One popular misconception about Jesus is that there is no mention of Him in any ancient sources outside of the Bible. On the contrary, there are numerous references to him as an historical figure who died at the hand of Pontius Pilate. Some even noted that he was reported to have risen from the dead, and was worshiped as a God by all who followed him.


JOSEPHUS: (37-101 A.D.)

Josephus was born in Jerusalem only four years after Jesus' crucifixion. He was an eyewitness to much of what he recorded in the first century A.D. Josephus mentions many events and people from the Gospels. Josephus was an Orthodox Jew who was commissioned by the Romans to write a history of the Jewish people and Rome up until that point.

Mentions Jesus: Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

LETTER OF MARA BARSARAPION: (73 A.D.)

Mara Bar-Serapion was a Syrian who lived in the first century A.D. He wrote a letter to his son Serapion that mentions the Jews who killed their King. The letter is now in the possession of the British Museum.

"What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?...After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men...The wise king...Lived on in the teachings he enacted."

Below are from what other secular writers mentioned of Jesus in their writings-

Jesus was a wise man and was called the Christ or Messiah, (Josephus)

Jesus gained many disciples from many nations, (Josephus)

He healed blind and lame people in Bethsaida and Bethany, (Julian the Apostate)

He was accused of practicing sorcery and leading Israel astray, (the Talmud)

Under Herod, and during the reign of Tiberius, Pontius Pilate condemned Christ to die, (Tacitus)

Christ was crucified on the eve of Passover, (the Talmud)

His crucifixion was accompanied by three hours of unexplained darkness, (Thallus)

Christ's disciples, "reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive;", (Josephus)

His disciples took to the habit of meeting on a fixed day of the week and took their name "Christians" from him, (Pliny)

They gave worship to Christ "as to a god", (Pliny)

They bound themselves over to abstaining from wicked deeds, fraud, theft, adultery, and lying, (Pliny)

Christians held a contempt for death and were known for a voluntary self-devotion, (Lucian)

Christians believed themselves all brothers from the moment of their conversion, (Lucian)

Christians lived after Christ's laws, (Lucian)

Christians were willingly tortured and even executed for their refusal to deny their belief in the resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ. (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian)

Does any of this count for those skeptic of Jesus' actual existance? Or does it take more?

Is it really that important to know if he was real or a work of fiction? If You ask for spiritual help and receive it , dose it mater so much that a neighbor has not.

My Grand Dad told me there were three things you do not speak of in "POLITE" company!

1:Sex
2:Politics
3:Religion

Don't speak of these and can have a decent conversation!

psst.. this is a half a religious forum here... X) That's.. kinda what has to be talked about here. Anything else get's moved. X)

Hmmm, I find all of this very interesting, but I KNOW someone will come in here saying it isn't enough. Heh..... Let's just wait for that person.


By the way, you have the source for all that?

uhm... you do know that there were many people named 'jesus' within the era of the christian bible jesus.

so its not surprising the name 'jesus' is recorded in various places, because there wasn't only one person with the name 'jesus'.

family guy - over exaggerated powers

Yeah, but the stories match with the bible. So it would seem it's more probable that they are talking about Jesus Christ.

the stories match with the n.t. because it was compiled 300 years later. of course it matches. the council of constantinople made a few mistakes, but they covered a lot of their tracks. It's not that there was no Jesus, there were many.

Mre evidence for Santa than Jesus!

Santa Claus 1

Santa Claus 2

Want more references?

just because there was a jewish leader named jesus doesn't mean that the bible is true, and a god exists...
there are more historical references to muhammad then there were to jesus but are you a muslim?

for christianity to become what it has to be there was probably a strong person who was very popular that started it, and when he was stopped either by the romans or other jews,

because if i'm not mistaken there was never any ROMAN records of jesus' crucifixion at all, or in fact any record of anyone named jesus in any records from the time he was suppose to have existed.
and if you need me to provide my source.
A History of the Middle Ages by Joseph Dahmus

and like all other myths and legends it grew from there, but the the thing that made it so popular was the fact that one god made it much easier to control people then the current roman system at the time which involved many gods.

by giving the information you have done nothing, because it is quite obvious there had to be a person who was a strong voice in the jewish community at that time named jesus that's just common sense, and it is my understanding it was a common name in that era.

proving a person named jesus lived does nothing to prove anything about you religion, there was multiple people named jesus that existed in that time, and ti doesn't prove there is a god

The Josephus accounts of Jesus have been suspect to be a forgery. It was quite likely that the roman catholic church edited the josephus material in oreder to include what was in the first post.

