Christian Evangelists quote, usually with great fanfare, that Flavius Josephus wrote the following passage in his work "Jewish Antiquities" (Ioudaike Archaiologia):

"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."

Sounds great doesn't it? Proves that Christ was a well known figure in about 60 AD, right? Well, unfortunately there is a bit of a problem. This passage  wasn't in the original manuscript!

Firstly some background. Flavius Josephus was born about 37 AD. He was a noted historian and one of his greatest works was the "Jewish Antiquities" which  covers the history of the Jews from 170 BC until about 66AD. It was written in Greek.

It was translated into Latin and unfortunately the original Greek manuscripts have been lost.

Apparently during this translation a few paragraphs were added which weren't in the original!

The term for this is an "interpolation", that is something which was added (interpolated) which wasn't in the original manuscript. I prefer the word "forgery".

The Catholic Encyclopaedia agrees that "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." And one would have to admit the Catholic Church is a most enthusiastic supporter of Christianity. So if they agree it could be a forgery, then it must be pretty suspect!

One of the earliest ecclesiastical authorities to condemn the passage as a forgery was Bishop Warburton of Gloucester (circa 1770). He described it as "a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too." There have been many others since then.

One possible culprit was Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesarea  in Palestine (c 350 AD) but it may have been an earlier Christian scholar.

What a pity Evangelists never mention they are quoting something which was not in the original manuscript.