Jesus Has Left the Building, Part 2 (Josephus and the Talmud)

The second episode in a series examining the historicity of Jesus Christ.

Olson's "Eusebian Fabrication of the Testimonium": http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_008.htm

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Jesus
• Christ
• historicity
• historical
• person
• man
• figure
• character
• myth
• imaginary
• existed
• existence
• real
• fake
• skepticism
• criticism
• bible
• extra-biblical
• non-biblical
• Josephus
• Tacitus
• Suetonius
• accounts
• evidence

[SHIBBYiPANDA]

what did you read to get all this material??? Price??? :)

[TaylorX04]

@SHIBBYiPANDA I do like Price a lot, but this was all my research, with few exceptions.

[boblackey1]

@TaylorX04 I had the please to speak with Dr. Whealey on the phone, which I found on the internet, and she wasn't really thrilled that someone found her phone number but yet spoke with me about her 2003 book "Josephus on Jesus" and she confirmed that her long and careful research on the matter proves that Josephus did write it but someone glossed it just a bit later. Louis Feldman agrees with Dr. Whealey. Dr. Goldberg holds that Josephus used the same source material that Luke used.

[TaylorX04]

@boblackey1 Thanks for letting me know this. I've always kind of been in between about the TF personally, but the thing you're ignoring is that, even if authentic, the TF can still be argued as a commentary on the Christian sect rather than an historical testimony regarding a man named Jesus the Christ. So thanks for the additional research, but it really doesn't show I'm mistaken on anything. :-)

Also, I do now believe in a historical figure named Jesus, but not due to Josephus.

[boblackey1]

@TaylorX04 Well in addition to very early non Biblical Christian writings, Josephus and Tacitus can be seen as very early confrimation that Jesus was crucified by Pilate. But the website wwwdotjosephusdotorg makes a pretty good argument that Josephus actually used a source which is now lost for his info on Jesus and that Luke (or the unknown author of Luke/Acts) used the same source for a small part of Luke. Also I've seen a good argument that Tacitus used Josephus as his source.

[TaylorX04]

@boblackey1 Unfortunately by "early" you mean 60+ years after the alleged death of Jesus, assuming it was no earlier than 30 CE. Tacitus also incorrectly titles Pilate a procurator when he was a prefect - something which Tacitus should have known unless he was using non-governmental sources (i.e. hearsay). It's hardly worth arguing that Luke and Josephus shared a source when we don't know the credibility of that source. It boils down to speculation really.

[TaylorX04]

@alvaboyfilms Are you kidding me? You're gonna post this same shit on every video in the series? To anyone interested, see my evisceration of this nonsense in the comments on the first video.

[SHIBBYiPANDA]

@TaylorX04 really great job man.. I'm working to get to that level eventually..

[boblackey1]

@boblackey1 Then I began to wonder about the TF. At first it seemed clear that the Jesus myth supporters had this one correct. Josephus, a Jew, couldn't have written the TF as it reads like a Christian confessional. But after getting in touch with Drs. Whealey, Feldman, Goldberg etc, the most penetrating work on Josephus indicates that originally it read "was believed to be the Christ" and used a greek word that denotes "doubt". Some Christian scribe tweaked it after pagan Rome fell

[boblackey1]

@boblackey1 I became interested in this debate when someone about 10 years ago gave me The Jesus Puzzle by Doherty and I learned that Earl held the position that Jesus never existed even as a man and is a complete myth. That was new to me and I noticed Earl didn't have a degree in the field. So I began to collect books and articles by those who are skeptical/agnostic but have a PhD or Masters in the field and could find just one, Bob Price, and his is serious doubt not rejection.

[boblackey1]

@boblackey1 In the James passage the scholars I've found say Josephus mentions two men named Jesus. The first is the brother of James called Christ. And Josephus identifies the second Jesus as the son of Damacus. They say that is usually Josephus' custom to do that. Amateur skeptics such as Frank Zindler, Ken Humphreys, Earl Doherty insist "called Christ" is an interpolation. Hell Zindler finds the John the Baptist passages also interpolations in his zeal to reject a historical Jesus

[boblackey1]

@TaylorX04 I find it interesting now that some scholars have made mention of it, that in Galatians (most scholars date it at 49/50 CE) Paul says he went to Jerusalem (that is where the head of the original Jesus movement is thought to have been located) & he met no others but Peter and James, the Lord's brother. But did they not tell Paul about the virgin birth? Or did Paul not think it worth mentioning? Or was this before the doctrine was developed as Paul never mentions it anywhere.

[boblackey1]

@TaylorX04 the accept it as genuine for several reasons. Origen mentions it three times. It is usually Josephus custom to give additional titles to people due to being so many people named Jesus, James, John etc. And all ancient Christian writings always called James "the brother of the Lord". Indeed Dr. Mack argues that even Paul who wasn't fond of James still used "James the Lord's brother" in Galatians where Paul claims he met James and Peter in Jerusalem in a passing statement.

[boblackey1]

@TaylorX04 But the TF doesn't call Christianity "an evil superstition" but they find enough similar that the suggest Tacitus used Josephus but just reworded it a little. Also I've encountered several scholars who hold that Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny etc using the name Christ in no way indicates that believed Jesus was the Christ. They only used it as a "nick name" With the James the brother of Jesus called Christ, every scholar I've checked accepts the passage as genuine.

[boblackey1]

@TaylorX04 Well Dr. Goldberg @ wwwdotjosephusdotorg proves scientifically (so he says) that Josephus and Luke used the same source. He looks at the TF and the Luke narrative that is very similar and applies the math to it and it supposedly proves his case. Tacitus probably just used the title that was most familiar to his readers. A couple of scholars hold Tacitus used the TF for a source and Josephus doesn't use perfect or procurator so it is said Tacitus just guessed wrong.

[boblackey1]

@boblackey1 When I stated you are mistaken, it was the point that Justin Martyr never used the TF and the same with other early Christian writers but Whealey told me there is NO evidence that Justin Martyr had access to Josephus, ever read him or even knew of him. Origen did but Dr. Whealey pointed out that during Origen's time PAGAN Rome had control of Josephus' writings and not Christian Rome so it would be almost impossible for Origen to have read a copy of Josephus with xtain interpolations