I am not so sure that their was a jesus myself, but if their was religon has managed to turn Jesus into a victum and Martyr Him and call this noble and insist all the followers emulate this behavior and they do, this is called the New Testament , how to be a martyr. the only thing that ever becomes of being a Martyr is crucifiction, period, i see no value in this teaching other than to keep people in a state of guilt and which makes them easier to manipulate (this is basic physocology) thus ensuring monetary marrige for the lifespan of the follower or whatever else the religon might want such as defending absurd values etc.etc. Namaste Sheri

sherri-one comment-"what she said"-about time someone else said it-thanks.

It is universally agreed by historians and Biblical scholars that the language used in the Josephus writings are entirely different from that used in his proven writings such as "War." There is little doubt that the reference to Jesus was an adendum and that this document was doctored, probably early church priests.

The other references are not contemporary with the time of Jesus and can be discounted because they relflect later traditions, legends and religous tales.

The truth is that there is absolutely NO historic reference to Jesus apart from New Tesatment writings. The dream of the Christian world is to find a tangible reference but that has not happened. The ossary supposedly containing the bones of the brother of Jesus was proven to be a fraud. The later inscription speaking of the repairs done to the temple of Solomon was also a fraud. The relics held in the Slientum Museum of Constantinople such as the spear used to pierce the side of Jesus are obvious frauds. NO evidence of Jesus exists and in itself, that is suspicious since we have contemporary writings of Herod, Pontius Pilate and even external references to Joseph of Armithea and Nicodemus . . . . but NOTHING of Jesus.

The absence of reference does not, in any way, prove that he did not exist but it becomes perplexing that a man that after the jubilant entrance into Jerusalem on an ass was proclaimed in Scripture to be "known by all of Jerusalem."

Even the Scriptural references to Jesus are suspect. Jesus heals a blind man and orders him to say nothing of the miracle. Jesus has the transfiguration and tells the disciples to say nothing of what they have seen. How then, do these events appear in the Bible? If nothing was said, how were these events known?

One thing we do know . . . . the information contained in Scripture about Jesus matches very closely with Mithraic beliefs that were most popular in Rome after the destruction of Jerusalem in 72 A.D. To control the Hebrew slave population, Christianity proved to be a perfect mixing of the Jesus character and the widely held belief in Mithra.

lol @ zandore. good point! i really dont think the issue about jesus EXISTING is a problem tho with a lot of ppl.. more the issue about who he was and what he did. i think he existed sure.. but i really doubt he is the son of god and our saviour.

hardly universal. ive got a nice list of biblical scholars who support at least the core of the josephus passages being authentic ill post if you want me to.

think about that for a bit. im sure a bunch of people told Klaus Fuchs not to say anything about the atomic bomb to the soviets. i wonder how that got out?

Thank you!
I think someone might have realized the other point in my post.

Saint Nicholas did exist (A real Saint).
Jesus MIGHT have existed.
Santa Claus is just a childhood belief for some kids.
Jesus might have existed but he not as he is portrayed today.

Zannie i get you and agree If there was a jesus the way religion has turned this guy into a victum and Martyr, no self respecting person would want to be thought of as a savior or the only worthy individual on the face of the earth then or now, I get how this benefits religon what I don't get is how it helps anyone that is religious, granted my perspective is simple and elementary but this self effacing mentality is doing nothing but keeping tha majority of humans dysfunctional. Namaste Sheri

