Newly-Found Document Holds Eyewitness Account of Jesus Performing Miracle


Rome | An Italian expert studying a first-century document written by the Roman historian Marcus Velleius Paterculus that was recently discovered in the archives of the Vatican found what is presumed to be the first eyewitness account ever recorded of a miracle of Jesus Christ.

The author describes a scene that he allegedly witnessed, in which a prophet and teacher that he names Iēsous de Nazarenus, resuscitated a stillborn boy and handed him back to his mother.

Historian and archivist Ignazio Perrucci, was hired by the Vatican authorities in 2012, to sort, analyze and classify some 6,000 ancient documents that had been uncovered in the gigantic archive vaults.

Perrucci was already very excited when he noticed that the author of the text was the famous Roman historian Velleius, but he was completely stunned when he realized the nature of the content.

Professor Ignazio Perrucci found the text in the archives of the Vatican, while searching among a bundle of personnal letters and other trivial documents dating from the Roman era.

Professor Perrucci found the text in the archives of the Vatican while searching amongst a bundle of personal letters and other trivial documents dating from the Roman era.

The text as a whole is a narrative of the author’s return journey from Parthia to Rome that occurred in 31 AD, recorded in a highly rhetorical style of four sheets of parchment.

Velleius describes many different episodes taking place during his trip, like a violent sandstorm in Mesopotamia and visit to a temple in Melitta (modern-day Mdina, in Malta).

The part of the text that really caught M. Perrucci’s attention is an episode taking place in the city of Sebaste (near modern-day Nablus, in the West Bank).

The author first describes the arrival of a great leader in the town with a group of disciples and followers, causing many of the lower class people from neighboring villages to gather around them.

According to Velleius, that great man’s name was Iēsous de Nazarenus, a Greco-Latin translation of Jesus’ Hebrew name, Yeshua Notzri.

Upon entering the town, Jesus would have visited the house of a woman named Elisheba, who had just given birth to a stillborn child.

Jesus picked up the dead child and uttered a prayer in Aramaic to the heavens, which unfortunately the author describes as immensus, meaning incomprehensible.

To the crowd’s surprise and amazement,  the baby came back to life almost immediately, crying and squirming like a healthy newborn.


Marcus Velleius Paterculus being a Roman officer of Campanian origins, he seems to perceive Jesus Christ as a great doctor and mystic, without associating him in any way to the Jewish concept of Messiah.

Marcus Velleius Paterculus, being a Roman officer of Campanian origins, seems to perceive Jesus Christ as a great doctor and miracle man, without associating him in any way to the Jewish concept of Messiah.

Many tests and analysis have been realized over the last weeks to determine the authenticity of the manuscript.

The composition of the parchment and ink, the literary style and handwriting have all been carefully scrutinized and were considered to be entirely legitimate.

The dating analysis also revealed that the sheepskin parchment on which the text is written does indeed date from the 1st century of this era, more precisely from between 20-45 AD.

This new text from an author known for his reliability brings a brand new perspective on the life of the historical character that is Jesus of Nazareth.

It comes to confirm the Gospels on the facts that he was known for accomplishing miracles and that his sheer presence in a town was enough to attract crowds of people.

A complete and official translation of the document should be made available online in many different languages over the next few weeks, but the impact of the discovery is already felt in the scientific community.

Many scholars have already saluted the finding as one of the greatest breakthrough ever realized in the study of the historical life of Jesus, while others have expressed doubts about the conclusions of Professor Perrucci and demand for more tests to be performed by other scientific institutions before drawing any conclusions.

27 Comments on "Newly-Found Document Holds Eyewitness Account of Jesus Performing Miracle"

  1. This is great, but we do already have eyewitness accounts of Yeshua and His miracles from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. People forget that the gospels are written accounts of what these disciples witnessed.

    • Twyla Germain | October 6, 2014 at 3:42 pm |

      My thoughts, exactly!

    • Yes, but we have all read the Gospel accounts many times. This is new and exciting. I don’t think anyone forgot that the Gospels are eye-witness accounts, but “new” accounts are very exciting.

    • Sam Elliott | October 6, 2014 at 6:27 pm |

      this is also a good defense for those that don’t claim the bible as the inerrant word of God. This is tangible proof for those who hold the bible is just a book. they can’t deny these though. (I do hold to the fact that the bible is inerrant proof.

    • Billy, the difference is that the accounts written in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written well after the events occurred.

      Matthew – written AD 65 -73
      Mark – written AD 70 -100
      Luke – written AD 80 – 100
      John – written AD 90 – 110

      The Gospels before that were spread as oral tradition. Every play the telephone game? It’s amazing how messages get garbled as they go from person to person. This new text is an actual eyewitness account written by the eyewitness himself! It’s very exciting!

    • @Alan, yes, the Gospels were originally in an oral tradition, like much of the Old Testament. What we don’t get is that in a culture where there is a strong oral tradition, there is also stronger support systems for memorization and community correction (“No, that’s not how it goes…”) that we don’t exercise. We write everything down and don’t challenge our minds in the same way.

