DiscussMormonism.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_zjLSdx0zc

This is my 2nd documentary in the Historical Jesus series I am working on. I will branch out to mythology and other topics as I have time. This one discusses the significance of the hypothesis of Lena Einhorn on Jesus being mentioned and being important in sources outside the New Testament, focusing on Josephus. Not the Testimonium Flavianum either, but much more impressive series of ideas that intrigued me enough to produce this documentary. Jesus may very well yet be more historical than meets the eye in sources outside the Bible. Come and enjoy.

Love the format and your presentation, BYP! Great stuff!

Hey, Philo!

Interesting video. One potential problem is your agreement with Tacitus on the topic of peace in Judea under Tiberius. That does not square well with Philo’s and Josephus’ accounts of Pilate does it? Also, what should we make of Jewish reactions to Caligula’s plans to place a statue of himself in the Jerusalem Temple? I ask because you see peace as the condition in Judea between the tax revolt in 6 AD and 44 AD, which is early in the reign of Claudius.

I am also not impressed with the bit about arson of the Samaritan village. The disciples ask if they should pray that God burn the Samaritan village, and Jesus says no. Now, I am willing to believe that the Gospel author knew of the later event of Galileans burning a Samaritan village and used the story as material for creating the scenario in Luke, but I can’t see Josephus as evidence for redating the events described in the Gospel.

The point about the high priests just seems to me to be more hashing of history in the Gospels. The point about two high priests in the two sources does not seem very compelling evidence that the Gospel events happened later. Also, Pilate does not have to be killing Galileans in Galilee. Where are they sacrificing?

Also, (sorry, I am having fun) why are we taking the nativity sections of the gospels as serious historical data? Surely not, I would think. Jesus is born in the reign of Augustus, which is symbolically important for many reasons. Augustus was put forth by many as the savior of the world, but little Jesus is born in the same era, suggesting that someone or many someones, got it wrong. So, 4 BC or 6 AD, the thumb in the eye of the Romans is that the savior of the world is born in the era of Rome’s so-called savior of the world.

I shall call my son out of Egypt. Jesus was never in Egypt. This is a fiction to make his life conform to earlier prophecy. At its root, it is merely referring to the Exodus. God did call his son Israel out of Egypt. Kelsos will turn Jesus into a magician and charlatan, whose training is in Egyptian magic. His use of the story is not a validation of its historicity.

Finally, on the Egyptian, what do we do with the dating of Paul, if the Egyptian, who was active in the 50s, was Jesus? According to the standard dating, Paul is already preaching Jesus in the early 50s and writing letters then too. How could that be if Jesus was the Egyptian?

Couldn’t it rather be the case that the Gospel writers picked up common themes of earlier first century AD Palestine and wove them into their accounts of Jesus? Or that robbers and charismatic religious leaders were pretty common throughout that era? It seems to me that the same kinds of events pop up repeatedly and Jesus fits the overall pattern pretty well. I just don’t get the need to dismiss Jesus as a charismatic religious leader in the time of Tiberius. The writers of the Gospels knew the basics and then drew widely from other first century events to flesh out the narrative. Actions of Roman governors get mixed up because author needs to make the narrative move along.

I don’t question Josephus as a historian as much as I question the writers of the Gospels and Acts. Doubt them before you doubt Josephus on historical events. That said, Josephus is not the secret key to rewriting the Gospels to match history.

Also, where the reference to the Egyptian appears in Acts 21 seems chronologically correct. If this is roughly in 57, then the Egyptian could have been executed before then in the 50s. But Paul has been a Christian for some time, no? How do we reconcile Paul’s timeline and the Egyptian’s in a way that allows for the possibility that the Egyptian was in fact Jesus?

Wonderful feedback! Thank you. I shall mull this over. I would have responded earlier but I have been working on my musical scores for my next documentary.....

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 30, 2024 5:30 am

Wonderful feedback! Thank you. I shall mull this over. I would have responded earlier but I have been working on my musical scores for my next documentary.....

No worries, Philo! It is a fun documentary. I enjoy it when people raise our awareness of other charismatic religious leaders in the first century AD. At the very least it makes us more familiar with the history and shows how prevalent Jesus-like movements and actors were in that era.