Sheri, what you say is so very true. How can people know Who They Really Are--magnificent, exquisitely beautiful Spiritual Beings--when they give away all their power to someone (Jesus) who they idolise and worship as a saviour God, who they consider to be far superior to themselves? And, Zandore, I agree with you that, if indeed Jesus existed (and I think he did), he was a lot different to the way he's portrayed today by most religious leaders. In a channelled message (received in the late 1950s), Archangel Gabriel has this to say:
"Would the Great Creator of all send His Son to die in despair and failure on the Cross? This implies that the Creator admitted defeat. He makes no errors! We make error. Jesus came to Earth to LIVE, not to die! Tell that to your churches. They say, "Jesus came to die so that all men might be saved by the shedding of His blood." He did not come to die. If He came to die, why would the Father have sent Him in the first place? They imply in their fundamental and narrow teachings that Jesus came to teach men, but they rejected the truth. Therefore, God, His Father, had no alternative but to place His Son on the Cross so that through the shedding of His precious blood all men might be saved and secure for themselves an everlasting and eternal free passage and quick ticket to paradise. This is the mouthing of Amun ( a false God)! It is not the teachings of our heavenly Father.
Jesus did not come to die primarily. He is not the dead Christ. Their entire gospel is based on the fact that Jesus died for them. He LIVED for them, dear ones; He did not DIE for them! We must follow His teachings, His words, His life. INSTEAD THEY ARE LIVING IN THE SHADOW OF HIS DEATH. They do not LIVE His teachings, and they call themselves Christian nations. They are not Christian. They follow the Dark One.
Their munitions factories, their secret smoke-filled chambers are not the chambers where the Christ would come. That is why this farce, this United Nations, shall collapse. On the surface it is the sheep's clothing, but inside it is a ravening beast. It is not based truly on the life of the Master. If they would forget about His death and how it secured them an easy way into heaven, they could solve the world situation...."

Excellent post Mark Namaste Sheri

Let’s look at the folks you cited:

Josephus - 37 CE - circa 100 CE
Julian the Apostate - Roman emperor 331-363 CE
the Talmud – beginning codification 200 CE – Final codification 600 CE
Tacitus – 56 -117 CE
Thallus - 50-75 CE (interestingly, we have none of Thallus works, just what the early Christian writer Africanus mentions in his “History of the World” in 220 CE. Even more interesting, modern astronomers have plotted the supposed solar eclipse that Thallus supposedly mentioned, it existed but would not have been visible in Palestine as it occurred around the curvature of the world at approximately 3 AM Palestine time! It was also 3 years too late for the accepted crucifixion date.
Pliny aka Pliny the Younger (to distinguish himself from his equally famous father, Pliny the Elder) – 62-115 CE
Lucian – 120-180 CE Christ is mentioned, in the play he wrote spoofing Christians, by one of the Christian characters (hardly historical evidence of Jesus)

What does each of these individuals have in common? Could it be that they were NOT contemporaries of Jesus? Could it be that they were born far enough afterwards that by the time they were writing they would have had no access to eyewitnesses and would have to rely on 2nd, 3rd and 4th information? That is if they actually wrote what we see today (there are several of these quotations that are suspected to be forgeries by those “honest” church fathers). Now I will address the major authors normally cited by Christians:

In 117 CE, about 40 years after the incident, Gaius Cornelius Tacitus reported the following:

"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race." (Book 15, chapter 44)

The use of the term “Christian” in this quotation is an apparent anachronism, in that the term did not come into use until the late second century. To speak of a ‘great crowd’ would indicate that he was speaking of the Jews. The Christians at this time were perceived by the Roman populace and authorities as a Jewish sect. It is doubtful that Tacitus would have been cognizant of even the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, much less his followers. The very tenor of this quotation lends credence to the strong possibility of it having later Christian interpolations.

Gibbon, in his “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, had this to say: “Their effects to dissemble their Jewish origins were detected by the decisive test of circumcision; nor were the Roman magistrates at leisure to enquire into the difference of their religious tenets.

So not only was Tacitus writing nearly a half century after the occurrence, he was using a term that wasn’t “coined” until another several decades during the reported period and this quotation taken at face value only serves to show the possibility of a group that followed the teachings of Jesus existing in Rome at the time of Tacitus’ writing (not necessarily in 64 CE the time of the incident) and in no way proves the existence of a Jesus.

Sometime around 112 CE, the historian Pliny the Younger, as the the Roman Governor of Pontus/Bithynia made the first reference of Christians in his report to the Emperor Trajan:
'Christians ... asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. ' (Pliny to Trajan, Letters 10.96-97)
Notice that no Jesus was mentioned, only a Christ which might or might not be Jesus. All this proves is that in the 2nd century CE, there was a group that identified themselves as Christians, something that we already knew. It no more proves there was a Jesus than the existence of Mithrians proves there was a Mithra.

