Josephus On Jesus

for Jesus historicists it's often common to cite the references to Jesus in Josephus Josephus is a very famous Jewish historian who actually lived in the 1st century from 37 to 100 ze min assists have been asking for contemporary accounts of a historical Jesus and Josephus seems to be a popular place to look Josephus actually wasn't a contemporary but I guess they figure it's close enough the Jesus that most people talk about of course is the one that was born around the Year Zero and died around the Year 33 Josephus does mention Jesus are actually multiple Jesus's but none of his authentic writing references the Jesus that all Christians know and love so today we will be discussing Josephus on Jesus [Music] we will get to the most commonly referred to text in a bit but first we need to discuss all the different Jesus's that Josephus discusses the first of these to discuss is Jesus venom Annius sometimes referred to as Jesus of Jerusalem I've talked about this Jesus before in our episode on the Gospel of Mark in our forged fiction series but I will discuss him more in depth here according to Josephus his work Jewish war Jesus Ben Ananias was a prophet in the 60s who was famous for prophesizing the destruction of the temple the destruction of the temple happened in the year 70 but this Jesus according to Josephus was talking about its destruction for almost eight years prior the Jewish leaders of Jerusalem turned him over to the Romans who tortured him but he was declared a madman and released the narrative of the destruction of the temple in Josephus is eerily similar to the temple narrative in Mark's Gospel in fact there are too many parallels for it to be a coincidence aside from the fact that both are named Jesus both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival both entered the temple area to rant against the temple during which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah both been preached daily in the temple both declared woe unto Judea or the Jews both predict the temple will be destroyed both are for this reason arrested by the Jews both are accused of speaking against the temple neither makes any defense of himself against the charges both are beaten by the Jews then both are taken to the Roman governor Pilate in mark albinus in Jewish war both are interrogated by the Roman governor during which both are asked to identify themselves and yet again neither says anything in his defence both are then beaten by the Romans in both cases the Roman governor decides he should release them but doesn't in mark and does in Jewish War both are finally killed by the Romans in mark by execution and in Jewish war by artillery both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die and both died with a loud cry given the time period it's likely that mark actually used Josephus as a source to construct his own temple narrative other Jesus's mentioned by Josephus include people like Jesus son of Elias and Jesus the brother of John who was actually killed by John in the temple both of these Jesus's were priests there was also another Jesus Jesus son of damned Gnaeus that we will get to later we can now start to delve into the juicy parts of this video the first passage we have to discuss is the infamous testimony on Flavio Elam in antiquities of the Jews the passage reads and there was about this time Jesus a wise man if we must really call him a man for he was a doer of incredible deeds a teacher of men who received the truth gladly and he won over many Jews and also many of the Greeks this man was the Christ and when on the accusation of the leading men among us Pilate had condemned him to a cross those who had first loved him did not cease - for he appeared to them on the third day alive again the divine prophets having spoken these and countless other marvels about him and even until now the tribe of Christians so named from this man has not failed the first question that we need to explore is that of this passages authenticity the only real debate on this passage is authenticity is whether it is mostly forged or completely forged to understand why scholars are generally convinced it's a forgery we don't need to look very far at a glance we can tell this paragraph is not something a devout Jew would write Josephus is usually sophisticated in his writing explaining anything out of the ordinary to his audience Christ was not a word in Gentile vocabulary Josephus would have had to explain what a christ was and why Jesus was called that there is no sign of an explanation of this in the passage which is not something Josephus would just leave hanging he also would not have written ambiguous phrases like if we really must call him on man or doer of incredible deeds without explaining it to his Gentile audience he also wouldn't say things like he won over many Jews and Greeks without explaining exactly to what he had won them over Josephus does this for every other sect he discusses for example the Pharisees now for the Pharisees they live meanly and despise delicacies in diet and they follow the conduct of reason and what that prescribes to them as good for them they do and they think they ought to strive to observe reasons dictates for practice they also pay respect to such as are in years nor are they so bold as to contradict them in anything which they have introduced and when they determine that all things are done by fate they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit since their notion is that it hath pleased God to make a temperament whereby what He wills is done but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously they also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison but at the former shall have power to revive and live again on account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people and whatsoever they do about divine worship prayers and sacrifices they perform according to their direction in so much that the cities give great attestations to them on account of their entire virtuous conduct both of the actions of their lives and their discourses also just see just as a similar thing for the Sadducees but the doctrine of the Sadducees is this that souls died with their bodies nor do they regard the observation of anything besides what the law enjoins them for they think it is an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent but this doctrine is received but by a few yet by those still of the greatest dignity but they are able to do almost nothing of themselves for when they become magistrates as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be they a dictum selves to the notions of the Pharisees because the multitude would not otherwise bear them and so on for every group he mentions