Josephus wasn't even born when pagan Jewish imaginary been Jesus fictional characters who never existed and never was crucified. Never said if you don't believe in me your going to hell warned people's beware of false prophets Matthew 7-15 .yet falsely prophesied his return second coming of Judgement day 2000 years ago CE never happened Matthew 16-27 28 it's evil zionist lies in the pagan zionist bible.
The Problem with saying that Josephus would've never said certain things about Jesus because he was a jew is not logical. Because Jesus himself, was a Jew!
I mean, that only tracks if you view 1st century Jewry as a homogeneous mass of religious orthodoxy and normativity, as opposed to the realist view that Judaism was a theological continuum of diverse and opposing views. The Essenes and apocalyptics that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls and belonged to the community in Qumran, the Gnostics, the pre-Christian prophets and talmudists, the Pharisees and Sadducees, etc., all had different ideas, beliefs and theological perspectives, to greater or lesser extents, depending. The point isn't that Josephus wouldn't have made these statements because he was a Jew, but because he wasn't an early Christian, or any other tendency that was significantly deviating away from austere Judaism and rabbinic law of the period, and expressing views like those attributed to Jesus.
There is a palm size piece of the gospel of Mark that is part of the dead sea scroll collection. Considered to be from 50 AD. Why they have never released it is beyond me. I know of two people that have seen it. ..
@@vvmax4375 Can't put links on here. Utube just deletes them. Fr. Malachi martin years ago said that about the fragment. I was surprised when Prof. Daniel Wallace said it in more recent times. Its in one of Daniel's videos. Can't remember which one. The Malachi Martin video, look up "Malachi Martin Sequence Of Time Part 10" The 24.31 minute area
@@vvmax4375 I never read the full Josephus, but always heard many interesting things about what he recorded. You know he was a Romanized Jew and a author. This scholar brought up how he said there was things that appeared over the skies of Jerusalem right before the siege in 67-70 AD. Josephus did not know of Jesus sayings or message that there would be signs in the heavens before the end of Judaism and jewish Palestine.. Look up; "28. Luke 21 - Steve Gregg" Go to the 38.58 mark on the video. Very interesting.
Early Christians plus the authors of the New Testament all where Jews and remained Jewish lol so the argument that a Jew wouldn’t talk that way is very weak lol
But Josephus wasn't an early Christian. He was Jewish. He wouldn't have called Jesus the Messiah. He was busy trying to convince the Jews that Emporer Vespasian was the Messiah.
It is possible that Josephus' text is distorted, but whenever I see moderns altering and "reconstructing" the text based on their modern ideas of what a 1st century Jew ought to say, I just want to scream in frustration at how perverse that is. No wonder they think ancient scribes altered the text -- it is exactly what they would have done themselves if they were scribes. The text makes reasonable sense as written. Josephus is writing for gentiles, and when he says "he was the Christ", he is only saying, "you know this guy Christ you have heard of, this is who is meant by it, and those people called Christians you have heard of were named after him." Only to a modern rationalist does the reference to Jesus as a marvel-worker imply any particular faith in the religion he founded. The text does not indicate Josephus was Christian, and certainly not that he was an orthodox Christian; but even if it did, only a modern would think that Josephus cannot possibly have entertained quasi-Christian beliefs or pro-Christian attitudes merely because he was Jewish. Moderns project back in time an anachronistic polarization between the groups.
That is a great point! Josephus seemed to have had a loose interpretation of what the Messiah was anyway. As a matter of fact most Jews from the Second Temple period did. He famously believed that Vespasian was the Messiah.
That's terribly unconvincing. If you compare this passage with his description of the Pharisees, it's clear Josephus is very detached and very neutral in his language when he's describing the various Jewish cults. Yet here he says Jesus was the Messiah? He rose from the dead on the third day? All the gushing language makes it clear tampering happened. The question is to what degree.
The word Christ means Messiah. Jesus Christ wasn’t Jesus’ name it actually means Jesus the Messiah. A non believing Jew would never refer to Jesus as the Messiah because if he actually believed that Jesus was in fact the Messiah he would have to either convert to Christianity or he would be a hypocrite, a false professing Jew.
@@mikewiththebluecar Language is flexible, and has been flexible in all ages of the world. Hence, I find perfectly plausible that Josephus did not mean what you insist he meant. You have not disproven my hypothesis. You just refuse to consider it. When Jews say "Christ" today, they don't necessarily mean "the Real Messiah". Why should Josephus be any different? And he was not even addressing his fellow Jews.
Jesus Christ said. I am the way I am the truth I am the life no one comes to the father except through me !!the messiah was mentioned a few times in the Hebrew text saying he’s coming and all of a sudden Jesus comes about and hardly anyone believes smh
Jesus also alludes to the Gospel of his life and works being itself parable with allegorical meaning in Mark, the earliest Gospel, so I guess it depends which 'Jesus' you trust.
I never read the full Josephus, but always heard many interesting things about what he recorded. You know he was a Romanized Jew and a author. This scholar brought up how he said there was things that appeared over the skies of Jerusalem right before the siege in 67-70 AD. He did not know of Jesus sayings or message that there would be signs in the heavens before the end of Judaism and jewish Palestine.. Look up; "28. Luke 21 - Steve Gregg" Go to the 38.58 mark on the video. Very interesting.
He does mention various phenomena in book 7(maybe 6) of Jewish Wars, and claims to have been a witness or talked to witnesses(I don't remember). He claims that before the war, during passover week, a heffer was brought to the temple for sacrifice and suddenly went into labor, then gave birth to a lamb, among other things. There are similar but different types of phenomena mentioned in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud. Jewish Wars is an easy read, and quite captivating. You should pick it up. His other main work, "Antiquities" is basically a retelling of the historical portions of the old testament, along with the history of the Seleucids and Maccabees, up to his own day. It's 20 volumes and can be a slog.
@@fred7883 What is "The this Mention"?? second...what if people are going by the overall consensus on Josephus? What the hell do you have the right to judge people based on you own arrogance?
@@fred7883 So all the scholars are wrong about Josephus and he was a fairy tail. Oh you do have some problems. It seems like you have a hate agenda towards people and their beliefs and Knowledge.
@@fred7883 Josephus's descriptions of portents before or during the war are in "Wars" not "Antiquities," and they're in every single manuscript copy, in every language Josephus has survived in. Those passages are considered absolutely genuine and part of the original work. No one has ever questioned them until your single comment one day ago. Why would someone add this?! And how would it even be possible? Edit: Tacitus also references Josephus in his section on the war and mentions the portents, meaning they were there in the original work. As for passages about Jesus in his other work, they're also in every single surviving manuscript, whether Greek, Syriac, Arabic, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by "not in earlier manuscripts." There is no copy of Josephus's "Antiquities" that does not include the passages.
@@fred7883 When I took the IQ test I was just short of Genius. You write long winded comments that don't really get to any real definitive points. You have a personal agenda and seem to be on a personal crusade of hate by your writing. I would say you are anti-Christ by what you have said. Your just another brick in the wall.
I think the lines of transmission is another argument in favor of early dating and reliability for the gospels. If the Evangelists were committing the life of Jesus to writing, they were either going to have to match up with the existing traditions if they were writing later, or they would have had to introduce these traditions early on, in which case the other Apostles would have been around to cross-check.
The idea that Jesus may not have existed is actually a fascinating one. Bottom line is that we don't know. In consideration of the other various myths about people dying and then rising again, we in all honesty and decency reason that accounts are all exaggerated.
Whenever a scholar says 'the majority of scholars agree that...' it begs thequestion.....did you check with every Josephus scholar? Every one of them? And if 'the majority agree that' Josephus passage about Jesus was 'doctored'.....what is 'the majority'? Was it 90% of the scholars? Or was it 55 to 60%? It makes a difference.
I think to say that just because he is Jewish says that he wouldn't believe in jesus is absolutely false, the early Christians were messianic jews, and simply said the question then was about how can a gentile be believer and not how can a jew be christian.
Bro, please write me back how in the world would the early christian apologists have seen it useless to cite this passage by Josephus because of thoughts that him being “virtuous” or “doing good deeds” wouldn’t have got them far, but Christian apologists use this passage today??? UMMM i’m very confused
how does a version which says his disciples reported seeing him after he died classify as BEING WATERED DOWN??? i can’t believe erhman, or you, would think a text that says such a thing is too “peared down” for a Christian apologist to use… am i missing something here???
Well it's because no one believed Jesus did not exist back then and everyone knew that his disciples claimed he rose from the dead. But none of this would have been of any apologetic value in the first few centuries. It is of apologetic value now because many modern skeptics believe Jesus never even existed (which of course would not have been an issue 2,000 years ago).
@@YECBIB that’s like saying, the fact that we can say the word “bear” proves that there was a house that Goldilocks broke into. You’re trying to put a square peg in a round hole
Jerome wrote after Eusebius, and in fact used Eusebius, so his quoting of the testimonium says nothing at all about the existence of the testimonium in the first century.