Around 112 CE, the noted Roman historian, Caius Suetonius wrote in the “Twelve Caesars” of “constant disturbances” incited by Jews and the action taken by Emperor Claudius:
'As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome:
Christians seize upon this statement as proof of Christians in Rome during the reign of Claudius. A closer look at Roman history will show that Chrestus was a common lower class name, usually used by freemen or slaves (there are over 80 Latin inscriptions that refer to one Chrestus or another, many predating the birth of Christ). Chrestus translates from ancient Greek into English as “the good” which, while is a description often used by Christians for Jesus, comes nowhere near translating as Christ. So Suetonius is referring to a Jewish agitator not to Jesus of Nazareth in this passage.

It is also said the in his “Life of Nero” Suetonius described Nero’s persecution of the Christians:
'Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief ...' (16.2)
This is rather hard to take as being more than a later Christian interpolation, as the term Christian was not in use until much later. Even Saint Paul makes no references to ‘Christians” in any of his letters, nor could Nero have anyway of telling a follower of Christ from a Jew. The idea that a nascent ‘Christianity’ immediately faced persecution from a cruel and bloodthirsty pagan Rome is an utter nonsense. Rome was known for its religious tolerance, at least until the Christianity became the official religion of the Empire. Then for one thing, it is only in the last third of the 1st century AD, that Christ-followers emerged as a separate faction from mainstream Judaism. Until then they remained protected under Roman law as Jews. The irritation they caused to their more orthodox brethren meant nothing to the pagan magistrates. Says Gibbon:
‘The innocence of the first Christians was protected by ignorance and contempt; and the tribunal of the Pagan magistrate often proved the most assured refuge against the fury of the synagogue.’
Early Christ-followers called themselves 'saints', 'brethren', 'Brothers of the Lord' and their critics used various names: Nazoreans, Ebionites, 'God fearers', atheists. The Jewish association remained strong throughout the first century and when Christian sects got going in Rome in the second century they were identified by their rival leaders – Valentinians, Basilidians, Marcionites, etc. So little were Christ-worshippers known in the Roman world that as late as the 90s Dio Cassio refers to 'atheists' and 'those adopting Jewish manners'. Christians as a distinct group from the Jews appear only late in the 1st century, not long before the Jewish curse on heretics at the council of Jamnia (around 85 AD). The label 'Christian' itself only appears with the 2nd century Acts – with the story that the term 'began in Antioch' (11.26). Equally odd, is that Suetonius's isolated sentence appears in a section on Nero's 'good points.' It should also be noted that Suetonius does not associate punishment of the Christians with the fire that swept Rome, a crucial part of the later myth. Quite simply, the reference is a Christian forgery, added to Suetonius to backup the work of the 5th century forger Sulpicius Severus, who heavily doctored the work of another Roman historian – Tacitus – with a lurid tale of brutal persecution ('torched Christian martyrs') which immortalized Nero as the first Antichrist in the eyes of the Christian church. (The second Antichrist being the reformist Luther.)
LETTER OF MARA BARSARAPION: (73 A.D.)
An often-quoted Christian apologist, noted that this letter was "written some time later than A. D. 73, but how much later we cannot be sure" (Ibid.). He, of course, wants to see this letter as proof of the historicity of Jesus, but by his own admission, the document was written at least 40 years after the time that Jesus allegedly lived and possibly even later. Since Bar-Serapion made no claim in his letter that he had personally witnessed the execution of the "wise king" or had ever even seen him, his statement cannot in any sense be considered firsthand testimony of the historicity of Jesus, as Bruce and other apologists would like us to believe that it is.

We can't even be sure that Bar-Serapion was referring to Jesus. He didn't identify the "wise king" by name, as he did in the case of both Socrates and Pythagoras, so one merely speculates when he says that this is a first-century secular reference to Jesus. How does one make that determination? Messianic pretenders in Judea were a dime a dozen during the era of foreign domination. Josephus referred to some of them, and even the New Testament mentioned two of them in Gamaliel's speech to the Jewish council ( Acts 5:35-36). In Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus (Harper & Row, 1985), authors Richard Horsley and John Hanson tell of several Messianic prophets of this period besides Theudas and Judas of Galilee, whom Gamaliel mentioned in his speech. Some of these Messiahs were even named Jesus, and most of them came to ignominious ends at the hands ofeither the Romans or their own countrymen. How, then, do Bruce and other apologists who cite Mara Bar-Serapion's reference to a "wise king" who was executed by the Jews know for a fact that this was an allusion to Jesus of Nazareth and not to some other Messianic prophet of those times?"