no such explanation exists for the Christians which only get mentioned once the problems with this passage don't end there why does Josephus mention Jesus appearing on the third day this is a Christian cradle statement that Josephus certainly would not have used without explaining it what did it mean did Jesus escape his persecution did he appear in a dream or as a phantom this is clearly not the writing of Josephus in fact we can quite easily demonstrate how every sentence in this passage cannot be from the hand of Josephus eventually we are left with the bones and there was about this time Jesus a wise man after which no story follows as we have already discussed Josephus mentions several people named Jesus but he always does us the favor of telling us who they are and more of their story no such thing exists in this passage that's just from examining the passage alone even more evidence stacks up when we look at it in context the following paragraph starts about the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder another sad calamity there was just a glowing advertisement for Jesus what sad calamity could just seep us be talking about oh that's right the passage before the testimony on Flavio know in that passage Pilate sets of soldiers loose to Massacre a large crowd of Jews in Jerusalem this certainly makes sense as a sad calamity this entire section would read so much better if the test ammonium wasn't there in fact the chapter flows nicely and makes perfect sense without it perhaps the biggest giveaway is the fact that no one seems to notice the existence of this passage until the 4th century not even church father origin who quotes just see this extensively in his writing this verse is just the kind of thing you would expect to see Christians keep track of but we just don't see it for the first 300 years of its supposed existence Tertullian irony is clement of alexandria and more could have easily referenced this passage anywhere in their writings but it just doesn't happen in fact an increasing amount of scholars seem to think Eusebius actually wrote the testimony of laviano i already made a video concerning my thoughts on Eusebius so feel free to click the card if you're interested in that simply the way he discusses jesus isn't the way Josephus would do that just see this actually writes about four other prophets running around at the time and they all seem to play a special role in the Jesus story Josephus is apathy against calling any of them messiahs even though it's clear that their messianic basis is unmistakable here first of them as having evil or dishonorable intentions instead sometimes calling them charlatans the Samaritan for example gathered followers and said he would reveal the lost relics of the true Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim and act with obvious messianic meaning the Samaritans believed themselves to be the true Jews this is even alluded to in John 4:22 26 which attests that the Samaritans also expected an imminent Messiah the original Jewish congregation led by Joshua had stood at God's command quote upon Mount Gerizim to bless people after crossing the Jordan in Deuteronomy 27 12 which is to say when Joshua crossed the Jordan on the day the nation of Israel was conceptually begun thus Joshua inaugurated the nation of Israel by crossing the Jordan and congregating at Gerizim and since the last Messiah Joshua was to reconstitute Israel he too could expect to begin the task by a blessing on Mount Gerizim the Egyptian also gathered followers and preached from the Mount of Olives just as Jesus did in the Gospels he claimed that he would topple the walls of Jerusalem an obvious allusion to the miraculous felling of the walls of Jericho another deed of Joshua preaching from the Mount of olives could also imply messianic pretensions as it was commonly believed a messiah would stand there in the last days as is shown in Zechariah 14 1 through 9 thus the Egyptian was preaching another metaphor for the reconquest of Israel again the very task only the Christ was expected to accomplish another unnamed impostor mentioned by Josephus gathered followers and promised them salvation if they followed him into the wilderness this is an obvious reference to Moses this imposter created symbolic allusions to the temptation narrative and Exodus as well promising rest in the wilderness and deliverance from evil so just as those who tempted God in the wilderness lost their God promised rest those who ritually reversed this behavior could expect to see the restoration of God's promise it is clear that all these supposed messiahs were trying to imitate prophets and patriarchs from the Old Testament whoever actually wrote the testimonial was aware that this was the book they had to place it in although the placement in the book was actually chosen poorly there are other reasons to think this passage as a later Christian forgery such as the actual structure of it is relation to passages in Luke there is one more person claiming to be a messiah that is discussed in Josephus that we have yet to study this is the story of the legendary and somewhat problematic Judas Josephus writes now it came to pass while Faddis was procurator of Judea that a certain magician whose name was Judas persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them and follow him to the River Jordan for he told them that he was a prophet and that he would by his own command divide the river and afford them an easy passage over it and many were deluded by his words however status did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt but sent a troop of horsemen out against them who falling upon them unexpectedly slew many of them and took many of them alive they also took through this alive and cut off his head and carried it to Jerusalem this is what we felled the Jews in the time of cusp eeeh statuses government Judas said he would part the jordan river this is obviously another allusion to joshua the prophet who had parted the jordan himself in joshua chapter three in biblical scholarship the sole reference to foodists presents a problem of chronology in acts Gamaliel a member of the Sanhedrin defends the Apostles by referencing to Buddhist men of Israel be cautious in deciding what to do with these men some time ago Buddhists came forward claiming to be somebody and a number of men about four hundred joined him but he was killed and his whole following was broken up and disappeared after him came Judas the Galilean at the time of the census he induced some people to revolt under his leadership but he too perished and his whole following was scattered the difficulty is that Gamaliel speaking before the year thirty seven is described as referring to the rising of