Why would a early church scribe inject false literature into Josephus writings when the whole known world ( Most of the west) was already Catholic? Christianity was a given. It didn't need any false testimonies.
@@kennylee6499 So how did the Catholic church put forgeries into every known copy of Josephus around the civilized world while Josephus was still alive? Did they break into all the libraries in the Persian and Roman empires and spend fortunes making new copies with their additions? And if they went to such trouble, why didn't they do anything with the quotation?
@@histguy101 it's not about when he was alive its about when the council of nicea happened the creed was agreed upon & the teachings & narrations they didn't agree with got burnt & changed to fit their narrative & any other genuine works got lost with time. You have to understand that history is always written by the victor & Rome was very aware of how propaganda works & to control a nation successfully you have to have them all on the same ideologie. Also the early followers of the son of Mary were messianic Jews that believed the son of Mary was the Messiah but not the begotten son of God. When you understand that. Acts 2:22 becomes a lot more clearer, regardless of the authenticity of the passage! New King James Version “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know! The Jews if seeing the son Mary do miracles or hearing these words would of understood it the same way God worked HIS miracles through Moses! It was the Christians that started to worship him & turned him into a pantheon/trinity!
@@3-Kashmir What does the council of Nicea have to do with Josephus? You think books were burned at the council of Nicea? I again ask the same question: Who went to all the trouble of tracking down all copies of Josephus only to modify or insert one small passage about Jesus? How does it get to us this way? And why didn't they alter more? How was this logistical nightmare accomplished? I'm not interested in your religious views.
Hey, Erik! At church last night, the instructor said that Josephus was being sarcastic in the Testimonium Flavianum instead of partial or total interpolation. I wanted to ask him more about that, but I had to run to get my daughter so it will have to wait until next week. I haven't heard that theory before- do you have any thoughts on this? Thank you for answering if you see this and have time!
I guess the interpolation theory seems to fit the data more to me than sarcastic. Do we see other places where Josephus uses such sarcasm? Was it common for him or other historians to use that kind of thick sarcasm at the time? Just strikes me as a bit odd.
@@TestifyApologetics I thought it seemed off, too! Thank you so much for answering, Erik! I hadn't thought to approach it from those angles, so thank you for also helping me to think about what questions to ask to examine a claim. That's something that will stick with me. I am so thankful for you and everything I learn from you!
Yea that’s the Christian defect move for everything they can’t argue against .. just like how parts of the Bible are metaphor but still somehow the infallible word of God when they want it to be 😂
But all surviving manuscripts of the Josephus passage originated around 200/300 ce. There is no earlier copy. even the Arabic manuscript derived from the library caeserea.
He didn't miss that part because it is not a credible source. Eisler's proposed restoration of Josephus' lost original Aramaic language book "The Capture of Jerusalem," which has not been preserved. Eisler has used the Slavonic additions to Josephus' War, as if they are fragments that quote or allude to Josephus' Aramaic "Capture," and other legendary materials (Letter of Lentulus, "wanted" posters seeking capture of runaway slaves found in the garbage heaps of Egypt, etc.). Eisler himself notes that one such letter describing Jesus has several contradictions, so cannot be real. The differences and additions can be better explained as coming from semi-pagan Slav & Russian nobility of the middle ages, as opposed to a lost Aramaic description of the "Capture of Jerusalem".
Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay. "...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars." Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter
Did you watch the video? And have you accustomed yourself to any ancient history or writings, or the Roman world, or are you just coming at this from a religious debate? Should Jesus have minted his own coins? Or built monuments with inscriptions of his name? Do you think that a "non-Christian source" that lived between 1-30ad is the requirement to prove Jesus was a historical person? Do we need a contemporary independent source to verify that Josephus existed? The "scholarly consensus" is that the Josephus's first reference to Jesus has interpolations(you stated this yourself), not that it was wholely forged(which stated later). If you don't know what that means, it means that Josephus in fact did mention Jesus, but that a later copier altered the passage to make it more complementary to Jesus. The other Josephus passage mentioning Jesus is widely believed to be genuine, and it is referenced by early church writers living long before Eusebius.
The early followers of the son of Mary were messianic Jews that believed the son of Mary was the Messiah but not the begotten son of God. When you understand that. Acts 2:22 becomes a lot more clearer, regardless of the authenticity of the passage! New King James Version “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know! The Jews if hearing this passage would of understood it the same way God worked HIS miracles through Moses! It was the Christians that started to worship him & turned him into a pantheon/trinity!
What do professional historians, the History Channel and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) say about the actual Jesus? What does Dr. Bart Ehrman say? Jesus passed their History Test.
Josephus tells us what OTHER people told him about Jesus. He wrote on the matter decades after Jesus' supposed death and his sources are unknown. They were very unlikely to have been eyewitnesses themselves, so at best his sources were second, third hand, (or even worse) accounts. Josephus at best is commenting on the existing oral tradition of the time, which is neither remarkable, nor proof of any truth to the matter whatsoever.
No matter what evidence is presented you would come up with a reason to disbelieve it. You do realize that no credentialed scholar of the Classics working in a University today denies Jesus's historicity. It's only a fringe of scholars and none of them are employed by an institution of higher learning.
@@kwameadu0075 Belief in the existence of a man called Jesus who was crucified is not the issue here. Establishing that he existed is the easiest challenge you face. The much tougher task is proving that he was the son of God who was resurrected and ascended to heaven. In that, you have zero evidence whatsoever. Plenty of would-be messiahs existed in the region at the time; we have historical accounts of their existence as well. No one would make the claim that any of them were the actual messiah, either, because there is zero evidence to support such a claim. Just as there is none for yours. If there were, you would have presented it already. You make the claim that there is no evidence that would make people like me believe because it makes you feel much more secure in your faith to believe that we simply don't WANT to believe and just "want to sin" rather than admit the fact that there is NO evidence whatsoever that would convince any rational person with an ounce of critical thinking skills. If there were sufficient evidence to convince me that Jesus was the son of God, I would believe and be happy to do so. But there isn't, so I don't. Not because I don't want to, but because I'm simply not convinced. So stop lying about the motivation if atheists just to bolster and justify your own faith.
I would argue there is no reason why josephus should believe Jesus was any different between any of the others proclaiming to be the Messiah. You state that Jesus wasn't trying to take political power because he wasn't aggressive towards the Romans. However you have forgotten that some people will try to take power by peaceful means. I don't think it's reasonable to assume he wasn't trying too.
Eusebius also stated that it was ok to use falsehood (i.e. lie and deceive) in order to convert people to Christianity. Given that he is the first person to note this passage in Josephus in not in its favor.
What exactly is there to lie about to convert people to Christianity? Jews followed after hundreds of false Messiahs - it's clear they're delusional. Whereas Christian Jews believes one Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus is a descendant of David because David is King of the Map and Jesus is US, G'sRUs, the guy with the power to make a bad situation into a good situation, can turn water into wine cos he makes the team play when they work.
Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh, wanted no one to die, so He gave His life so that anyone who believes in Him can have everlasting life. Romans 10:9 NLT [9] If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Just because someone is a Jew doesn’t mean they won’t believe in Yeshua being the messiah. Yeshua was a Jew who had 12 disciples who were Jews!!! They didn’t convert into being Christians! The first messianic movement was Jews!!! Who practiced Judaism! They worship in the synagogue! The apostle Paul even took a sacrifice to the temple! I’m a Jew who practices Judaism and I believe yeshua is the messiah. I’m not a Christian! I do not believe the law was done away with. Rabbi Yeshua said he didn’t come to abolish the law! He came to teach it in elevated way.
4:00 What kind of an analogy is that? For your example to hold water you would have to show a Josephus document with some writing about jesus existing prior to the jesus Josephus doctored passage. So yes it may mean there was never a written original showing a jesus passage. Any thing you said after that is pure speculation. Come on. 7:25 Jerome mentions Testimonium in writings dated 392-93ce, but Eusebius lived around 260-339ce so how does this show it was not added? Come on. The James passages i'm still looking into, but with your above track record, not looking good for you.
Actually there existed many copies of Josephus publications as they where widely read in those days. It's actually very impossible that someone sneeked in alternative versions just to elevate Jesus. That would have soon led to different versions of Josephus recordings which is highly unlikely apart from the fact that Jesus existence and the claim to be the messiah was well known and established and that time as we can not only read from letters of Paul but other non biblical sources. It would not be possible for Paul to write those letters if the content was a lie concerning Jesus. Everyone could go to Jerusalem in those days to verify the empty grave incidence and the resurrection so it just defies all logic to say "maybe josephus writings content concerning Jesus was added".