Now to address the quotations from Josephus:

In 93 CE, Flavius Josephus published his “Antiquities of the Jewish” in which we find the infamous “Testimonium Flavianum“ or officially “Antiquities 18.3.3” which is quoted below:
Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."
The Testimonium Flavianum is contentious for various reasons. Very few scholars accept it as is currently written, but many do accept it with interpolations of varying degrees. The major question here is what are the interpolations or is the entire Testimonium a forgery inserted no earlier than the 4th century CE by a Christian with an agenda? I find the likelihood of a pious Jews such a Josephus to pen the phrase “He was the Messiah” and remain a Jew extremely low. It would also be unlikely that an author writing a history of the Jewish people for Roman consumption and with the backing of the Roman Emperor to write something that would make him suspect of treason and open him up to the prerequisite punishments of such a charge. In “Wars of the Jews”, published prior to “Antiquities”, he had made the statement that Vespasian had fulfilled the Messianic oracles. Hardly the statement of a Jew converted to Christianity! Origen, wrote twice that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Messiah.
Either the passage “Antiquities 18.3.3 (the Testimonium) received a few interpolations or it is entirely an interpolation. The phrases “He was the Christ”, “If it be lawful to call him a man” and "for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him" are the ones most often not accepted by those favoring partial authenticity. Even the name assigned to the passage, “Testimonium Flavianum” has a Christian ring to it, much like a Christian testimony. There as many points made against the validity of the passage, some of the more important are:
Josephus’ use of the phrase “to this day” is considered indicative of a writer writing long after the events being reported. Many Christians believe a span of 60 years between the death of Jesus and the publishing of “Antiquities” would be too close for Josephus to made a believable use of it and that the very survival of Christianity that long , would cause some surprise, since most cults vanish shortly after the death of their founders. This argument is very weak when you consider many of the modern cults like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc that are around and thriving long after the death of their founders.
Josephus’ description of Jesus is unusually shorter than his norm, less than half the size of John the Baptist’s. The Christian rebuttal to this is that it only serves to show Jesus’ lack of importance to populace of Judea at that time, that John and others such as the “Egyptian” were much better know, thus rated larger descriptions. This really doesn’t wash, because the “Antiquities” was targeted to a Roman audience who ould not have known John, Jesus, or the “Egyptian” from Adam, consequently Josephus gave in detail information on his characters. Something that he did not do in the “Testimonium”

When writing the “Jewish War” in the 70s CE, Josephus outlined two incidents in the section on Pilate that he used to begin chapter 3 of Book 18 of the Antiquities, incidents that had caused tumult in Judea during Pilate’s tenure as Governor. Whereas these incidents are followed immediately by the “Testimonium” in the Antiquities, in the corresponding section of the Jewish Wars (2.9/169/177) there is no mention at all of Jesus. Christian scholars argue that in the intervening decade between the books, that Christianity had become more important. This is highly unlikely since interpolations of the number of Christians in the late 1st century and 2nd century (based on number of Bishops and average number of churches under a Bishop and average church membership) indicate that only by the end of the 2nd century CE did the number of Christians reach over 100,000 out of a population of several millions in the Empire

The language Josephus used to describe John, although over twice as lengthy, when compared to the language of the “Testimonium” is extremely close, almost as if it were used as a template for the “Testimonium’s” description of Jesus. This is indicative of there being no reference to Jesus at all in the original version of Antiquities.

There is an ancient table of contents in the “Antiquities” that omits mention of the “Testimonium”; this is further indication that there was no such passage in the original version (this table of contents shows in the oldest existing manuscripts).

It is argued that the reference to "the tribe of Christians so named from him" requires the earlier phrase "He was the Christ." This is another reason to suspect this passage to be a later insertion. It was considered poor form in Josephus day to spell out a connection that was taken for granted.

