Hello brothers and sisters,
You may have seen the headlines last week. One British site put it this way: “Written account of Jesus’ resurrection reportedly found in ancient 2,000-year-old manuscript.”
It’s a great headline. It’s also wrong.
Nobody found a manuscript. Nothing two thousand years old turned up in a cave or a museum drawer. What actually happened is quieter, and if you ask me, far more interesting. Back in August, an independent researcher in Spain posted a paper comparing the ancient translations of a single paragraph about Jesus, written by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus around AD 93. Last week the Daily Mail found it. The internet did the rest.
That paragraph has a name. Scholars call it the Testimonium Flavianum, “the testimony of Flavius.” No other passage in Josephus has been fought over as hard, and few paragraphs in all of ancient history have been read as anxiously.
At the center of the fight sit three Greek words.
ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν (ho christos houtos ēn). “This was the Christ.”
Did a Jewish historian who never became a Christian really write that? Or did someone put those words in his mouth?
This week I want to show you what the evidence actually says. The answer turns on one missing word. And the best place to understand the word that remains, χριστός, is the Septuagint, where it had another meaning long before it became a confession.
Let’s dig in.
If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.
The Paragraph Everyone Argues About
First, the man.
Flavius Josephus was born in Jerusalem around AD 37, into a priestly family. When Judea revolted against Rome in 66, he commanded Jewish forces in Galilee. In 67 he surrendered to the Roman general Vespasian, who within two years would be emperor. Josephus spent the rest of his life in Rome on an imperial pension, writing history. His twenty-book Jewish Antiquities, finished around 93 or 94, tells the story of his people from creation to the eve of the war.
Book 18 covers the years when Pontius Pilate governed Judea. Tucked into Pilate’s story is this (Antiquities 18.63-64):
Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή· ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο· ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες· ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν, τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων. εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.
Here it is in English. This is as literal as I can make it while still reading like English:
About this time there arises Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure, and he won over many Jews and many of the Greek element as well. This was the Christ. And when Pilate, on the indictment of the leading men among us, had condemned him to a cross, those who had loved him at the first did not cease. For he appeared to them on the third day living again, the divine prophets having spoken these and ten thousand other marvels about him. And to this day the tribe of the Christians, named after him, has not died out.
Read that cold and you can feel the problem.
“If indeed one ought to call him a man.” “This was the Christ.” “He appeared to them on the third day living again.” That doesn’t sound like a Jewish aristocrat on a Roman pension. That sounds like a sermon.
Which is why scholars have fought over it for four hundred years. Some say a Christian forged the whole thing. Most, since the late twentieth century, have said Josephus wrote a shorter, cooler notice and a Christian copyist later warmed it up. A stubborn few have always said he wrote every word.
And here’s what makes it so hard to settle. Every Greek manuscript of the Antiquities contains this paragraph, worded the same way. The oldest of those manuscripts was copied in the eleventh century. The earliest writer we can watch quoting the paragraph is Eusebius, the church historian, in the early 300s. That leaves more than two centuries in which no one shows us what the text said.
Uniform manuscripts sound reassuring.
But they aren’t.
A text that never varies can’t tell you whether it was always that way.
Two Studies That Never Met
Two very different researchers have now taken a hard look at this paragraph.
The first is T. C. Schmidt, an associate professor of religious studies at Fairfield University. His book, Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ, came out from Oxford University Press in 2025, and thanks to a generous donor you can download the digital version for free. Schmidt works through the paragraph phrase by phrase against everything else Josephus wrote, nearly half a million words of it. His conclusion: Josephus wrote essentially all of it, and only two or three words have dropped out along the way.
But here’s the part the headlines skipped. Schmidt’s Josephus is not a closet believer. He’s a well-informed outsider, neutral, maybe faintly skeptical, reporting what Jesus’s followers claimed.
John Dickson, who has taught Josephus for more than twenty years, says the book has him about 78 percent convinced.
The second is Jesús Fernández-Pedrera Correa, an independent researcher in Barcelona. His paper went online in August as a preprint, which means it hasn’t been through peer review yet. Correa thinks Josephus wrote a core notice that a later hand altered. His method is old-fashioned textual criticism. Line up the surviving versions of the paragraph in Greek, Latin, Arabic, and Syriac, and watch where they split.
Now the twist nobody reported.