@@platzhirsch4275 Hi, thanks for the reply comment: "Actually there existed many copies of Josephus publications as they where widely read in those days". Sure, there were copies in the first few centuries. How widely read or known about were these books outside of religious circles? Who is to know? Did the average believer know of such things, unlikely, as literacy rates were at about 10% of the population and probably lower in more rural areas. "It's actually very impossible that someone sneaked in alternative versions just to elevate Jesus". Impossible you say? Variants on religious texts abound in religious circles. Mark's Gospels for example has two additional endings, the longer ending (verse 9-20), and the shorter ending (unversed). Johns gospel is at bare minimum a compilation of two versions of the gospel texts with again a minimum of two authors. So given enough time(say 100-300+y),recopying and regional theological mannerisms in one area, i see variations likley than as not. "That would have soon led to different versions of Josephus recordings which is highly unlikely apart from the fact that Jesus existence and the claim to be the messiah was well known and established and that time as we can not only read from letters of Paul but other non biblical sources". Again i point to 'Jerome mentions Testimonium in writings dated 392-93ce, but Eusebius lived around 260-339ce so how does this show it was not added?' This was about a particular copy of Antiquities passed on in this community. All else is not too relevant to my point. "It would not be possible for Paul to write those letters if the content was a lie concerning Jesus". Not sure what Paul's writings have to do with Antiquities? But i will try to answer. Paul never met an earthly jesus and although he may of talked about jesus with Peter, James and John he did not see eye to eye with them about him. So if Paul can ignore people who supposedly talked to jesus directly and can say all his (Paul's) teaching about jesus are from visions and scripture, how then can we be sure about anything he may say about him? He never says anything, not one thing about jesus' earthly life/ministry/teachings. A bit odd if you ask me. In fact a lot odd. "Everyone could go to Jerusalem in those days to verify the empty grave incidence and the resurrection so it just defies all logic to say "maybe josephus writings content concerning Jesus was added". Go to Jerusalem and verify an empty grave and resurrection? Really? Let's be generous here and say i have just read the anonymous book of (mark) in lets say 80AD in it's possible writing location of Rome. Assuming i have the means and survive my journey from Rome to Jerusalem which is over 2300klm i then have to find where the crucifixion's took place. Good luck with that. Then find someone who is still living from 50 years ago, so someone in their 70-80's who at least lived in the area then. Again good luck with that as most people then lived an average of 50 years and assuming of course they survived the recent Jewish war which had only just happened. Then ask them if they saw a jesus die as part of crucifixion during passover 50years ago. The most likely question you will get is which jesus? As jesus was such a common name back then like say John is today. If you get past that you might ask them where their tomb is? Again good luck with that. And then ask did you see or know anyone who saw him resurrected into heaven? I think at this stage that question would have got you the equivalent of the finger back then. And this is all assuming you can speak Aramaic. All this and more trouble i am probably not thinking of because i read a religious text given to me in Rome? And then you add it defies 'all logic' that a passage in Josephus may have been added? Move along sunshine. Cheers G
A wise man once said, But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes: for they are unprofitable and vain. Another wise man said, Answer not fools according to their folly, lest thou be like unto them. Christians, it is unprofitable and vain to argue against mythicists. It is not necessary nor wise to answer them. Even Derek Lambert of Mythvision fame has long since renounced the position after which his channel is named. As for me, I couldn't care less if the Josephus passage is original or not. Who cares?
Why can't jews consider Yeshua as the messiah? Last time I checked all of his disciples (Yeshua himself btw) and people who believed he was the messiah were JEWISH. Considering there is no church during "New Testament" times you're using your own bias of what make a jew during Josephus time.
There were many people that claimed as messiah and according to jews, Jesus did not meet the criteria of a Messiah so they killed him. Jews were the ones who crucified Jesus. And those jews who were believers of Christ branched out from Judaism to form the religion called Christianity.
What I don't understand is why people take a passage, we can all agree was changed, as proof of Jesus existing. I think he probably did exist but I find it very hard to believe there is enough evidence Josephus was talking about him. I'm sure Jesus wasn't the only person named Joshua with a brother named James. In fact given the obvious changes to the other passage I'm not sure you can't say the name James wasn't changed in a similar way.
He was the only person named Jesus with a brother named James, who was called the messiah/Christ by his followers who was crucified during Tiberius's reign by Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem, and who's followers became known as "Christians." It's not "just Josephus." It's also Tacitus, Paul, Luke, Peter, James, John, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papius, etc, etc.
I ASSURE YOU JESUS CHRIST WILL COME AGAIN TO GATHER HIS SHEEP AND CAST OUT THE GOATS. THE SON OF GOD GOD HIMSELF WILL COME AND JUDGE THE LIVING AND THE DEAD.
The argument that Jesus of Nazareth 'wasn't a political messiah' is just pure garbage deployed in a vain effort to provide a rationale that explains the uncharacteristic warmth being shown to him in the text, which is incontestably inauthentic and inconsistent with the author's writing style and views. The Gospels, as is claimed, clearly don't see 'Him' as 'not a political messiah,' despite however peaceful he was, or how detached from the title of messiah he was in 'His' public ministry and works. 'He' does not deny the charge, and 'He' is crucified for claiming to be the messiah, which was an inherently political statement; it was a statement of open rebellion, and a claim to personal authority over Judea against that of Rome as the sovereign to rule over a thousand-year kingdom. Being or becoming the messiah was invariably a political statement, not merely a theological one, in the historical setting and understanding referenced thereto. You can't be the messiah and not be making yourself political in the process, and standing in open rebellion. Even if the charges were false, 'He' essentially leans into a political role cast for 'Him' in specific ways, under specific circumstances, whatever theological necessity, role, and window-dressing that served for 'Him' and the parable of 'His' passion, and there's no way a Christian who understands what 'messiah' and all of that means, in full apprehension of this, can sincerely believe he was 'an apolitical messiah,' and not be lying through their teeth, or at least deeply, cheerfully, obliviously mistaken. The alleged conception is oxymoronic and invalid, both inside and outside the context of the Gospels. And accordingly, there is, further, no way that Josephus would see belief in that as being anything more favorable than any other would-be claimant or nominee being called 'the messiah,' either beforehand or retroactively. There is no version that makes sense as authentic authorship, since none of them make sense even as neutral reporting Josephus would not also comment negatively upon as the same sort that he lambasts and denounces consistently and without fail in every other instance of it, without exception. Even if crucified by misadventure, there is no way any outside commentator or storyteller could relay that in a way that could possibly disabuse or dispel its meaning and interpretive status as being in any way devoid of political significance, or in no way tantamount to joining the very same rogues' gallery Josephus bitterly opposed and condemned as an entire cottage industry of charlatanry. Note: Use of apostrophes not employed in the style of scare quotes, but to indicate the external theological rendering of referenced perspectives upheld by scriptural sources.
Josephus' chronicles state that there were 63 towns in Galilee, but Nazareth was not included there! You say Jesus? The letter "J" wasn't in the alphabet until 1523! Makes you want to say, Hmmm!
It’s not the alphabet, it’s the sound. Hebrew used a Shepards staff that was turned over and a line through the J in the hook. Also there are many names that Bible that start with the sound of J such as Jeremiah, Jeremiah and so on. Also the land was divided a lot after Herod.
Wait, you said he served in the military of Palestine you know that ain’t right. Some people called the land by that disrespectful name, but not at that time of Josephus so it’s categorically incorrect to say that he was active in the military of Palestine.
You had me until you said Palestine. I expected better from you and this just lost a subscribe. Shame on you for not knowing actual history. Israel’s name was changed in 135 AD to “Syria Palestina” by Roman emperor Hadrian as an insult to the Jews. That evolved over the centuries to “Palestine” however, during Josephus actual life, the land was not Palestine.
Hes literally stated when he says Israel or palestine it's when he's quoting the scholars he's using also you the Greeks referred to Israel as palestine in the 5th century BC
Josephus Description of Jesus Biblical description of Jesus read as follows: "At that time also there appeared a certain man of son of [a God, but his disciples (call) the true prophet... he was a man of simple appearance, mature age, black-skinned (melagchrous), short growth, three cubits tall, hunchbacked, prognathous (lit. 'with a long face' [macroprosopos]), a long nose, eyebrows meeting above the nose ... with scanty [curly] hair, but having a line in the middle of the head after the fashion of the Nazaraeans, with an undeveloped beard
@@TestifyApologetics its not even a region. You maybe could get by with calling it Syria Palestina but that was just the city of Jerusalem under the Roman occupation around 132 A.D. this is biblical history my dude.. try and at least be honest. Its Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Perea and Decapolis.
At least we can't be sure of Joseph's testimony. William Benjamin Smith in his book Ecce deus talks about the passages on Jesus by Flavius missing in some manuscripts, which leads to the conclusion that these passages were added by Christians to make it appear that Josephus was writing about the existence of Jesus.This atheists argue and I haven't seen any Christian to refute it.
