00:01:45 Dr. Steve Mason Introduced 00:04:10 Talk begins on best evidence used for hypothesis. "Was Josephus a source for Luke/Acts?" Striking overlaps/similarities in Josephus, Luke/Acts. 00:12:00 - Three assumptions: Rhetorical Training, Josephus, Lived reality (events) 00:26:30 - Graph showing Josephus, Luke/Acts narrative parallels 00:36:40 Historical events (Problems with Bible narrative of Quirinius' Census; Josephus' selective narrative of Quirinius) 00:53:30 Luke's mention of Lysanius of Abila 01:09:00 Theudas in Acts: Example of Troublesome "Prophets" 01:25:10 "The Egyptian" and "sicarii" (Acts 21:30-38) Luke copies story from Josephus. 01:46:40 Pharisees: "Most exact school of Philosophy" Mark, Matthew, John have starkly opposite view of Pharisees than Luke/Acts. Where does Luke get this view from? Super Chat questions 02:11:45 - Q1: Why doesn't Luke/Acts discuss the death of Paul? 02:16:20 - Q2: Did Jesus (name or origin) come from Josephus? 02:19:50 - Q3: If Luke was using Josephus as a source, how late was the author writing? 02:26:40 - Q4: Hallucination Hypothesis, Did Peter and Paul suffer from PTSD, Post-Bereavement? 02:36:40 - Q5: In Acts, High Priest authorizes Paul to pursue Christians, later on slaps Paul but doesn't recognize him. Were there two authors? 02:39:40 - Q6: Roman's killed rebel leaders AND their followers. The Early church started in Jerusalem. Were the leaders not in danger? 02:45:00 - Q7: When did Christianity change from a "belief" to a "hierarchy"? 02:51:20 - Q8: Scholars that wrote about labour, trade and industry in the ANE? 02:54:35 - Q9: Do Christian churches have Paul's Christian writings? 03:12:20 - Q10: Thoughts on Roman Provenance Theory 03:17:20 - Q11: Did he ascend to the cosmic sperm bank (Acts 1)? 03:21:20 - Q12: Is Paul turning the Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls into the opposite of its original intention? 03:44:05 - Q13: Was Luke/Acts written by Luke, companion of Paul? Why doesn't Luke name himself in the Preface? 03:49:10 - Q14: Are Judas of Sepphoris and Judas of Gamala the same person spoken by Josephus?
Time Stamps: 00:01:45 Dr. Steve Mason Introduced 00:04:10 Talk begins on best evidence used for hypothesis. "Was Josephus a source for Luke/Acts?" Striking overlaps/similarities in Josephus, Luke/Acts. 00:12:00 - Three assumptions: Rhetorical Training, Josephus, Lived reality (events) 00:26:30 - Graph showing Josephus, Luke/Acts narrative parallels 00:36:40 Historical events (Problems with Bible narrative of Quirinius' Census; Josephus' selective narrative of Quirinius) 00:53:30 Luke's mention of Lysanius of Abila 01:09:00 Theudas in Acts: Example of Troublesome "Prophets" 01:25:10 "The Egyptian" and "sicarii" (Acts 21:30-38) Luke copies story from Josephus. 01:46:40 Pharisees: "Most exact school of Philosophy" Mark, Matthew, John have starkly opposite view of Pharisees than Luke/Acts. Where does Luke get this view from? Super Chat questions 02:11:45 - Q1: Why doesn't Luke/Acts discuss the death of Paul? 02:16:20 - Q2: Did Jesus (name or origin) come from Josephus? 02:19:50 - Q3: If Luke was using Josephus as a source, how late was the author writing? 02:26:40 - Q4: Hallucination Hypothesis, Did Peter and Paul suffer from PTSD, Post-Bereavement? 02:36:40 - Q5: In Acts, High Priest authorizes Paul to pursue Christians, later on slaps Paul but doesn't recognize him. Were there two authors? 02:39:40 - Q6: Roman's killed rebel leaders AND their followers. The Early church started in Jerusalem. Were the leaders not in danger? 02:45:00 - Q7: When did Christianity change from a "belief" to a "hierarchy"? 02:51:20 - Q8: Scholars that wrote about labour, trade and industry in the ANE? 02:54:35 - Q9: Do Christian churches have Paul's Christian writings? 03:12:20 - Q10: Thoughts on Roman Provenance Theory 03:17:20 - Q11: Did he ascend to the cosmic sperm bank (Acts 1)? 03:21:20 - Q12: Is Paul turning the Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls into the opposite of its original intention? 03:44:05 - Q13: Was Luke/Acts written by Luke, companion of Paul? Why doesn't Luke name himself in the Preface? 03:49:10 - Q14: Are Judas of Sepphoris and Judas of Gamala the same person spoken by Josephus?