Correa’s paper never mentions Schmidt’s book. Not once. One scholar leans hardest on Josephus’s writing style. The other distrusts arguments from style and leans on the old translations. Different methods. Different conclusions about the paragraph as a whole.
And yet they land on the same three words.
Neither of them thinks Josephus wrote a flat “This was the Christ.”
Called, Supposed, Believed
So what did Josephus write instead? Three old translations point the same way.
Around 392, Jerome, the great Latin scholar, reproduced the paragraph in his book On Illustrious Men. Where our Greek says “This was the Christ,” Jerome’s Latin says credebatur esse Christus: “he was believed to be the Christ.”
In the tenth century, a bishop named Agapius summarized the passage in Arabic for his world history. His version goes further still: “perhaps he was the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”
In the twelfth century, Michael the Syrian, patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church, copied it into his Chronicle. His Syriac reads “he was thought to be the Messiah.”
Latin, Arabic, Syriac. Three languages, three churches, three different centuries. None of them was in a position to check the others’ homework.
Now, to be fair, these aren’t three independent copies of Josephus. All three almost certainly came down through the same Christian channel, much of it running through Eusebius. Correa says so up front. But look at which direction they bend. A Christian copyist who found “he was believed to be the Christ” had every reason to make it “This was the Christ.” He had no reason at all to go the other way.
Scribes promote. They don’t demote.
Then there’s Origen. Around 248, decades before Eusebius, the brilliant Christian scholar of Alexandria and Caesarea read Josephus and said, twice, that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ (Against Celsus 1.47; Commentary on Matthew 10.17). Hard to see how he says that if his copy announced “This was the Christ.”
And we have Josephus’s own wording, two books later. In Antiquities 20.200 he reports the execution of James in AD 62 and identifies him as “the brother of Jesus who was called Christ.” In Greek, τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ (tou legomenou Christou). Almost no one doubts that line. So Schmidt proposes the simplest repair available: one word, λεγόμενος (legomenos), “called,” fell out of Book 18.
“He was called the Christ.”
Listen for who else talks this way. Here is Pilate, in Matthew’s Gospel:
Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” (Matthew 27:22, NKJV)
Same participle: Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον χριστόν. Matthew uses the phrase himself in his genealogy (1:16), so it isn’t a sneer. It’s a label. It reports what people call a man without signing your own name underneath.
And here is my favorite detail in Schmidt’s whole book.
The Syriac word behind “thought to be” is mestabrā. Schmidt points out that the Syriac Bible uses that very word in Luke 3:23:
Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph. (Luke 3:23, NKJV)
Luke’s Greek there is ὡς ἐνομίζετο (hōs enomizeto), “as was supposed.” And one of Schmidt’s candidates for the word missing from Josephus is νομιζόμενος (nomizomenos), from the same verb. Correa, working on his own, floats the same verb.
Same grammar. Opposite verdicts.
Luke uses “as was supposed” to flag a public assumption he knows is false. People thought Jesus was Joseph’s son, and He wasn’t. Josephus, on this reconstruction, uses “thought to be” to flag a public claim he didn’t share. People thought Jesus was the Christ, and Josephus wasn’t persuaded.
One of those two writers was mistaken.
The same outsider’s voice may run through the rest of the paragraph. Schmidt argues that “he appeared to them on the third day living again” can also be read “it seemed to them that he was alive again,” a report of what the disciples claimed. The classical grammars lean against him there, and he admits it. But listen to how the Roman governor Festus sums up Paul’s case in Acts:
...about a certain Jesus, who had died, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. (Acts 25:19, NKJV)
That is exactly how an informed outsider talks. He reports the claim. He keeps it at arm’s length.
Before It Was a Title
Strip away twenty centuries of sermons, and χριστός isn’t a title at all.
It comes from the verb χρίω (chriō): to smear, to rub on, to coat. χριστός is simply the adjective. Smeared. Coated. Anointed. Oil on a priest’s head counts. So does plaster on a wall.
I mean that literally. Describing Solomon’s palace, Josephus says the upper part of a wall, “up to the roof,” was χριστόν (Antiquities 8.137). Whiston translates it “plastered over.” Same author. Same work as our paragraph. Not a messiah in sight.