students linking it to the revolt of Judas of Galilee at the time of the census of queerness decades before in 6ee however Josephus makes clear that the revolt of foodist took place in around the year forty five which is after Gamaliel is said to have spoken and long after the time of Judas the Galilean to me this is further evidence of Acts being written originally as historical fiction either that or the author of Acts Luke who we knew used Josephus as a source had copied something down wrong either way this is still an unresolved issue at this point we have discussed the testimonial and the myriad of reasons we know it's not written by Josephus the language is nothing like the language Josephus would have used the lack of details the poor placement in the narrative how he talks about other prophets and more problems all point to this passage being a later Christian forgery in the writings of Josephus there is however one more section we must discuss the James reference Festus was now dead and Albinus was but upon the road so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus who is called Christ whose name was James and some others what in discussions about the historical Jesus this will inevitably come up after all why would Josephus reference a brother of Jesus if Jesus wasn't a real person a mythical man can't have a real brother so of course this is the nail in the coffin for myth assists or is it in context this passage describes the antics of Anna's a very unpopular high priest in Jerusalem who assembled the Sanhedrin Council and brought charges against James and his companions and condemned them all to be stoned to death this caused an uproar and citizens complained to King Agrippa who took the high priesthood from Ananas and made Jesus the Son of damned Gnaeus High Priest the passage is likely not a forgery a forger would not write such a small amount a forger would have made it much more evidence that they were there there is really no political agenda to push in this narrative if this were a forgery all in all there would be no point in forging it but just because it's not a forgery per se doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with it there are several clues that point to this passage not talking about the Jesus we're familiar with the first of these Clues is the fact that this account contradicts all other accounts of the death of james pegasus and clement of alexandria agree that james the head of the jerusalem church died alone by the hands of an angry mob another questionable feature is the fact that we see the use of the word christ again as stated previously a devout Jew like Josephus would not have used that language and if he did he would have explained what he meant by it in far greater detail or any detail at all for that matter Richard carrier has shown that the inclusion of who was called Christ is exactly what a scribe would put in the margins as a note a later scribe would have seen this and probably written it into the sentence while copying it another issue is the fact that there is no reference to this in Acts it seems silly to think that a Christian who had claimed to research the history of the church as Luke does in Luke 1 1 through 4 would not mention the fate of James the brother of Jesus in fact Luke makes a point always depicting the Romans protecting or rescuing Christians from the excesses of Jewish persecution or other dire faiths this is seen in his narratives on Gallio Lysias and Festus and the Roman guards one of the things that strikes me most is the wording of this passage in its current form it looks nothing like something Josephus would have written in all other passages referencing the brother of somebody Josephus has a certain way of putting it his formula has always been X the brother of Y such as Aaron the brother of Moses Germanicus the brother of Caesar and Atticus the brother of Demetrius and so on when I look at this I don't see the writing of Josephus but we can't just not consider the context of this passage why would Joe Cephas mention the trial of the brother of Jesus out of the blue who is this Jesus why is Ananas after his brother the context easily answers these questions for us and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law he delivered them to be stoned but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens and such were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws they disliked what was done they also sent to the King King Agrippa desiring him to send to Ananas that he should act so no more for that what he had already done was not to be justified may some of them went also to meet albinus as he was upon his journey from Alexandria and informed him that it was not lawful for an annus to assemble a Sanhedrin without his consent whereupon Albinus compiled with what they said and wrote in anger to Ananas and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done on which King Agrippa took the high priesthood from him when he had ruled but three months and made Jesus the Son of damned Gnaeus High Priest if this is the Jesus whose brother Anna's killed then it explains why the punishment was to depose of Anna's and install in his place the brother of the man he unjustly killed certainly it is more plausible that Josephus meant Jesus son damn Gnaeus then that josephus just mentioned some different Jesus out of the blue with a strange lack of any digression on who this Jesus was leaving the reader wondering who's that in fact imagine if you were an ancient reader of the text what would you conclude you would ask yourself who's this Jesus guy even if the one called Christ was tacked on most readers would not know what that meant or why it had anything to do with Ananas going after his brother then you would read on and see ah that's the Jesus that is since you'll see this doesn't tell you who this Jesus is there is only one Jesus he leaves his rear to infer that it is Jesus son of damned Gnaeus in conclusion the testimony of Flavio Noam is certainly a forgery and the later reference to James the brother of Jesus was almost certainly a scribal error when we consider all the evidence it certainly seems as though Josephus never actually mentioned the Jesus we are all so fond of [Music] [Music]

Channel: undefined

Views: 441,432

Rating: 4.1118798 out of 5

Keywords: science, neutrinos, particle, physics, astronomy, cosmology, richard carrier, jesus, historicity, forged fiction, ACM, atheist, community, milwaukee, mythicist, space, evolution, big bang, philosophy, god, religion, apologetics, biblical, forgery, forgeries, bart ehrman, misquoting jesus, josephus, testimonium flavianum, james reference

Id: mQzZPGBMmVc

Length: 22min 21sec (1341 seconds)

Published: Thu Jun 29 2017