Watching Derek’s eyes sparkle with intense interest while Dr. Mason speaks made these four hours go by so fast. Love you Derek for making this discussion happen and for your passion in these topics.
Damn you Mythvision! I see these 4 hr discussions and always think, Ha! No way I'm down for a 4 hr commitment, but the topic is interesting so I'll just listen for a bit...and then I'm stuck listening for the next 4 hrs 😑 Every. Single. Time.
This is a really good point because 2000 years ago there was no Wikipedia, internet, television or radio, where the necessary information could be retrieved. The books of Josephus were the first source from which the author of Luke-Acts was able to obtain information about the conditions in the Middle East, the Asia Minor, and the rulers of that eastern area (such as Lysanias who was ruler of Abila c. 40 BCE!). Josephus was the first and the only who wrote about the Jewish War and the destruction of the temple. And, at the time, that information was not available anywhere other than the works of Josephus which gives to us good reason to believe that why Luke-Acts uses the works of Josephus as its source.
@@Darisiabgal7573 Yes, and what caused him to redact "Acts?" Was it mainly to make his account "line up" with Josephus' historical account, in an attempt to make his account in the book of Acts seem more credible?
"Antiquities" is dated rather narrowly to 93-94 C.E. As a former Jewish priest, military leader, prophet, and eventual Roman citizen, he was well-known at the imperial court in Rome.
I always heard Canadians are nice and when I realized he was Canadian from the CD super chat, I had to chuckle. Ha...u just commented about how delicate he can with his answers! At first I thought you were laying it on a little thick in the beginning of the show but I'm a convert! It was all well deserved praise. For scholars like Dr. Mason to willingly spend 4 hours of his time and expertise answering questions and sharing his presentation is beyond awesome. ID LOVE TO KNOW THE Podcast Dr. Mason mentioned he did or does. If I'd had this kind of content, my servant from audible and the great courses I could have skipped college and just bought a big tv (imagine a life size Bart Ehrman anytime you wanted to get your Bible on!) and a house with my savings! I apologize for running on like this. i guess I'm just trying to say a big Thank You to you both! I'll never dismiss the war of 1812 again! 🤢
Top Form, so well presented. A zillion years ago I took a theology elective - how Paul is presented. Raised evangelical with a Sunday School level of understanding I was increasingly worried (I was still a believer) as time passed. The professor was "old school" and used a large blackboard(!) with Acts on one side and the letters on the other. He'd add or edit the subject - "visions", "miracles", "journeys", "time frames", "wrong people", "relation with disciples" I still recall his polite explanations of the contradictions and his suggestion that "Luke" makes sense if he was writing 50-60 years after the alleged events using stories, Josephus, mixing dates and people, presenting a sanitized version of the Paul-disciples battles.
Information packed talk. Prof. Mason's insightful work would be easier to digest by us non-experts if he used a few figures. For example: One showing side-by side passages of Josephus vs. Luke, Another showing the roman rulers named by both authors, perhaps accompanied with a map. Finally, it would help to have a single concluding sentence for each major point. For example, what I concluded from the first half was: "Luke appears to have read Josephus, misunderstood certain parts, and repackaged parts to make his point". I"m not sure if that's accurate though.
Even Bartholomew has his bias, he is a good scholar yet he bears a grudge against the faith, for he has a great deal of knowledge but lacks understanding. He clothes his body as he clothes his heart, for it is dipped in darkness.
Something else worth mentioning is how the radical Paulinist, Marcion excluded 'Acts' from his canon circa 150. My question is, did Marcion even know of 'Acts' when he was busy editing Luke's gospel and Paul's letters?
I love your work, Derek! I have one small pet peeve: the expression that something "begs the question" is actually a term for a logical fallacy. What you mean is "brings to mind" or something near to that. Just a small thing, and it is a pleasure to have your channel. Thanks for all your hard work!
Just an observation but this could just be a dialectal thing. In British English saying something "begs the question" colloquially means "a question that is begging to be asked is..." rather than the formal fallacy. I'm not sure how this holds up around the world however!
Philosophy degree here. It's annoying to hear "begging the question" used wrong. But I also understand what you mean, and that's what language is supposed to do. It's similar to theory, proof, chemical, radiation, etc.