The Septuagint does the same thing with another king’s palace. Jeremiah is pronouncing woe on King Jehoiakim, a man building himself a mansion with labor he never paid for (22:13, 18). Then he mocks the decorating:
You built a suitable house for yourself, ventilated upper rooms distinguished by windows and paneled with cedar and anointed with red earth. (Jeremiah 22:14, LES)
“Anointed with red earth.” κεχρισμένα ἐν μίλτῳ (kechrismena en miltō). The NKJV, translating the Hebrew, says “painting it with vermilion.” And the Hebrew verb there is וּמָשׁוֹחַ (umashoach), from מָשַׁח (mashach), the very root that gives us מָשִׁיחַ (mashiach), anointed one or Messiah.
On this point the two traditions don’t diverge at all. In Hebrew and in Greek alike, the word for the Lord’s anointed is also the word for a rich man’s paint job.
Then the oil moves from walls to people.
David has Saul at his mercy in a cave near En-gedi. At this point King Saul has been hunting him through the wilderness to kill him. David’s men tell him the Lord has handed his enemy over. David cuts off the corner of Saul’s robe instead, and even that much troubles his heart. He will go no further. He refuses “to lay my hand upon him, because he is the Lord’s anointed” (1 Kingdoms 24:7, LES; 1 Samuel 24:6 in English Bibles).
Look at the Greek of that last clause. ὅτι χριστὸς κυρίου ἐστὶν οὗτος (hoti christos kyriou estin houtos), “because this one is the Lord’s anointed.” The Hebrew is just as blunt: כִּי מְשִׁיחַ יְהוָה הוּא (ki meshiach YHWH hu).
Christos. Houtos. A form of “to be.” Those are the same three building blocks Josephus uses: ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. David speaks them over a man who wants him dead.
Saul wasn’t a good man by this point. He was a jealous king chasing a loyal servant through the desert. Being χριστός didn’t mean being righteous. It meant being marked by God, set apart by His oil, and therefore off limits to David’s sword.
Then the word climbs to the throne.
The kings of the earth are present, and the rulers are gathered together against the Lord and against his anointed one. (Psalm 2:2, LES)
In its first setting, “his anointed one” is the king the Lord installs on Zion (Psalm 2:6). But watch what the first church did with this verse. Peter and John have just been released by the Sanhedrin with a warning (Acts 4:21, 23). The believers pray, and they pray Psalm 2, quoting the Septuagint word for word (Acts 4:26). Then they put names on it:
For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together. (Acts 4:27, NKJV)
“Whom You anointed.” ὃν ἔχρισας (hon echrisas). They didn’t coin a new word. They read the old one and recognized a face. And look who’s in the cast. Pontius Pilate, the same governor who condemns Jesus in Josephus’s paragraph.
And then comes the strangest χριστός in the whole Greek Old Testament.
This is what the Lord God says to my anointed, Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped so that nations obey before him. (Isaiah 45:1, LES)
Cyrus. A Persian. The Hebrew agrees: לִמְשִׁיחוֹ לְכוֹרֶשׁ (limshicho l’Koresh), “to His anointed, to Cyrus.” Three verses later the Lord tells him something remarkable:
...I will call you by my name, and I will accept you, but you have not known me. (Isaiah 45:4, LES)
Sit with that for a second. A man can be the Lord’s anointed without knowing the Lord.
And as we’re about to see, a man can know a great deal about the Lord’s Anointed without confessing Him.
There’s one place where the two traditions part ways over this very word, and it deserves a moment. Amos 4:13 in the Masoretic Text describes the Creator as the One “who declares to man what his thought is” (NKJV). The Septuagint has Him “announcing his anointed one to humans” (LES), τὸν χριστὸν αὐτοῦ (ton christon autou).
How do you get from one to the other? Look at the Hebrew consonants. “What his thought is” is מה שחו (mah secho). Drop the ה and you’re left with משחו, which can be read meshicho, “His anointed.” Whether the translator had a scroll that read that way or read the same letters differently, nobody can say for certain.
I don’t think we have to pick a winner. In the Masoretic, God is the One who lays a human heart bare. In the Septuagint, what He makes known to the world has a name. The Gospels hold both together in one Person, the Anointed One who “knew what was in man” (John 2:25, NKJV).
So by the time Josephus sat down to write in Rome, χριστός was a word with a long reach. It could mean paint. It could mean a priest (Leviticus 4:5 speaks of “the anointed priest,” ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ χριστός). A king, good or bad. A Persian conqueror. And in the Greek of Amos, Someone God announces to the human race.