Yes there were some passages that were tampered by Christians but there are other sources and manuscripts that do mention Jesus by Josephus. There were some that were Tambor that we know of and some the most historians agree we're not. Also Christians have refuted that what are you talkin about just look it up
@@webslinger527 Could you show me and send links to the work of experts who refute that Josephus' accounts of Jesus were interpolated, even though it is completely missing in some manuscripts and gives the impression of later interpolation in order to historize Jesus? Many experts think that the introductory passage of the Gospel of Mark was later added because some manuscripts are also completely missing. It is the same problem, in the case of Flavius and the historicity of Jesus quite serious ... It is written on atheistic sites and one researcher used it as an argument against the reliability of Flavius.
@@lukyncz3778 I do not know any videos at the top of my head sorry about that. It's just a few look up articles and other videos of people talking about this they refute the statement that Josephus doesn't mention Jesus. Which in itself is odd and mentioned John the Baptist who is Jesus cousin. Also did you not watch the video this guy produced you skipped over or not understand what he is saying.
The only manuscripts that don't have the passage are Hebrew manuscripts that date back to the medieval time period that follow the same manuscript traditions of the ones that Eusebius messed with. This shows that the Jews deliberately removed the passage
the terms, bc and ad are christian, the usage of bce and ce when discussing Jewish things is respectful, also "In the early 2nd century CE, the Roman province called Judaea was renamed Syria Palaestina (literally, "Palestinian Syria"), and also incorporated some other, smaller, territories. This may have occurred either before or after the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135." there was no such thing as palestine at this time
@@Mike00513 your right! He is testimony to the complete lack of 1st century extra biblical attestation for JC! Your opinion is formed by your over riding need to believe in a physical Jesus. The TF is a complete christian forgery, a faith statement full of assumptions only a sect member would understand & Josephus would never write.
@@ghostriders_1 This shows your ignorance to the scholarly consensus which holds that the Testimonium Flavianum is partially authentic, And for good reason. And the second reference is universally acknowledged to be authentic to Josephus in its entirety.
@@Mike00513 I am not ignorant of the scholarship I just happen to have good reasons to disagree with it! Have you read Josephus closely when he writes about other Jewish sects? The TF is not written in his discourse style. It is however modelled, from the first word on Luke's Road to Emmaeus passage and shares 20 chronological points with it. Are you aware of that scholarship? As I said before it is basically a christian faith statement full of information & assumptions that only Christians would fully understand. Josephus would not leave his Roman audience hanging in ignorance like this. He would've fully explained each and every aspect and that he didn't proves its a total forgery in my eyes. The second brief mention is an accidental interpolation, Jesus ben Damneus is the brother of James.
@@ghostriders_1 The Testimonium is rich in distinctive Josephan vocabulary and linguistic style that has no early Christian parallels, when you set aside the Christian embellishments in the passage. Also when you remove all the Christian glosses from the Testimonium it flows better and reads more coherently. Almost like the glosses were never originally part of the text. And the second reference to Jesus suggests a prior reference. Josephus does feel he must stop to explain who this Jesus is. He is presumed to be the known fixed point that helps identify who this James person was. None of this would make sense to Josephus’ audience unless Josephus had previously introduced and explained something about him. And no, the reference to James and Jesus in book 20 was not originally written to say Jesus the son of Damneus. The reference to Jesus in that passage looks to introduce Jesus into the narrative, and then he mentions Jesus a second time with an identifying appellation. I have yet to see a passage where Josephus mentions someone with their appellation twice in the same passage.
If I disregard the supernatural aspects of the bible, and you read the story disregarding the magic. it is a story about an honorable man growing up as a Jew recognizing how evil it is and started doing miraculous deeds unifying Jews and Gentiles (besides the Jews who didn’t switch religions) calling out the evils of Judaism and ultimately being crucified for calling out the establishment. My confidence in my atheistic belief has never been weaker the more I learn about the Talmud, and how satanic it truly is.
@@dmsexton888 That's just it... That guy in the picture isn't Jesus. The source picture is actually a French guy from a painting. But that wasn't my point. None of us know how Jesus looked. We barely know what skin tone He was. This guy in the picture is an idol. Some people picture this guy when they pray to Yeshua HaMashiach and that just isn't good to go..
@@thomas25082 Exodus 20:3 You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the water under the earth Is that painting not an Idol? Do you think it's a good idea to picture an idol when worshipping Elohim?
let me share with you the video Ceasars Messiah watch this, then take a second thought! compare the space of era, the time element is a 40 year shift!!
Why not take the Author by his own words? There was a division amongst the Israelis because of Christ. The only way one could tell is how he named Christ in the original manuscripts. We all know Christ's name wasn't Jesus. Hebrews didn't have a 'J' in their language. If Josephus said Yeshua then obviously he was telling the truth and it isn't a forgery. To believe everything else is truthful except one little piece...is insanity! No one in their right mind should believe such nonsense! Following people that doesn't believe what is said, but find everything that the book is talking about is ludicrous thinking! I don't follow people that makes up what someone "Might Have Said". That is just ignorance in its finest! They obviously don't know about the history that was going on and why the Uprising?!? Obviously it was about Christ! 🙄
@@MICROSCOPICgiant7 15 years of biblical studies, and I noticed how student like you still miss the point. First, he told his 12 that he was HE. Later told them that by showing love to each others, eye witnesses would see HE. last, he was fed up and asked them if they remembered what the TORAH said: Ye are Gods. The original bible (old ancient greek) that I have here, says, divine energy.
Christianity was CREATED in GREECE and ROME it's origins has nothing to do with the middle East where Jesus lived ! Christianity started in PAGAN countries that worshipped men as gods , that's considered paganism ! Christianity is not a monotheistic theology but rather a PAGAN THEOLOGY ! The worshipping of men as gods .
@@mastermasonhiramabiff2538 Jesus was a JEW , not a god , who CAME ONLY TO THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL ! THE JEWS ! THE Life of Jesus was political not spiritual !
Josephus Description of Jesus Biblical description of Jesus read as follows: "At that time also there appeared a certain man of son of [a God, but his disciples (call) the true prophet... he was a man of simple appearance, mature age, black-skinned (melagchrous), short growth, three cubits tall, hunchbacked, prognathous (lit. 'with a long face' [macroprosopos]), a long nose, eyebrows meeting above the nose ... with scanty [curly] hair, but having a line in the middle of the head after the fashion of the Nazaraeans, with an undeveloped beard
all these people saying Jesus didn't exist are in for rude awakening.... VERY RUDE!
Lol keep jerking yourself off there buddy.
Josephus wasn't even born when pagan Jewish imaginary been Jesus fictional characters who never existed and never was crucified. Never said if you don't believe in me your going to hell warned people's beware of false prophets Matthew 7-15 .yet falsely prophesied his return second coming of Judgement day 2000 years ago CE never happened Matthew 16-27 28 it's evil zionist lies in the pagan zionist bible.
Give me a break with your holy psyops Sun worship!!!
Time to wake up and do some homework!!
No they aren't, they just werent given enough reliable evidence to believe in his existence
Oh the view of your colon be amazing from from the inside 😂
The Problem with saying that Josephus would've never said certain things about Jesus because he was a jew is not logical. Because Jesus himself, was a Jew!
You have to understand the Word of God to comprehend what this means.
I mean, that only tracks if you view 1st century Jewry as a homogeneous mass of religious orthodoxy and normativity, as opposed to the realist view that Judaism was a theological continuum of diverse and opposing views. The Essenes and apocalyptics that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls and belonged to the community in Qumran, the Gnostics, the pre-Christian prophets and talmudists, the Pharisees and Sadducees, etc., all had different ideas, beliefs and theological perspectives, to greater or lesser extents, depending. The point isn't that Josephus wouldn't have made these statements because he was a Jew, but because he wasn't an early Christian, or any other tendency that was significantly deviating away from austere Judaism and rabbinic law of the period, and expressing views like those attributed to Jesus.
I tuned into here word for word on what Josephus have to say about Jesus and I'm just hearing whole bunch of different ideas.
There is a palm size piece of the gospel of Mark that is part of the dead sea scroll collection. Considered to be from 50 AD. Why they have never released it is beyond me. I know of two people that have seen it. ..
That's so cool
Link?
@@vvmax4375 Can't put links on here. Utube just deletes them. Fr. Malachi martin years ago said that about the fragment. I was surprised when Prof. Daniel Wallace said it in more recent times. Its in one of Daniel's videos. Can't remember which one. The Malachi Martin video, look up "Malachi Martin Sequence Of Time Part 10" The 24.31 minute area
@@NormBaker. thanks
@@vvmax4375 I never read the full Josephus, but always heard many interesting things about
what he recorded. You know he was a Romanized Jew and a author. This
scholar brought up how he said there was things that appeared over the
skies of Jerusalem right before the siege in 67-70 AD. Josephus did not know
of Jesus sayings or message that there would be signs in the heavens
before the end of Judaism and jewish Palestine.. Look up; "28. Luke 21 - Steve Gregg" Go to the 38.58 mark on the video. Very interesting.
