from all peoples. Christianity knows differently: to it all the members of the Christian community are children of God and brethren of Christ. Almost the only designation for the Christian community that was available for a Jew to use was the term..... (Acts xxiv. 5, 14, xxviii. 22). THIS PASSAGE ATTRIBUTED TO JOSEPHUS IS UNQUESTIONABLY SPURIOUS. And as there are no inherent contradictions discernible in it, it would be a piece of pure arbitrariness to ATTEMPT TO PICK OUT GENUINE KERNEL FROM WAS IS AS A WHOLE SPURIOUS. On the contrary, we are obliged to hold that the text which we now have supplanted another which was LESS AGREEABLE to the Christians of a later date. And the time when his substitution took place was no doubt the period between Origen and Eusebius. THE CHURCH, STRUGGLING AS SHE WAS AFTER POWER, DELETED FROM JOSEPHUS, AN AUTHOR BOTH WIDELY READ AND IN MANY RESPECTS SERVICEABLE TO HER, A PASSAGE WHICH WAS REPUGNANT TO HER, AND SUBSTITUTED FOR IT A TEXT WHICH FROM HER STANDPOINT WAS UNASSAILABLE, BUT WHICH , AS A MATTER OF FACT, IS IN NO SENSE COMPATIBLE WITH THE AUTHORSHIP OF JOSEPHUS.” Source: - The life of Jesus (1904) Professor Oskar Holtzmann DD Translated by Jt Bealby, BA And Maurice A. Canney, MA [London Adam and Charles Black 1904] pages 15 – 16 (2) Professor of Hebrew Archaeology Henricus Oort, scholar I. Hooykaas and Professor of Theology Prof. A. Keunen They confirm in their book 'The Bible for Learners' This paragraph was not written by Josephus, but rather a forgery by a Christian writer. “……for this knowledge we have hardly any sources but the four books with which the New Testament begins. No other authorities deserve to be mentioned by their side. Paul gives us a few general characteristics, and makes a few allusions in his letters, but this is all. He had never known Jesus personally. Flavius ​​Josephus, the well-known historian of the Jewish people, was born in AD 37, only two years after the death of Jesus; but though his work is of inestimable value as our chief authority for the circumstances of the times in which Jesus and his disciples came forward, yet HE DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE EVER MENTIONED JESUS ​​HIMSELF. AT ANY RATE, THE PASSAGE IN HIS 'JEWISH ANTIQUITIES' THAT REFERS TO HIM IS CERTAINLY SPURIOUS, and was INSERTED BY A LATER AND A CHRISTIAN HAND.” ] Source:-The Bible for Learners. Volume 3 page 27 (3) Alexander Campbell, who was a Bible teacher, minister, and church leader, admits that the passage about Jesus in the Acts of Josephus is not original, but “spurious”: where he says “Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion. Respecting the founder of his religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, AND AS THIS PASSAGE IS NOT QUOTED OR REFERRED TO TILL THE BEGINNING OF THE FOURTH CENTURY, IT IS, FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS GENERALLY ACCOUNTED SPURIOUS.” Source: Debate on the evidences of Christianity; containing an examination of the social system, and of all the systems of scepticism of ancient and modern times, held in the city of Cincinnati, for eight days successively, between Robert Owen and Alexander Campbell. With an appendix by the parties (1839) Page 300 (4) This is also confirmed by the theologian Leonard Gobelt, who says: “We would be very much inclined to ascribe special significance to non-Christian information about Jesus because of its ostensible lack of bias. Our expectations would be high, e.g., if the trial folios of Pilate should be discovered on a piece of papyrus. In all probability, however, such a discovery would lead to disappointment since they would offer only a sum of misunderstandings, much like the accounts of Plinius about the Christians. Such is the confirmed the small number of extant non-Christian sources of information about Jesus from the 1st and 2nd centures. Among the Roman historians, Jesus is mentioned only once each by Tacitus and Suetonius. What they have to say about him ca. AD, 110 has been taken from statements of Christians. This fact is not astonishing at all since, after all, for the empire in this period, the activity of Jesus and his disciples was nothing more than a remote affair with hardly more than local significance. Conspicuous, however, is the fact that even Josephus, the Jewish historian of the epoch, is entirely or almost entirely silent on Jesus. THE TWO BRIEF REMARKS ABOUT HIM IN JOSEPHUS WORKS BEAR ALL THE MARKS OF EXTENSIVE CHRISTIAN EMENDATION, if they are not entirely interpolated. What is the reason for this silence? He was writing for a Hellenistic-Roman audience for one thing, and wished for this reason to avoid any identification of his movement with Judaism. It had, after all, fallen under suspicion in the entire Kingdom since Neronian persecution. The inner-Jewish, rabbinic tradition speaks only rarely and in veiled terms about Jesus or the Nazarenes. The references are so disguised and the information SO DISTORTED THAT ONE CAN HARDLY SAY WITH CERTAINTY THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT JESUS ​​OR THE CHRISTIANS AT ALL.” Source: The Ministry of Jesus in Its Theological Significance By Leonhard Goppelt Volume 1 [Copy Right 1981] page 18 – 19. The Christian scholar Richard Brodhead Westbrook also confirms that this paragraph is forged in his book The Eliminator; Or, Skeleton Keys to Sacerdotal Secrets Page 198 – 203