Josephus knew the hope that word carried. He tells us so himself. Writing about the war, he says what drove his countrymen into it more than anything was “an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings,” that “about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.” Then he settles the question for his readers: “Now, this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea” (War 6.312-313, Whiston).
He never calls Vespasian χριστός. He doesn’t need to. He had already handed the prophecy to the man who paid his pension.
So when Josephus reached Jesus, “called” was the natural word.
The Christians had a candidate for that oracle.
Josephus had his own.
Who Do People Say?
Put the missing word back. Now look at what’s left.
If Schmidt and Correa are right, the most famous non-Christian sentence about Jesus says less than many of us hoped. And it’s worth more than many of us realized.
Less, because Josephus confesses nothing. He reports.
More, because a report from outside is exactly what a historian wants. Here is a man who never joined the church, writing for Roman readers some sixty years after the cross. And he tells them Jesus was a wise man and a doer of startling deeds. That He drew Jews and Greeks alike. That Pilate crucified Him on the accusation of the leading men of Josephus’s own people. That His followers kept loving Him anyway, and said He appeared to them alive on the third day. That the movement named after Him was still going.
Don’t hurry past “a wise man,” either. From Josephus, that’s no faint praise. It’s the same phrase, σοφὸς ἀνήρ (sophos anēr), that he gives Daniel when he retells the night of the writing on the wall.
In his telling, the king’s grandmother calls Daniel “a wise man” (Antiquities 10.237). In the Old Greek, the queen tells Belshazzar that Daniel “was skilled and wise and excelled all the wise men of Babylon” (Daniel 5:11, LES).
Josephus put Jesus in very good company.
He had the facts. He just stood outside of them.
Now go back to Caesarea Philippi. Jesus asks His disciples two questions, and the Greek of the first one should sound familiar by now:
“Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” (Matthew 16:13, NKJV)
Τίνα λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι (Tina legousin hoi anthrōpoi). “Who do people say...?” That’s the same verb that sits behind λεγόμενος, the word Schmidt believes dropped out of Josephus. “He was called the Christ” is, quite literally, an answer to Jesus’s first question. It’s what people were saying.
Then comes the second question.
“But who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15, NKJV)
And Peter doesn’t reach for a participle.
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16, NKJV)
Σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός (Sy ei ho christos). Second person. Present tense. Face to face.
Was called.
Was supposed.
You are.
The facts in Josephus and the facts in Peter’s confession overlap a great deal. What changes is the verb. And the verb is where faith lives.
John knew it. He tells us why he wrote his Gospel: “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31, NKJV). ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ χριστός. Not “was called.” Not “was thought to be.” Is. The same present tense David used in that cave: χριστὸς κυρίου ἐστὶν οὗτος. This one is the Lord’s anointed.
One more word before we close.
Josephus closes his paragraph by saying “the tribe of the Christians” hasn’t died out. The Greek is φῦλον (phylon). In Josephus it isn’t an insult. He uses it of his own people (War 3.354), and he uses it of a swarm of locusts (Antiquities 2.306). It means a kind, a breed, a group of whatever sort. But Schmidt went looking, and he couldn’t find a single ancient Christian who used φῦλον for the church. It’s an outsider’s word. It’s how Rome counted us.
Christians had their own word, and they took it from the Septuagint. Peter writes:
Ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν. “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the excellence of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” (1 Peter 2:9, NRSVue).
Almost every phrase there is borrowed. Listen to the Greek Bible his readers knew:
And you yourselves will be a royal priesthood to me and a holy nation. (Exodus 19:6, LES)
...to give my chosen race to drink, my people whom I have preserved, to tell of my magnificent acts. (Isaiah 43:20-21, LES)
Peter’s “chosen people,” γένος ἐκλεκτόν, is Isaiah’s “my chosen race,” τὸ γένος μου τὸ ἐκλεκτόν. Isaiah’s “preserved” (περιεποιησάμην) shares its root with Peter’s “possession” (περιποίησιν). And the “magnificent acts” Israel was preserved to tell, τὰς ἀρετάς, are the very excellence Peter says the church exists to proclaim: ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε.
To Rome, a tribe that refused to die out. To God, a chosen race, saved to tell what He has done.
Same people. Josephus counted them from the outside. Peter named them from the inside.