      I’m not saying there couldn’t be problems, no more than there were problems copying the texts after they were written, just that given the reverence/respect given to renown teachers/rabbis, there were systems in place that modern/westerners generally don’t appreciate, since we don’t have such a culture.

      If anything, corroborating documents like this underscore the accuracy of the texts we do have, much like the Nag Hammadi texts/Dead Sea Scrolls validated OT books/systems like Isaiah.

      It’s a fascinating study to be sure.

    • While historical findings such as these are significant in further documenting the existence of someone who most of us know existed – Jesus Christ – modern-day miracles are being performed every day through the power of prayer and under the direction of God through His Holy Spirit. I witnessed he “resurrection” of my son who was in the grips of death a few years ago. I wasn’t around in the 1st Century A.D. to be an eye-witness, but I am an eye-witness today.

    • The gospels were not written by any disciples or anyone that knew Jesus when He was alive.

    • Actually; No one knows who wrote the gospels, but certainly not any of the disciples; Only John could have possibly been a disciple; But highly improbable; The other 3 were originally written anonymously & not given authorship to anyone until the 4th century; Besides, Mark was an associate of Peter & Luke was an associate of Paul; Plus, there were no eyewitnesses; Only oral traditions that had been passed down; And we all know how that works !!!!!!!

    • Yes, the gospels have first hand accounts, but we don’t have the original manuscripts for them like we do with this.

    • Dale Peacock | October 11, 2014 at 8:37 pm |

      2 of those people (Mark and Luke) are not eyewitnesses. Mark and Luke got their information from Paul, who got his information from other disciples.

    • You are incorrect. The reason the Gospels made it into the canonization of the Bible was because they were written directly by the Apostles hand or dictated to a scribe directly. The books of the 13 additional books written after the Apostles died are used by catholics and catholic “sects”. The books had to be written while the Apostles were alive.

    • Alan you are closer than most re time frame of the Gospels being written, but I think they were probably written sooner than what you state. Does anyone know what happened in the year 70AD? Look it up…It would have been as signifanct at the time if not more than 9/11. If in fact these Gospels were written after 70AD do you not think this event would have been documented within the Gospels, especially if Jesus’ life and miracles were just passed on by word of mouth? I know the push back will be, “sure this happened, but the Gospels werent about what happened in 70AD they were about Jesus”. Ok, but it was a big enough event that somewhere…somewhere it would have made it within the writings of these men…or other men. Food for thought

    • tony t rietveld | October 17, 2014 at 10:25 pm |

      Mark, Matthew,luke and John were not eyewitnesses to the acts of Jesus. According to modern scientists in these fields, the gospels were written by scribes attributing the eyewitness accounts to those apostles.

    • Matthew and John are eyewitness accounts- Luke was a disciple of Paul who interviewed everyone he could find and Mark was a disciple of Peter’s- who wrote to the Romans primarily. Matthew as a Levite who wrote to his own people the Jews~ the Gospels are similar- but not the same as they have different target audiences. The Gospels are done as early as 58ad for Mark and as late as maybe 90ad for John. The gnostic gospels were way late and were never considered acceptable by the early church.

  2. If you thought this was impressive you should check out the work done by Prof Craig Blomberg in this course:

    Dr. Blomberg is one of the most respected authorities in the field of the New Testament and he goes over a lot of the details related to the reliability of the gospels and compares them to the Gnostic gospels as well.

  3. Wait, this was from 20-45 AD, but Jesus died in 1 AD. How does that work?

    • Seraphim McCune | October 6, 2014 at 2:43 pm |

      Jesus did NOT die in A.D. 1. He died A.D. 30-33 (depending on where you place his birth in 4BC to A.D. 1.

    • Anno Domini means “the year of our Lord” not After Christ’s death. He was assumed to have been born in AD 1.

    • Jesus was born in 3-5AD and died between 34 and 36 AD. This is a well documented position held nearly universally. I am somewhat amazed that there are still folks who hold he died in 1 AD…

      I’m not knocking anyone’s intellect, it just was surprising.

    • Frank Morency Jr | October 6, 2014 at 2:51 pm |

      Many historical facts are not recorded at the time of their manifestation . The fact that this was recorded in relativly short order after Jesus death only ads to its credability . The idea is to see how this fact lines up with the other writings on the bible such as the gospels which were also no written on the exact days of the events mentioned in them

    • Correct. He was not born 1 AD. Doing all the math, from the beginning, it could even have been as early as 7-11 BC.

    • lamont dolemite | October 9, 2014 at 2:44 am |

      Jesus died in 33ad..special Eddie…lol:-)

    • Ahem. Jesus is living 🙂

    • Chris Goodwin | October 22, 2014 at 5:02 am |

      Well, yes, Jesus IS living … but He DID die! Read all about it in the Gospels.

  4. ER, Nicky ole chap, we just got it…

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.