The “Testimonium” seems to be out of context with the rest of Antiquities 18, whereas Josephus had be speaking of upheavals and the folly of Jewish rebels, governors and troublemakers, but there is no upheaval shown in this passage and it is completely supportive of Jesus and his followers. Contrary to his normal writing, there is no criticism of Jewish or Roman authorities; there is no moral or lesson. The closest the passage comes to criticism is in his statement, “and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross”, which if you cross your eyes and squint real hard, might look like criticism, and again might not. Although Josephus begins the next paragraph by speaking of 'another outrage' that caused an uproar among the Jews at the same time (18.65), there is nothing in this paragraph that depicts any sort of outrage. At best, with the “Testimonium” the flow from the previous paragraph to the “Testimonium” to the following paragraph is choppy and gives the impression of being not quite thought out. Without the “Testimonium” the flow from the previous paragraph to the final paragraph is natural and smooth, but the flow.



The passage does not fit well with its context in Antiquities 18. . . Josephus is speaking of upheavals, but there is no upheaval here. He is pointing out the folly of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers in general, but this passage is completely supportive of both Jesus and his followers. Logically, what should appear in this context ought to imply some criticism of the Jewish leaders and/or Pilate, but Josephus does not make any such criticism explicit. He says only that those who denounced Jesus were 'the leading men among us.' So, unlike the other episodes, this one has no moral, no lesson. Although Josephus begins the next paragraph by speaking of 'another outrage' that caused an uproar among the Jews at the same time (18.65), there is nothing in this paragraph that depicts any sort of outrage. It is also argued that the continuity of the flanking passages works best when no passage about Jesus intervenes. The final thought of the previous paragraph flows naturally into the words of the one following, whereas the opening of the latter paragraph does not fit as a follow-up to the closing sentence of the Testimonium.

None of the early Christians cite the “Testimonium” in their works, not Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexander, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius,
nor Lactantius. Although each of these writers show familiarity with the works of Josephus, as pointed out by Michael Hardwick in “Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius”. Origen used passages from the Antiquities to establish the historicity of John the Baptist and would have been eager to quote the Antiquities to prove the historical existence of Jesus. Interestingly, It was for the purpose of proving that Jesus performed true miracles, not to establish his historicity, that Eusebius quoted the “Testimonium” in his “Evangelical Demonstration”. So we can show that the early Church Fathers would have gladly quoted an existing “Testimonium”. This is an absence of proof, but strong evidence of the “Testimonium” being a much later Christian interpolation.