Early Christians plus the authors of the New Testament all where Jews and remained Jewish lol so the argument that a Jew wouldn’t talk that way is very weak lol
But Josephus wasn't an early Christian. He was Jewish. He wouldn't have called Jesus the Messiah. He was busy trying to convince the Jews that Emporer Vespasian was the Messiah.
nope, the authors of the new testament is a christian not a jews. jews don't believe in jesus.
Another tremendous video! Thank you, Erik! - God Bless! Meridith
It is possible that Josephus' text is distorted, but whenever I see moderns altering and "reconstructing" the text based on their modern ideas of what a 1st century Jew ought to say, I just want to scream in frustration at how perverse that is. No wonder they think ancient scribes altered the text -- it is exactly what they would have done themselves if they were scribes. The text makes reasonable sense as written. Josephus is writing for gentiles, and when he says "he was the Christ", he is only saying, "you know this guy Christ you have heard of, this is who is meant by it, and those people called Christians you have heard of were named after him." Only to a modern rationalist does the reference to Jesus as a marvel-worker imply any particular faith in the religion he founded. The text does not indicate Josephus was Christian, and certainly not that he was an orthodox Christian; but even if it did, only a modern would think that Josephus cannot possibly have entertained quasi-Christian beliefs or pro-Christian attitudes merely because he was Jewish. Moderns project back in time an anachronistic polarization between the groups.
That is a great point! Josephus seemed to have had a loose interpretation of what the Messiah was anyway. As a matter of fact most Jews from the Second Temple period did. He famously believed that Vespasian was the Messiah.
That's terribly unconvincing. If you compare this passage with his description of the Pharisees, it's clear Josephus is very detached and very neutral in his language when he's describing the various Jewish cults.
Yet here he says Jesus was the Messiah? He rose from the dead on the third day? All the gushing language makes it clear tampering happened. The question is to what degree.
The word Christ means Messiah. Jesus Christ wasn’t Jesus’ name it actually means Jesus the Messiah. A non believing Jew would never refer to Jesus as the Messiah because if he actually believed that Jesus was in fact the Messiah he would have to either convert to Christianity or he would be a hypocrite, a false professing Jew.
@@mikewiththebluecar Language is flexible, and has been flexible in all ages of the world. Hence, I find perfectly plausible that Josephus did not mean what you insist he meant. You have not disproven my hypothesis. You just refuse to consider it. When Jews say "Christ" today, they don't necessarily mean "the Real Messiah". Why should Josephus be any different? And he was not even addressing his fellow Jews.
@@Sphere723which descriptions
Jesus Christ said. I am the way I am the truth I am the life no one comes to the father except through me !!the messiah was mentioned a few times in the Hebrew text saying he’s coming and all of a sudden Jesus comes about and hardly anyone believes smh
Jesus also alludes to the Gospel of his life and works being itself parable with allegorical meaning in Mark, the earliest Gospel, so I guess it depends which 'Jesus' you trust.
I never read the full Josephus, but always heard many interesting things about
what he recorded. You know he was a Romanized Jew and a author. This
scholar brought up how he said there was things that appeared over the
skies of Jerusalem right before the siege in 67-70 AD. He did not know
of Jesus sayings or message that there would be signs in the heavens
before the end of Judaism and jewish Palestine.. Look up; "28. Luke 21 - Steve Gregg" Go to the 38.58 mark on the video. Very interesting.
He does mention various phenomena in book 7(maybe 6) of Jewish Wars, and claims to have been a witness or talked to witnesses(I don't remember). He claims that before the war, during passover week, a heffer was brought to the temple for sacrifice and suddenly went into labor, then gave birth to a lamb, among other things. There are similar but different types of phenomena mentioned in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud.
Jewish Wars is an easy read, and quite captivating. You should pick it up.
His other main work, "Antiquities" is basically a retelling of the historical portions of the old testament, along with the history of the Seleucids and Maccabees, up to his own day. It's 20 volumes and can be a slog.
@@fred7883 What is "The this Mention"??
second...what if people are going by the overall consensus on Josephus? What the hell do you have the right to judge people based on you own arrogance?
@@fred7883 So all the scholars are wrong about Josephus and he was a fairy tail. Oh you do have some problems. It seems like you have a hate agenda towards people and their beliefs and Knowledge.
@@fred7883 Josephus's descriptions of portents before or during the war are in "Wars" not "Antiquities," and they're in every single manuscript copy, in every language Josephus has survived in. Those passages are considered absolutely genuine and part of the original work. No one has ever questioned them until your single comment one day ago. Why would someone add this?! And how would it even be possible?
Edit: Tacitus also references Josephus in his section on the war and mentions the portents, meaning they were there in the original work.
As for passages about Jesus in his other work, they're also in every single surviving manuscript, whether Greek, Syriac, Arabic, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by "not in earlier manuscripts." There is no copy of Josephus's "Antiquities" that does not include the passages.
@@fred7883 When I took the IQ test I was just short of Genius. You write long winded comments that don't really get to any real definitive points. You have a personal agenda and seem to be on a personal crusade of hate by your writing. I would say you are anti-Christ by what you have said. Your just another brick in the wall.
There were MANY Jews who believed in the Messiah
a different messiah yes
@@reinhardschneider9186 the real Messiah
@@goingdark5992 You mean another fake messiah😂
@@disturbedshaggy898 there's nothing fake about the Messiah I'm referring too!
@@goingdark5992 all messiahs are fake
Jesus was a Jew. AND told us specifically that he didn't come to abolish the Law (Matt. 5:17).
I think the lines of transmission is another argument in favor of early dating and reliability for the gospels. If the Evangelists were committing the life of Jesus to writing, they were either going to have to match up with the existing traditions if they were writing later, or they would have had to introduce these traditions early on, in which case the other Apostles would have been around to cross-check.
The idea that Jesus may not have existed is actually a fascinating one. Bottom line is that we don't know. In consideration of the other various myths about people dying and then rising again, we in all honesty and decency reason that accounts are all exaggerated.
New to channel. Really enjoying content. Keep it up! 😃
Whenever a scholar says 'the majority of scholars agree that...' it begs thequestion.....did you check with every Josephus scholar? Every one of them? And if 'the majority agree that' Josephus passage about Jesus was 'doctored'.....what is 'the majority'? Was it 90% of the scholars? Or was it 55 to 60%? It makes a difference.
I think to say that just because he is Jewish says that he wouldn't believe in jesus is absolutely false, the early Christians were messianic jews, and simply said the question then was about how can a gentile be believer and not how can a jew be christian.
Josephus believed Vespasian (a gentile ruler) was the Messiah. He may have had a very loose interpretation of what the Messiah was.
Love your channel 🔥
Absolutely lllloooove the work. I'm a Muslim and am on the same page as you
Bro, please write me back
how in the world would the early christian apologists have seen it useless to cite this passage by Josephus because of thoughts that him being “virtuous” or “doing good deeds” wouldn’t have got them far, but Christian apologists use this passage today??? UMMM i’m very confused
why would the apologists back then have saw it not worth citing even though apologists today see it worth citing?????
how does a version which says his disciples reported seeing him after he died classify as BEING WATERED DOWN??? i can’t believe erhman, or you, would think a text that says such a thing is too “peared down” for a Christian apologist to use… am i missing something here???
Well it's because no one believed Jesus did not exist back then and everyone knew that his disciples claimed he rose from the dead. But none of this would have been of any apologetic value in the first few centuries. It is of apologetic value now because many modern skeptics believe Jesus never even existed (which of course would not have been an issue 2,000 years ago).
The fact that we can say the word" Jesus ", proves there's a Savior named Jesus. ✝️
the fact I can say "bullshit" is proof that he doesn't
@@scambammer6102 Alright, bro
That’s a rather ignorant statement.
@@KnowMad1 How so?
@@YECBIB that’s like saying, the fact that we can say the word “bear” proves that there was a house that Goldilocks broke into. You’re trying to put a square peg in a round hole
Jerome wrote after Eusebius, and in fact used Eusebius, so his quoting of the testimonium says nothing at all about the existence of the testimonium in the first century.
Why would a early church scribe inject false literature into Josephus writings when the whole known world ( Most of the west) was already Catholic? Christianity was a given. It didn't need any false testimonies.
this is like 100 ad max, the Catholic church was barely even formed let alone had that much influence
@@kennylee6499 So how did the Catholic church put forgeries into every known copy of Josephus around the civilized world while Josephus was still alive? Did they break into all the libraries in the Persian and Roman empires and spend fortunes making new copies with their additions? And if they went to such trouble, why didn't they do anything with the quotation?
But it does when you know history and not religious do your allowed to know history and older religions
@@histguy101 it's not about when he was alive its about when the council of nicea happened the creed was agreed upon & the teachings & narrations they didn't agree with got burnt & changed to fit their narrative & any other genuine works got lost with time. You have to understand that history is always written by the victor & Rome was very aware of how propaganda works & to control a nation successfully you have to have them all on the same ideologie.