This gentleman is very erudite, greatly appreciate that. I think that as he is explaining his narrative to the viewing audience, it would be useful to include the fact that Josephus didn't write the Antiquities of the Jews nor the Jewish Wars or any of his historical accounts of those events, until after he himself had been captured during the war and imprisoned. Since Josephus had a high pedigree from his Jewish linage and was a general in the Jewish military, he was considered a valuable prize to the Roman's and his capture by the Romans was a demoralizing blow to jews once the word had spread of his capture. Subsequently in time Josephus would eventually divorce his wife and then take a new wife who was not only Roman but also of royal blood to the Roman conquerer and Ceasar Flavian. Thenceforth, Josephus became Flavius Josephus and took up his new residence inside the royal palace. His writings thus have a slant or leaning in favor of the Roman's and faulting the jews for all of their calamity. It therefore should be apparent as to why Josephus excluded mentioning somethings in his books because he was being careful not to in any way inflame his benefactors the romans by portraying them in a bad light to posterity. He had become a traitor to his own people for self preservation. This information should be included by Mr. Mason as a back drop to fully inform his audience and allow them to have a better and clear realization of Josephus, since he his the primary source of reference in this discussion.
Just tuned into this great show and it’s exactly what I thirst for… honest intelligent informed contextual knowledge without the usual defensiveness rancor oneupmanship I experience when watching the evangelical and many other ideologically possessed argue scripture and religion.
Critical historians: Mark was written first because his gospel is shorter and other writers used his work and injected their own ideas into it. Also critical historians: Josephus wrote first because his account is longer and Luke took what he said, shortened it, and injected it into his work. 🤷♂️
Hypothesis: A bunch of people took an elixir made of Amanita muscaria, ergot, or another substance, and had hallucinations of a god-man on a heavenly plane. They applied it to one or more earthly charismatic and beloved leaders who physically disappeared.
@@mg-ew2xf Yes, I read that, and I highly recommend it because it sheds a lot of light on ancient languages and the origins of religions. Another book I read and also highly recommend is Supernatural by Graham Hancock, which discusses the author's experiences with ayahuasca and a lot more about altered states of consciousness.
It's absolutely amazing this channel has led so many people to Christ. It. Shows the evidence, the speculation, and the bias causing many to believe in God. You're doing God's work.
Many talented writers in the Roman period relied on patrons to live and eat wile they wrote and to pay for copies of their words to be written out, sold in the markets or distributed to interested prominent people, or promoted through public readings. The Villa of the scrolls near Herculaneum is believed to have contained a live-in writer for years. The openings of Luke and Acts read like an acknowledgement of a wealthy patron, with a pseudonym Theophilus (‘God friend’). Perhaps Theophilus let the writer use his library which contained the works Josephus and poets and playwrights quoted in Acts. The patron and his family would likely know the back story of Gallio, Felix, Agrippa Berenice and Drusilla and also the echoes of the Odysee in Paul’s journey to Rome.
Guitar is hard as fuck. Totally counter intuitive and if you don’t have really thin long fingers the contortions necessary for creating the notes are painful.
I am not surprised. Josephus witnessed the capture of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. But in school Latin, I studied the description in the Vulgate of St Paul's voyage to Rome, which reads as an eye-witness account, and uses "we" throughout. In one of his letters, Paul writes "Only Luke is with me." So, there are still questions to be answered. (The reason why I had to study it, was to show the significant changes in the Latin language between Cicero's time and that of St Jerome.)
*_Early Christian Reader: Christian Texts from the First and Second Century_* Mason co-edited and annotated (w/Tom Robinson) is such a must own book. Especially at the price you can still find the hardcover in. There's such a wealth of data and commentary packed into introductions, commentaries and footnotes (along the bottom of each page/ w/biblio's at chapter ends) followed by extensive appendices. It is , none the less, written in a fluid style that a lay person (like myself) can find engaging. It would not surprise me to learn that this is one of (if not the) definitive books on the subject.
Luke 's Koine Greek writing style is the most sophisticated among the 4 gospels. He was an erudite for sure ( he was a Greek doctor, a big thing back then...) and certainly he knew the writings of Josephus, one of the most famous historians of that time.
Derrick, I was trying to ask questions with those little tiny Super Chats, but my ancient PC wouldn’t do it. I enjoyed church this Sunday with you and Professor Mason enormously. I wanted to comment that folks in the modern day who are obsessed with the Second Coming, although mostly harmless, can be led FAR astray from morality into into cults (I am thinking of the Daybell/Ballow case in particular). I also had a question about CS Lewis and “Mere Christianity,” but in retrospect, my question wasn’t interesting (lol).
