There’s a meme floating around social media with Bart’s photo, and the quote (supposedly by Bart): “ In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references.” I wonder if Bart actually said or wrote this, because it doesn’t consider Josephus’ the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9) where he mentions James being the brother of Jesus. Any insights?
Thanks, Robert. I’m guessing the quote is being used by mythicists to suggest that there is no mention of Jesus outside of the New Testament. And those who read the meme aren’t familiar with Josephus (because most people aren’t) so they buy into it. So much for the Information Age.
Welcome! I think it’s pretty much mythicist dogma at this point that the references to Jesus in Josephus’ writings are spurious. They simply dismiss Josephus out of hand. Of course actual Josephus specialists aren’t nearly so certain.
That Jesus is not mentioned in contemporay extra-Biblical accounts is ultimately a trivial observation. Most historical figures that did not leave writings themselves are represented by partisans. The concept of the “objective” disinterested historian barely exists today. It did not exist at all in the ancient world.
Here is ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
The clip cuts out right after the line, and I’m not sure, offhand, from which debate this was taken.
It is clear, even from the brief clip, that Bart isn’t arguing that Jesus didn’t exist.
His immediate point seems to be that we are dependent on later Christian sources for our knowledge of Jesus, and that we don’t actually know much about him. It does seem, well, misleading to make the point in that way (assuming I’ve correctly gathered his purpose); Surely Josephus is relevant to that point and shouldn’t be left out on the technicality that he wasn’t born a Roman.
Well, there you have it. Robert was right. In the last-posted video you get the following context. After the money line that started the conversation, Bart talks about Pliny (as the earliest Roman source), then *immediately* goes on to speak about Josephus and identifies him as a Jewish source.
So, the meme took Bart out of context.
Out of journalistic obligation, I would like to add that for some mythicists, Josephus is the original source of the historical biography of Jesus. The story about Jesus did not come from the gospels or oral traditions, but from a few words written down in Ant by a Jewish historian
A reader of Ant at the end of the first century was inspired by texts about various rebels, the Sign Prophets, about James the Just, about John the Baptist and finally about Jesus (Testimonium F) and concluded that it was an interesting material suitable for recycling. It was enough to write an interesting plot and narrative and ensure the continuation of the tradition through alleged testimonies from the past. Thus, the tradition of the historical Jesus was created 60 years after the events described, based on several dozen words, and only then made public. The impressive power of the right message.
The simplicity and effectiveness of this solution is captivating. When you create a human incarnation of a new deity that you want to promote, you use a character that exists in historical sources but is not widely known and add a narrative and views to it. This is a simple and clever solution. Certainly easier than the mechanism used by Morton Smith who wanted to become the next evangelist after eighteen centuries.
For Discussion:
I’ve prepared the video “Jesus Rewritten after Rome’s Victory in Galilee, 67 CE.” It is scheduled for 8pm central, today, 2/11/2026. Please watch the new upload.
I’m glad that after years of faith and patience for being able to explain my position on how there is at least one historical Jesus behind the biblical Jesus. Years ago, maybe 5 to 7 years ago, I was asked, Do you think Josephus wrote a gospel or was involved with writing any of the gospels? I only thought that Josephus and Paul had too many biographical similarities to the extent that Paul could have been a Christian persona of Josephus.
With Jesus being rewritten after Rome’s Victory at the Battle of Galilee, 67 CE, the Gospel of Mark could have been written between 68 CE and 70 CE for the sake of King Herod Agrippa II. The Christian persona of Josephus could have been writing the letters of Paul after 67 CE (thinking of the scholar, Nina E. Livesey).
** you do not have permission to see this link **
historyguy2004 said
There’s a meme floating around social media with Bart’s photo, and the quote (supposedly by Bart): “ In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references.” I wonder if Bart actually said or wrote this, because it doesn’t consider Josephus’ the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9) where he mentions James being the brother of Jesus. Any insights?
Is Tacitus not Roman?
Steefen said:
For Discussion:
I’ve prepared the video “Jesus Rewritten after Rome’s Victory in Galilee, 67 CE.” It is scheduled for 8pm central, today, 2/11/2026. Please watch the new upload.
I’ll admit to extreme skepticism that your idea of ** you do not have permission to see this link **is the same as mine.
Do you want us to critically examine the claims in your video?
brown.connor4 said
historyguy2004 said
There’s a meme floating around social media with Bart’s photo, and the quote (supposedly by Bart): “ In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references.” I wonder if Bart actually said or wrote this, because it doesn’t consider Josephus’ the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9) where he mentions James being the brother of Jesus. Any insights?Is Tacitus not Roman?
Rather, Annals (c. 116CE) is not 1st century, but 2nd.
With Jesus being rewritten after Rome’s Victory at the Battle of Galilee, 67 CE…
Steefen I shall forever ever be grateful for the mental image I took from your writing about the battle on the Sea of Galilee.
There he is: pegleg Jesus astride the deck of his sloop, feathered Tricorne hat, cutlass at the ready!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)