Also the early followers of the son of Mary were messianic Jews that believed the son of Mary was the Messiah but not the begotten son of God.
When you understand that. Acts 2:22 becomes a lot more clearer, regardless of the authenticity of the passage!
New King James Version
“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know!
The Jews if seeing the son Mary do miracles or hearing these words would of understood it the same way God worked HIS miracles through Moses!
It was the Christians that started to worship him & turned him into a pantheon/trinity!
@@3-Kashmir What does the council of Nicea have to do with Josephus? You think books were burned at the council of Nicea?
I again ask the same question: Who went to all the trouble of tracking down all copies of Josephus only to modify or insert one small passage about Jesus? How does it get to us this way? And why didn't they alter more? How was this logistical nightmare accomplished?
I'm not interested in your religious views.
At 04:34, there is a quote by John Meier. Does anyone know what the reference is to that quote? In the video, there is no reference.
Hey, Erik! At church last night, the instructor said that Josephus was being sarcastic in the Testimonium Flavianum instead of partial or total interpolation. I wanted to ask him more about that, but I had to run to get my daughter so it will have to wait until next week. I haven't heard that theory before- do you have any thoughts on this?
Thank you for answering if you see this and have time!
I guess the interpolation theory seems to fit the data more to me than sarcastic. Do we see other places where Josephus uses such sarcasm? Was it common for him or other historians to use that kind of thick sarcasm at the time? Just strikes me as a bit odd.
@@TestifyApologetics I thought it seemed off, too! Thank you so much for answering, Erik! I hadn't thought to approach it from those angles, so thank you for also helping me to think about what questions to ask to examine a claim. That's something that will stick with me. I am so thankful for you and everything I learn from you!
Yea that’s the Christian defect move for everything they can’t argue against .. just like how parts of the Bible are metaphor but still somehow the infallible word of God when they want it to be 😂
@@TestifyApologetics he forgot to put /s
That sarcasm is typical of Roman Dark humor at the time, so Yes you’re actually on Track👍🏾
But all surviving manuscripts of the Josephus passage originated around 200/300 ce. There is no earlier copy. even the Arabic manuscript derived from the library caeserea.
yep
Can't get enough as always
This was very helpful thank you
josephus tell us Jesus was black skinned short, hunchbacked or did you miss that part
He didn't miss that part because it is not a credible source.
Eisler's proposed restoration of Josephus' lost original Aramaic language book "The Capture of Jerusalem," which has not been preserved. Eisler has used the Slavonic additions to Josephus' War, as if they are fragments that quote or allude to Josephus' Aramaic "Capture," and other legendary materials (Letter of Lentulus, "wanted" posters seeking capture of runaway slaves found in the garbage heaps of Egypt, etc.).
Eisler himself notes that one such letter describing Jesus has several contradictions, so cannot be real. The differences and additions can be better explained as coming from semi-pagan Slav & Russian nobility of the middle ages, as opposed to a lost Aramaic description of the "Capture of Jerusalem".
Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay. "...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."
Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter
Did you watch the video? And have you accustomed yourself to any ancient history or writings, or the Roman world, or are you just coming at this from a religious debate?
Should Jesus have minted his own coins? Or built monuments with inscriptions of his name?
Do you think that a "non-Christian source" that lived between 1-30ad is the requirement to prove Jesus was a historical person? Do we need a contemporary independent source to verify that Josephus existed?
The "scholarly consensus" is that the Josephus's first reference to Jesus has interpolations(you stated this yourself), not that it was wholely forged(which stated later). If you don't know what that means, it means that Josephus in fact did mention Jesus, but that a later copier altered the passage to make it more complementary to Jesus.
The other Josephus passage mentioning Jesus is widely believed to be genuine, and it is referenced by early church writers living long before Eusebius.
agreed yes
The early followers of the son of Mary were messianic Jews that believed the son of Mary was the Messiah but not the begotten son of God.
When you understand that. Acts 2:22 becomes a lot more clearer, regardless of the authenticity of the passage!
New King James Version
“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know!
The Jews if hearing this passage would of understood it the same way God worked HIS miracles through Moses!
It was the Christians that started to worship him & turned him into a pantheon/trinity!
The fact you write C.E instead of A.D shows your biasness. 🤦♂️ Therefore what you say isn't credible
Agreed- Christus!
What do professional historians, the History Channel and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) say about the actual Jesus? What does Dr. Bart Ehrman say? Jesus passed their History Test.
Josephus tells us what OTHER people told him about Jesus. He wrote on the matter decades after Jesus' supposed death and his sources are unknown. They were very unlikely to have been eyewitnesses themselves, so at best his sources were second, third hand, (or even worse) accounts. Josephus at best is commenting on the existing oral tradition of the time, which is neither remarkable, nor proof of any truth to the matter whatsoever.
No matter what evidence is presented you would come up with a reason to disbelieve it. You do realize that no credentialed scholar of the Classics working in a University today denies Jesus's historicity. It's only a fringe of scholars and none of them are employed by an institution of higher learning.
@@kwameadu0075 Belief in the existence of a man called Jesus who was crucified is not the issue here. Establishing that he existed is the easiest challenge you face. The much tougher task is proving that he was the son of God who was resurrected and ascended to heaven. In that, you have zero evidence whatsoever. Plenty of would-be messiahs existed in the region at the time; we have historical accounts of their existence as well. No one would make the claim that any of them were the actual messiah, either, because there is zero evidence to support such a claim. Just as there is none for yours. If there were, you would have presented it already.
You make the claim that there is no evidence that would make people like me believe because it makes you feel much more secure in your faith to believe that we simply don't WANT to believe and just "want to sin" rather than admit the fact that there is NO evidence whatsoever that would convince any rational person with an ounce of critical thinking skills. If there were sufficient evidence to convince me that Jesus was the son of God, I would believe and be happy to do so. But there isn't, so I don't. Not because I don't want to, but because I'm simply not convinced. So stop lying about the motivation if atheists just to bolster and justify your own faith.
He tells us that he was a Roman named Titus flavius
I would argue there is no reason why josephus should believe Jesus was any different between any of the others proclaiming to be the Messiah.
You state that Jesus wasn't trying to take political power because he wasn't aggressive towards the Romans.
However you have forgotten that some people will try to take power by peaceful means.
I don't think it's reasonable to assume he wasn't trying too.
so there was a charismatic cult leader, about which josephus heard about, in stories second or even third hand.
Eusebius also stated that it was ok to use falsehood (i.e. lie and deceive) in order to convert people to Christianity. Given that he is the first person to note this passage in Josephus in not in its favor.
What exactly is there to lie about to convert people to Christianity? Jews followed after hundreds of false Messiahs - it's clear they're delusional. Whereas Christian Jews believes one Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus is a descendant of David because David is King of the Map and Jesus is US, G'sRUs, the guy with the power to make a bad situation into a good situation, can turn water into wine cos he makes the team play when they work.
Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh, wanted no one to die, so He gave His life so that anyone who believes in Him can have everlasting life.
Romans 10:9 NLT
[9] If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Commenting for algorithm
How does algorithm answer these may questions. Haha lol
@@munozericar13 replying for algorithm
Just because someone is a Jew doesn’t mean they won’t believe in Yeshua being the messiah. Yeshua was a Jew who had 12 disciples who were Jews!!! They didn’t convert into being Christians! The first messianic movement was Jews!!! Who practiced Judaism! They worship in the synagogue! The apostle Paul even took a sacrifice to the temple! I’m a Jew who practices Judaism and I believe yeshua is the messiah. I’m not a Christian! I do not believe the law was done away with. Rabbi Yeshua said he didn’t come to abolish the law! He came to teach it in elevated way.
WHO DO SAY HE WAS THIS MAN JESUS?
4:00 What kind of an analogy is that? For your example to hold water you would have to show a Josephus document with some writing about jesus existing prior to the jesus Josephus doctored passage. So yes it may mean there was never a written original showing a jesus passage. Any thing you said after that is pure speculation. Come on.
7:25 Jerome mentions Testimonium in writings dated 392-93ce, but Eusebius lived around 260-339ce so how does this show it was not added? Come on.
The James passages i'm still looking into, but with your above track record, not looking good for you.
Actually there existed many copies of Josephus publications as they where widely read in those days. It's actually very impossible that someone sneeked in alternative versions just to elevate Jesus. That would have soon led to different versions of Josephus recordings which is highly unlikely apart from the fact that Jesus existence and the claim to be the messiah was well known and established and that time as we can not only read from letters of Paul but other non biblical sources. It would not be possible for Paul to write those letters if the content was a lie concerning Jesus. Everyone could go to Jerusalem in those days to verify the empty grave incidence and the resurrection so it just defies all logic to say "maybe josephus writings content concerning Jesus was added".
@@platzhirsch4275 Hi, thanks for the reply comment:
"Actually there existed many copies of Josephus publications as they where widely read in those days".