The language style of the “Testimonium” shows several deviations from Josephus’ normal writing, in that it uses words in ways uncharacteristic of Josephus as pointed out by Steve Mason in “Josephus and the New Testament”. He continues on with the example of the word poietes (from which we get the word poet), translated as “worker” in the phrase “worker of incredible deeds”. Etymologically, it means “one who does” and so it can refer to any sort of “doer”. But in Josephus’ day it had already come to have special reference to literary poets, and that is how he consistently uses it elsewhere (nine times) – to speak of Greek poets like Homer (p. 169). Notice further that the phrase "they did not cease" has to be completed by the translator, for it is left incomplete in the text; the action which his followers ceased must be understood from the preceding phrase. This is as peculiar in Greek as it is in English, and such a construction is not found elsewhere in Josephus' writing. (p. 169) Again, the phrase "the tribe of the Christians" is peculiar. Josephus uses the word "tribe" (phyle) eleven other times. Once it denotes "gender," and once a "swarm" of locusts, but usually signifies distinct people, races, or nationalities: the Jews are a "tribe" (War 3.354; 7.327) as are the Taurians (War 2.366) and Parthians (War 2.379). It is very strange that Josephus should speak of the Christians as a distinct racial group, since he has just said that Jesus was a Jew condemned by Jewish leaders. (Notice, however, that some Christian authors of a later period came to speak of Christianity as a "third race.") (pp. 169-170). Finally, there is a peculiarity with the reference to the "principal men among us." Josephus elsewhere refers to the "principal men," but Josephus consistently refers to the principal men "of Jerusalem" or "of the city," using these phrases instead of the first person plural. In his autobiography, Josephus refers to the "principal men of the city" (2), "the principal men of Jerusalem" (7), the "principal men of the city" (12), the "principal men belonging to the city" (12), the "principal men of the city" (12), and the "principal men of Jerusalem" (44). In each case Josephus identifies the leading men as belonging to Jerusalem.
There are several ways in which the Testimonium aligns with the style and argument of Eusebius of Caesarea. In his "Eusebian Fabrication of the Testimonium", Ken Olson writes that in Adversus Hieroclem Eusebius argued that if he had to accept the supernatural feats attributed to Apollonius, he must regard him as a GOHS [wizard] rather than a wise man (A.H. 5); here he has Josephus call Jesus a 'wise man' and thus, implicitly, not a GOHS. The term PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS is markedly Eusebian. POIHTHS never occurs in Josephus in the sense of "maker" rather than "poet," and the only time Josephus combines forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW it is in the sense of "miracle-making" is exceedingly common in Eusebius, but he seems to reserve the three words PARADOXOS, POIHW, and ERGON, used together, to describe Jesus (D.E. 114-115, 123, 125, H.E. 1.2.23). Eusebius' opponents were not denying that Jesus was crucified by the Roman and Jewish authorities; this was probably a main part of their argument that Jesus was a GOHS. Eusebius, however, cleverly inverts this argument. If Jesus had been a deceiver, and his followers had been deceivers, would not self-interest have compelled them to abandon his teachings after they had witnessed the manner of his death at the hands of the authorities? The fact that they did not abandon Jesus after witnessing the punishments he had brought upon himself can only mean that the disciples had recognized some greater than normal virtue in their teacher. This argument is developed at great length in D.E. 3.5, but I shall quote only a part of it here, "Perhaps you will say that the rest were wizards no less than their guide. Yes - but surely they had all seen the end of their teacher, and the death to which He came. Why then after seeing his miserable end did they stand their ground?" (D.E. 111).
Olson concludes: "the Testimonium follows Eusebius' line of argument in the Demonstratio so closely that it is not only very unlikely that it could have been written by Josephus, but it is unlikely it could have been written by any other Christian, or even by Eusebius for another work. There is nothing in the language or content of the Testimonium, as it appears in the Demonstratio Evangelica, that suggests it is anything other than a completely Eusebian composition."
As Earl Doherty stated in “ The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?”: "the entire tenor of such an 'original' does not ring true for Josephus. In the case of every other would-be messiah or popular leader opposed to or executed by the Romans, he has nothing but evil to say. Indeed, he condemns the whole movement of popular agitators and rebels as the bane of the century. It led to the destruction of the Temple, of the city itself, of the Jewish state. And yet the 'authentic' Testimonium would require us to believe that he made some kind of exception for Jesus." (pp. 210-211). It is argued that Josephus wrote the passage in a carefully neutral tone, however his readers were primarily Roman, some Jewish. What reason would he have had for being, in Meier's phrase, "purposely ambiguous"? He had nothing to fear from Christians, and no reason to consider their sensibilities. Regardless of what he may have thought about the character of Pilate, if Pilate had executed Jesus, then there had to have been - in official Roman and Flavian eyes - a justification for doing so. Crucifixion was a punishment for rebels, and Jesus' crucifixion would have been seen as part of Rome's ongoing campaign to deal with the problems of a troubled time in a troubled province. (p. 213). Thus, the fact that the reconstructed Testimonium has nothing but nice things to say about Jesus tends to work in favor of its inauthenticity. Consider the reference to Jesus as a "wise man" (sophos aner). Josephus reserves this phrase elsewhere for such worthies as King Solomon (Ant. 8.53) and the prophet Elisha (Ant. 9.182). Mason notes, "If Josephus said it, it was a term of high praise." (p. 171) But it is inconceivable that Josephus should have such high praise for one who is only given so little space and who is attributed with such negative characteristics (to Josephus) as apocalyptic prophecy and the cleansing of the Temple. True, the above is inconclusive, but are much stronger arguments than can be put forward for the authenticity of the passage.
As far as the 20.9.1 quotation from the Antiquities, The James, brother of Jesus could very well have been the brother of Jesus, son of Damneus, the contender for the High Priesthood along with Ananus, and politically quite strong with the Romans and the Jews. If would make for sense for this to be a “hit” against a rival (through his family) than trumping up charges against what was then thought of as a small sub sect of the Jewish religion, followers of a rebel crucified for sedition against the Romans! Many scholars consider this passage questionable at best. I hope that this will clear up any misconceptions you have about the lack of historical backing of Jesus of Nazareth (which didn’t exist until the middle of the second century CE, but we won’t go there now).

well there we have it people it's put to rest..... thank you
ever knowledgeable and honored
Mako