And that’s the question this old paragraph leaves on the table for every one of us. Not “What did Josephus believe?” We can’t know that for certain, and honestly, it matters less than the headlines suggest. The question is the one Jesus asked at Caesarea Philippi.
You can know everything Josephus knew. Most of us know far more. You can say, with perfect historical accuracy, that Jesus “was called the Christ.”
Or you can say what Peter said.
Next week we’ll stay with this paragraph. Josephus calls Jesus a “doer of startling deeds,” παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, and that word παράδοξος has deep roots in the Septuagint. It also turns up in Luke’s Gospel, on the lips of a crowd that has just watched a paralyzed man carry his own bed home (Luke 5:25-26).
Dig Deeper
Every verse below uses χριστός in the Septuagint. References follow English numbering, with the Septuagint’s numbering in parentheses where it differs.
The anointed priest: Leviticus 4:5, 4:16; 6:22 (6:15)
The anointing oil itself: Leviticus 21:10, 21:12
Saul, David, and the kings: 1 Samuel 2:10, 2:35, 12:3, 12:5, 16:6, 24:6 (24:7), 24:10 (24:11), 26:9, 26:11, 26:16, 26:23; 2 Samuel 1:14, 1:16, 2:5, 19:21 (19:22), 22:51, 23:1; 2 Chronicles 6:42, 22:7
The prophets as the Lord’s anointed ones: 1 Chronicles 16:22; Psalm 105:15 (104:15)
The Psalms: 2:2; 18:50 (17:51); 20:6 (19:7); 28:8 (27:8); 84:9 (83:10); 89:38 (88:39); 89:51 (88:52); 132:10 (131:10); 132:17 (131:17)
The Prophets: Isaiah 45:1; Lamentations 4:20; Amos 4:13; Habakkuk 3:13; Daniel 9:26 (Old Greek)
Respected Second Temple Jewish writings in the wider Septuagint: Sirach 46:19; 2 Maccabees 1:10; Psalms of Solomon 17:32 (17:36 in some English editions), 18:5, 18:7
Questions for Reflection
Josephus knew the facts about Jesus and still stood outside them. Where is it easiest for you to talk about Jesus in the third person, as someone who “was called” something, instead of speaking to Him the way Peter did?
David refused to strike Saul “because he is the Lord’s anointed,” and Isaiah gives the same title to a Persian king who did not know the Lord. What does it mean for you that God carries out His purposes through people who don’t honor Him, or don’t even know Him?
Rome saw a φῦλον, a “tribe” that wouldn’t die out. Peter saw a chosen people, saved to tell of God’s magnificent acts. If the people on your street described your church in one word, what would that word be? What would it take for them to see His acts in you?
A headline promised a “2,000-year-old manuscript” that doesn’t exist. When a story seems to prove what we already believe, what does honesty ask of us before we pass it along?
Sources
T. C. Schmidt, Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2025; online edn, Oxford Academic, May 5, 2025), doi.org/10.1093/9780191957697.001.0001. Free to download. Pages drawn on here: 69, 83-91, 96-100, 105-106, 199, 204.
Jesús Fernández-Pedrera Correa, “The Testimonium Flavianum in Four Transmission Lines: Greek, Latin, Arabic, and Syriac,” Zenodo preprint, August 15, 2026, doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21945637. Not yet peer reviewed.
John Dickson, “I Might Owe My Students an Apology About Josephus”, The Gospel Coalition, January 19, 2026.
Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 2.306; 8.137; 10.237; 18.63-64; 20.200; Jewish War 3.354; 6.312-313. English quotations other than my own rendering are from William Whiston’s 1737 translation (public domain).
Origen, Against Celsus 1.47 and Commentary on Matthew 10.17. Jerome, On Illustrious Men 13. Agapius, in Shlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971). Michael the Syrian, Chronicle.
Septuagint quotations marked LES are from Rick Brannan, Ken M. Penner, Michael Aubrey, Israel Loken, and Isaiah Hoogendyk, The Lexham English Septuagint, Second Edition (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020). Scripture marked NKJV is taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Greek Old Testament: Rahlfs-Hanhart. Greek New Testament: SBL Greek New Testament. Hebrew: Westminster Leningrad Codex.
News coverage: JOE.co.uk; Syriac Press, October 30, 2026; New York Post via Yahoo, October 29, 2026.
The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:
Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.
Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.
Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.
Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible
© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.
Well thought out and researched article. Fascinating reading of facts I never knew. Thank you!