Sure, there were copies in the first few centuries. How widely read or known about were these books outside of religious circles? Who is to know? Did the average believer know of such things, unlikely, as literacy rates were at about 10% of the population and probably lower in more rural areas.
"It's actually very impossible that someone sneaked in alternative versions just to elevate Jesus".
Impossible you say? Variants on religious texts abound in religious circles. Mark's Gospels for example has two additional endings, the longer ending (verse 9-20), and the shorter ending (unversed). Johns gospel is at bare minimum a compilation of two versions of the gospel texts with again a minimum of two authors. So given enough time(say 100-300+y),recopying and regional theological mannerisms in one area, i see variations likley than as not.
"That would have soon led to different versions of Josephus recordings which is highly unlikely apart from the fact that Jesus existence and the claim to be the messiah was well known and established and that time as we can not only read from letters of Paul but other non biblical sources".
Again i point to 'Jerome mentions Testimonium in writings dated 392-93ce, but Eusebius lived around 260-339ce so how does this show it was not added?'
This was about a particular copy of Antiquities passed on in this community. All else is not too relevant to my point.
"It would not be possible for Paul to write those letters if the content was a lie concerning Jesus".
Not sure what Paul's writings have to do with Antiquities? But i will try to answer.
Paul never met an earthly jesus and although he may of talked about jesus with Peter, James and John
he did not see eye to eye with them about him. So if Paul can ignore people who supposedly talked to jesus directly and can say all his (Paul's) teaching about jesus are from visions and scripture, how then can we be sure about anything he may say about him? He never says anything, not one thing about jesus' earthly life/ministry/teachings. A bit odd if you ask me. In fact a lot odd.
"Everyone could go to Jerusalem in those days to verify the empty grave incidence and the resurrection so it just defies all logic to say "maybe josephus writings content concerning Jesus was added".
Go to Jerusalem and verify an empty grave and resurrection? Really? Let's be generous here and say i have just read the anonymous book of (mark) in lets say 80AD in it's possible writing location of Rome. Assuming i have the means and survive my journey from Rome to Jerusalem which is over 2300klm
i then have to find where the crucifixion's took place. Good luck with that. Then find someone who is still living from 50 years ago, so someone in their 70-80's who at least lived in the area then. Again good luck with that as most people then lived an average of 50 years and assuming of course they survived the recent Jewish war which had only just happened. Then ask them if they saw a jesus die as part of crucifixion during passover 50years ago. The most likely question you will get is which jesus? As jesus was such a common name back then like say John is today. If you get past that you might ask them where their tomb is? Again good luck with that. And then ask did you see or know anyone who saw him resurrected into heaven? I think at this stage that question would have got you the equivalent of the finger back then. And this is all assuming you can speak Aramaic. All this and more trouble i am probably not thinking of because i read a religious text given to me in Rome? And then you add it defies 'all logic' that a passage in Josephus may have been added?
Move along sunshine.
Cheers
G
@@platzhirsch4275 then how did the forgeries get into the TF? Oops sorry sherlock.
A wise man once said, But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes: for they are unprofitable and vain.
Another wise man said, Answer not fools according to their folly, lest thou be like unto them.
Christians, it is unprofitable and vain to argue against mythicists. It is not necessary nor wise to answer them. Even Derek Lambert of Mythvision fame has long since renounced the position after which his channel is named.
As for me, I couldn't care less if the Josephus passage is original or not. Who cares?
Why can't jews consider Yeshua as the messiah? Last time I checked all of his disciples (Yeshua himself btw) and people who believed he was the messiah were JEWISH. Considering there is no church during "New Testament" times you're using your own bias of what make a jew during Josephus time.
There were many people that claimed as messiah and according to jews, Jesus did not meet the criteria of a Messiah so they killed him. Jews were the ones who crucified Jesus. And those jews who were believers of Christ branched out from Judaism to form the religion called Christianity.
What I don't understand is why people take a passage, we can all agree was changed, as proof of Jesus existing. I think he probably did exist but I find it very hard to believe there is enough evidence Josephus was talking about him. I'm sure Jesus wasn't the only person named Joshua with a brother named James. In fact given the obvious changes to the other passage I'm not sure you can't say the name James wasn't changed in a similar way.
He was the only person named Jesus with a brother named James, who was called the messiah/Christ by his followers who was crucified during Tiberius's reign by Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem, and who's followers became known as "Christians." It's not "just Josephus." It's also Tacitus, Paul, Luke, Peter, James, John, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papius, etc, etc.
@@histguy101 lol if the son of Mary was around today & you called him Jesus he would look at you like your confused!
@@3-Kashmir And? It's just a translation of his name
I ASSURE YOU JESUS CHRIST WILL COME AGAIN TO GATHER HIS SHEEP AND CAST OUT THE GOATS. THE SON OF GOD GOD HIMSELF WILL COME AND JUDGE THE LIVING AND THE DEAD.
Thank you for uploading this video. Very objective and informative presentation that is concise and well narrated.
The argument that Jesus of Nazareth 'wasn't a political messiah' is just pure garbage deployed in a vain effort to provide a rationale that explains the uncharacteristic warmth being shown to him in the text, which is incontestably inauthentic and inconsistent with the author's writing style and views. The Gospels, as is claimed, clearly don't see 'Him' as 'not a political messiah,' despite however peaceful he was, or how detached from the title of messiah he was in 'His' public ministry and works. 'He' does not deny the charge, and 'He' is crucified for claiming to be the messiah, which was an inherently political statement; it was a statement of open rebellion, and a claim to personal authority over Judea against that of Rome as the sovereign to rule over a thousand-year kingdom.
Being or becoming the messiah was invariably a political statement, not merely a theological one, in the historical setting and understanding referenced thereto. You can't be the messiah and not be making yourself political in the process, and standing in open rebellion. Even if the charges were false, 'He' essentially leans into a political role cast for 'Him' in specific ways, under specific circumstances, whatever theological necessity, role, and window-dressing that served for 'Him' and the parable of 'His' passion, and there's no way a Christian who understands what 'messiah' and all of that means, in full apprehension of this, can sincerely believe he was 'an apolitical messiah,' and not be lying through their teeth, or at least deeply, cheerfully, obliviously mistaken.
The alleged conception is oxymoronic and invalid, both inside and outside the context of the Gospels. And accordingly, there is, further, no way that Josephus would see belief in that as being anything more favorable than any other would-be claimant or nominee being called 'the messiah,' either beforehand or retroactively. There is no version that makes sense as authentic authorship, since none of them make sense even as neutral reporting Josephus would not also comment negatively upon as the same sort that he lambasts and denounces consistently and without fail in every other instance of it, without exception. Even if crucified by misadventure, there is no way any outside commentator or storyteller could relay that in a way that could possibly disabuse or dispel its meaning and interpretive status as being in any way devoid of political significance, or in no way tantamount to joining the very same rogues' gallery Josephus bitterly opposed and condemned as an entire cottage industry of charlatanry.
Note: Use of apostrophes not employed in the style of scare quotes, but to indicate the external theological rendering of referenced perspectives upheld by scriptural sources.
complete forgery.
come on people
I’m pretty sure he addresses this.
Excellent, thank you.
Can you show me the word Palestine on the Historical Map.
Good video!
Josephus' chronicles state that there were 63 towns in Galilee, but Nazareth was not included there! You say Jesus? The letter "J" wasn't in the alphabet until 1523! Makes you want to say, Hmmm!
It’s not the alphabet, it’s the sound. Hebrew used a Shepards staff that was turned over and a line through the J in the hook. Also there are many names that Bible that start with the sound of J such as Jeremiah, Jeremiah and so on. Also the land was divided a lot after Herod.
Also, after Herod the land was divided up so depending on whose angle you hearing this from and the time, you may not hear of Nazareth
Nice
Wait, you said he served in the military of Palestine you know that ain’t right. Some people called the land by that disrespectful name, but not at that time of Josephus so it’s categorically incorrect to say that he was active in the military of Palestine.
What is weird to me is why would Josephus call him Jesus when Yahushua would have been his accurate name? That leads me to believe that is fake
Jesus is a common name
Good thing he used a disambiguatior
But a Jesus who claimed to be the messiah and was killed by pontius pilatos is a little too specific
Subscribed
You had me until you said Palestine. I expected better from you and this just lost a subscribe. Shame on you for not knowing actual history. Israel’s name was changed in 135 AD to “Syria Palestina” by Roman emperor Hadrian as an insult to the Jews. That evolved over the centuries to “Palestine” however, during Josephus actual life, the land was not Palestine.
