A free preview, generated by MasteryLoopHQ.
In late October, a widely shared headline said a “2,000-year-old manuscript” contained a written account of Jesus rising from the dead. The news article under that headline was more careful than the headline. And both pointed back to a third thing: a study. That study is a preprint posted on August 15, 2026 by one independent researcher, Jesús Fernández-Pedrera Correa. Its title is “The Testimonium Flavianum in Four Transmission Lines: Greek, Latin, Arabic, and Syriac.” A preprint is a paper shared publicly before, or without, peer review. This one had not been peer-reviewed when this guide was written. So there are three layers: a headline, an article and a study. They can say three different things.
Josephus was a first-century Jewish historian who wrote Jewish Antiquities in Greek, at Rome. He dates his own work: “to this very day, which is the thirteenth year of the reign of Cæsar Domitian, and the fifty-sixth year of my own life.” That puts it around AD 93–94. The preprint says the same: “writing at Rome in the mid-nineties of the first century.” Josephus was not a Christian. Origen, writing in the third century, says Josephus was “not believing in Jesus as the Christ.”
Here is the passage in William Whiston’s public-domain English translation, 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 at this day.” Older editions, like Whiston’s, number this passage 18.3.3. Modern editions number it 18.63–64. It is the same passage. Its Latin nickname is the Testimonium Flavianum, “the Flavian testimony.”
No copy from Josephus’s lifetime survives. The news article itself says, “Josephus’s original manuscript does not survive.” The preprint says: “Every known Greek manuscript of Jewish Antiquities transmits the same text of 18.63–64… The oldest of them, Codex Ambrosianus 370 (F 128), is an eleventh-century book.” Two manuscript catalogs list that book, in Milan, and date it to the 11th century; one lists it as Josephus’s Antiquities, and the other records it as parchment. The earliest known quotation of the passage is by Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Ecclesiastical History, around AD 324. So there are about 230 years between Josephus and the first quotation, and about 900 years or more between Josephus and the oldest Greek manuscript of the work. These are rough figures from simple subtraction.
The study’s method is to compare the Greek with other ancient versions that report the passage differently. Here is the key clause, “He was the Christ,” in each: Greek manuscripts, and Eusebius around AD 324: “He was the Christ.” Jerome, in Latin, around AD 392: “and was believed to be Christ.” Agapius, in Arabic, 10th century: “perhaps he was the Messiah.” Michael the Syrian, in Syriac, died 1199: “he was thought to be the Messiah.” English wordings for Agapius and Michael are as rendered by Shlomo Pines, quoted in the preprint. The study’s argument is that three later traditions all soften the same clause, in the same direction. Its claim, in its own words: “The argument establishes one thing: that the flat predication in the received Greek is not the earliest recoverable form of the clause.”
The received Greek says Jesus “appeared to them alive again the third day.” The preprint calls that sentence as it stands “a summary of apostolic preaching.” It notes that in the Arabic version the disciples “reported that he appeared to them.” Its conclusion, word for word: “That reconstruction is plausible and is supported by the Arabic form; it is not established. The honest statement is that the versional evidence supports a minimal authentic substratum here and does not determine its extent.” In plain English: the study suggests Josephus may have reported that Jesus’s followers said he had appeared to them, and that this was later expanded into a statement of the event, with the appeal to the prophets added. The author says the evidence cannot settle this. All four versions still mention the appearance; they differ in whether it is reported or stated.
Josephus mentions Jesus a second time, in Antiquities 20.9.1 (also numbered 20.200). A high priest “brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others.” The preprint says this passage “has attracted almost none of the suspicion that attaches to 18.63–64.” It says “called Christ” works “as an ordinary identifier distinguishing this Jesus from others bearing a very common name,” and calls it “a Josephan formula for referring to Jesus without confessing him.” Origen, too, knew Josephus mentioned Jesus and said Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ.
The preprint concludes that the reduced passage “stands as first-century non-Christian testimony to the existence of Jesus and to his execution under the Roman prefect.” It also says the scholarly debate is “largely settled in favor of” partial authenticity, the view that a core of the passage is from Josephus and some parts were added later. Scholars have long debated how much of the passage is original: some argue that more of it is original, and a minority argue that none of it is. The preprint’s own reconstruction should not be read as the consensus. Honest limits: there is no original manuscript, there are centuries of copying, and the study has not yet been reviewed. This guide takes no side on matters of faith. Three questions to bring to a group. Does this evidence require a conclusion, or only permit one? What would change your mind? What does a historian’s source tell us, and what does it not? For another close reading of a text, see our Bible study at /explore/revelation-12-11-blood-of-the-lamb.
A late-October headline called it a “2,000-year-old manuscript.” What actually exists is a passage Josephus wrote around AD 93–94, known from Greek manuscripts no older than the 11th century and from quotations as early as about AD 324. A new, not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint compares later versions and argues the original was more reserved: “believed to be” the Messiah, and a resurrection report rather than a statement. The author argues the first point with high confidence and calls the second “plausible… not established.”
In your own words: (1) Explain why “2,000-year-old manuscript” is inaccurate, using the dates in this study. (2) What does the preprint claim to establish, and what does it say it cannot establish? (3) Using the James passage and Jerome’s Latin, explain the difference between someone reporting a belief and stating it. Answer key. (1) Josephus wrote around AD 93–94. No manuscript from then survives. The oldest Greek manuscript of this part of Antiquities is from the 11th century, and the earliest known quotation is by Eusebius, around AD 324. (2) It establishes only that “He was the Christ” is not the earliest recoverable wording. It calls the resurrection reconstruction “plausible… not established,” and it is a preprint, not peer-reviewed. (3) “Who was called Christ” and “was believed to be Christ” report what others said. “He was the Christ” states it as the author’s own view.
Reading a good explanation feels like understanding it. Usually it isn't the same thing — and you don't find out which one you've got until someone asks you to explain it back.