Hes literally stated when he says Israel or palestine it's when he's quoting the scholars he's using also you the Greeks referred to Israel as palestine in the 5th century BC
Also commenting for algorithm
Josephus Description of Jesus
Biblical description of Jesus read as follows:
"At that time also there appeared a certain man of
son of [a God, but his disciples (call) the true
prophet... he was a man of simple appearance,
mature age, black-skinned (melagchrous), short
growth, three cubits tall, hunchbacked, prognathous
(lit. 'with a long face' [macroprosopos]), a long nose,
eyebrows meeting above the nose ... with scanty
[curly] hair, but having a line in the middle of the
head after the fashion of the Nazaraeans, with an
undeveloped beard
Please, do not post filth from a BLM NGO, or worse, "black Israelite" smut site.
Covenant breakers
He was never in Palestine. It wasn't called Provinca Syria-Palestina until after the Bar Kokhba Revolt.
Palestine? Ok fam how can i believe this when you dont even say the actual names of the places in Jesus' time.. palestine didnt exist lol
ok fam that's just what scholars call it. I know it's Israel. It describes a region. Very nitpicky.
@@TestifyApologetics its not even a region. You maybe could get by with calling it Syria Palestina but that was just the city of Jerusalem under the Roman occupation around 132 A.D. this is biblical history my dude.. try and at least be honest. Its Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Perea and Decapolis.
At least we can't be sure of Joseph's testimony. William Benjamin Smith in his book Ecce deus talks about the passages on Jesus by Flavius missing in some manuscripts, which leads to the conclusion that these passages were added by Christians to make it appear that Josephus was writing about the existence of Jesus.This atheists argue and I haven't seen any Christian to refute it.
Yes there were some passages that were tampered by Christians but there are other sources and manuscripts that do mention Jesus by Josephus. There were some that were Tambor that we know of and some the most historians agree we're not. Also Christians have refuted that what are you talkin about just look it up
@@webslinger527 Could you show me and send links to the work of experts who refute that Josephus' accounts of Jesus were interpolated, even though it is completely missing in some manuscripts and gives the impression of later interpolation in order to historize Jesus? Many experts think that the introductory passage of the Gospel of Mark was later added because some manuscripts are also completely missing. It is the same problem, in the case of Flavius and the historicity of Jesus quite serious ... It is written on atheistic sites and one researcher used it as an argument against the reliability of Flavius.
@@lukyncz3778 I do not know any videos at the top of my head sorry about that. It's just a few look up articles and other videos of people talking about this they refute the statement that Josephus doesn't mention Jesus. Which in itself is odd and mentioned John the Baptist who is Jesus cousin. Also did you not watch the video this guy produced you skipped over or not understand what he is saying.
The only manuscripts that don't have the passage are Hebrew manuscripts that date back to the medieval time period that follow the same manuscript traditions of the ones that Eusebius messed with. This shows that the Jews deliberately removed the passage
@@Christian_Maoist. Thank you finally for your answer. but you could send me a link to where you got the information. Thank you
the terms, bc and ad are christian, the usage of bce and ce when discussing Jewish things is respectful, also "In the early 2nd century CE, the Roman province called Judaea was renamed Syria Palaestina (literally, "Palestinian Syria"), and also incorporated some other, smaller, territories. This may have occurred either before or after the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135." there was no such thing as palestine at this time
I like how they throw Gentiles pics up for Josephsus
Absolutely nothing.
Correction. He tells us a lot.
@@Mike00513 your right! He is testimony to the complete lack of 1st century extra biblical attestation for JC! Your opinion is formed by your over riding need to believe in a physical Jesus. The TF is a complete christian forgery, a faith statement full of assumptions only a sect member would understand & Josephus would never write.
@@ghostriders_1
This shows your ignorance to the scholarly consensus which holds that the Testimonium Flavianum is partially authentic, And for good reason. And the second reference is universally acknowledged to be authentic to Josephus in its entirety.
@@Mike00513 I am not ignorant of the scholarship I just happen to have good reasons to disagree with it! Have you read Josephus closely when he writes about other Jewish sects? The TF is not written in his discourse style. It is however modelled, from the first word on Luke's Road to Emmaeus passage and shares 20 chronological points with it. Are you aware of that scholarship? As I said before it is basically a christian faith statement full of information & assumptions that only Christians would fully understand. Josephus would not leave his Roman audience hanging in ignorance like this. He would've fully explained each and every aspect and that he didn't proves its a total forgery in my eyes.
The second brief mention is an accidental interpolation, Jesus ben Damneus is the brother of James.
@@ghostriders_1
The Testimonium is rich in distinctive Josephan vocabulary and linguistic style that has no early Christian parallels, when you set aside the Christian embellishments in the passage. Also when you remove all the Christian glosses from the Testimonium it flows better and reads more coherently. Almost like the glosses were never originally part of the text. And the second reference to Jesus suggests a prior reference. Josephus does feel he must stop to explain who this Jesus is. He is presumed to be the known fixed point that helps identify who this James person was. None of this would make sense to Josephus’ audience unless Josephus had previously introduced and explained something about him.
And no, the reference to James and Jesus in book 20 was not originally written to say Jesus the son of Damneus. The reference to Jesus in that passage looks to introduce Jesus into the narrative, and then he mentions Jesus a second time with an identifying appellation. I have yet to see a passage where Josephus mentions someone with their appellation twice in the same passage.
If I disregard the supernatural aspects of the bible, and you read the story disregarding the magic. it is a story about an honorable man growing up as a Jew recognizing how evil it is and started doing miraculous deeds unifying Jews and Gentiles (besides the Jews who didn’t switch religions) calling out the evils of Judaism and ultimately being crucified for calling out the establishment. My confidence in my atheistic belief has never been weaker the more I learn about the Talmud, and how satanic it truly is.
Jesus never claims Judaism to be evil. He was a Jesus. He specifically claimed to fulfill the old covenant, not to abolish it.
That guy in the picture isn't Jesus... We have to stop calling that guy Jesus.
What are you trying to say?
@@dmsexton888
That's just it... That guy in the picture isn't Jesus. The source picture is actually a French guy from a painting. But that wasn't my point. None of us know how Jesus looked. We barely know what skin tone He was. This guy in the picture is an idol. Some people picture this guy when they pray to Yeshua HaMashiach and that just isn't good to go..
@@thecrucible2353 Oh, okay. I thought you had some other point I wasn't getting. Thanks for the reply.
I don't Jesus cares how you think he looks when you pray to him
@@thomas25082
Exodus 20:3
You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the water under the earth
Is that painting not an Idol? Do you think it's a good idea to picture an idol when worshipping Elohim?
Nothing. He never mentioned Jesus. A complete forgery.
Yes he did
let me share with you the video Ceasars Messiah watch this, then take a second thought! compare the space of era, the time element is a 40 year shift!!
no thanks, I don't like conspiracy theories
Why not take the Author by his own words? There was a division amongst the Israelis because of Christ. The only way one could tell is how he named Christ in the original manuscripts. We all know Christ's name wasn't Jesus. Hebrews didn't have a 'J' in their language. If Josephus said Yeshua then obviously he was telling the truth and it isn't a forgery. To believe everything else is truthful except one little piece...is insanity! No one in their right mind should believe such nonsense! Following people that doesn't believe what is said, but find everything that the book is talking about is ludicrous thinking! I don't follow people that makes up what someone "Might Have Said". That is just ignorance in its finest! They obviously don't know about the history that was going on and why the Uprising?!? Obviously it was about Christ! 🙄
Jesus is a JEW not a Christ
Jesus worshipped in a synagogue not a church
Jesus worshipped GOD not himself !
Jesus is most definitely a Christ. Christ means messiah. He was messiah with Jewish heritage. Jesus is God.
@@MICROSCOPICgiant7 15 years of biblical studies, and I noticed how student like you still miss the point. First, he told his 12 that he was HE. Later told them that by showing love to each others, eye witnesses would see HE. last, he was fed up and asked them if they remembered what the TORAH said: Ye are Gods. The original bible (old ancient greek) that I have here, says, divine energy.
@@TwizzElishus
WHAT ????
Christianity was CREATED in GREECE and ROME it's origins has nothing to do with the middle East where Jesus lived !
Christianity started in PAGAN countries that worshipped men as gods , that's considered paganism !
Christianity is not a monotheistic theology but rather a PAGAN THEOLOGY ! The worshipping of men as gods .
@@mastermasonhiramabiff2538
Jesus was a JEW , not a god , who CAME ONLY TO THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL !
THE JEWS !
THE Life of Jesus was political not spiritual !
Josephus Description of Jesus
Biblical description of Jesus read as follows:
"At that time also there appeared a certain man of
son of [a God, but his disciples (call) the true
prophet... he was a man of simple appearance,
mature age, black-skinned (melagchrous), short
growth, three cubits tall, hunchbacked, prognathous
(lit. 'with a long face' [macroprosopos]), a long nose,
eyebrows meeting above the nose ... with scanty
[curly] hair, but having a line in the middle of the
head after the fashion of the Nazaraeans, with an
undeveloped beard
Souce?
where did you picked this?
One day, Sir, you will meet the Risen Christ. He will say to you that HE never knew you. Then, judgment will come.