Heaven is not for the religious but for the righteous only. Righteousness without religion is still righteousness, but religion without righteousness is murder of the soul.
@@troelsvestergaard6644 Haha... this is mythvision bro! Nobody here believes in your skydaddy. You should think before you click... or rather you should at least watched the podcast to know the content before you comment!
@@jhake67 Why is it the time of your life watching this bla bla bla if you don't believe in a skydaddy? I would think 4 hours of intense sex would be a better way to spend 4 hours.
Love the content, but damn, almost 4hrs!? I want to listen to all of the great insight, but hard to commit to all that time unless I’m driving on a road trip.
There is a contemporary book called Steal This Plot. The thesis is that there are only a handful of plots in literature. And Ezra Pound said, actually these are not exactly his words, but how people understand it, Good writers borrow. Great writers steal.
@@ghostriders_1 They did spend time together on an island; there is consensus on that point. Ralph doesn't have to be 100% correct; his lacunae explains a lot; as does his Arthurian legend stuff. Listening to Dr. Mason and Bart Ehrman, one might get the impression that meditative experience and astrology didn't even exist at the time of these events; nothing could be further from the truth.
There was a hold-up when Rome was going to invade Britain; the soldiers wouldn't cross the channel because of superstition. These issues were taken seriously and used to manipulate armies.
I have read Josephus, it amazes me how all these myths ever came into these crazies. Josephus talks all about war and uncivilized savages. Most Christians should read Josephus, he has a great view. Only violence,wars, death.
@@arriuscalpurniuspiso it amazes me the different people he was supposed to be.If he wrote the gospels the whole NT is a joke. Julian Piso wrote the apocalypse of John, Pliny the Younger wrote as Paul. Fundamentals believe the Bible is the truth, historical and without errors. Me I don’t believe these stories have any evidence of the truth. But most believe because they’re ignorant, just because they own a Bible, which they have never read.
@3:00:00 was the preaching and writing of Paul not done to the upper middle layer of citydwellers if one could made such a distinction. It is not to the poor, the slaves or labourers, but to people who could permit finanching charity and such and was probably a literated stratum in society. An economic picture of the Classic economy should be helpfull. Following Rodney Starks relationmodel I think Paul mainly addressed Hellenisated Jews, who did not set themselves apart from the gentile community and when one wonders what kind of profession they had, the concept trade pops up. But the link Jews and trade is something that was maybe true in the MiddleAges but need not be the case in 1st century Roman Empire.
At the 1:52:00, Pharisees and Sadducees. Content and context is the big difference! Paul uses Pharisees as a school of righteous learning and virtues that supports his interpretations of a newer insight and personal transformation of God within the individual. The Gospels uses Pharisees and Sadducees as those who support the traditional Temple rigid authority that man by one's own action can be righteous before God. Paul was probably adhering to Gnostic and mystery religions concepts and personal enlightenment! Again, this suggests that Jesus was not a historical person, but rather symbolic process (outside the thought-making process) for the inner transformation of God coming inside!
Thanks Dr. Mason. I'm your age and totally got the music reference to Bangles, Walk like an Egyptian. BTW they also did manic monday. Hot chick band back in the day! ; < )
3:04:00 diversity of Early Christians demonstrates the variety of personal experiences and interpretations. It is very subjective! This gives more support that Jesus is not a historical character.
Practicing your Greek rhetoric? It’s not that they were diverse, it’s that they were all mystic beliefs with a devotion to this odd nobody teacher who suddenly goes from rabbi, to lesser messiah, to full blown messiah, to virgin born, to equal of god, to a replacement god. The problem with Mythicism is it’s a concretization of the innate uncertainties of history. This Yeshua fellow was trying, so he thought, to get people to use there inner spirituality to see Yahweh from the inside out, not from the fear of the zealots of the law. What happened however was quite different. He got killed, and distraught they tried to find their inner source and a few of them, not many at first, found a new source and it has his face on it. And so they went running to the four winds (obviously they did not want to get killed in Judea) proclaiming there new inner explanations of the law, fulfillment of prophets and mystic beliefs. Most of these things we will never hear about, but the ones we do lead us to understand the Jesus movement was out of control. Jacov was brought into maintain discipline in Jerusalem and was conservative with respect to the fanciful hallucinations and for a time things settled down. Then he was killed and the box was left wide open. keep in mind that the mystic practices of the first and second century, those used to construct the New Testament became discourage in the 3rd and 4th century sheltered away in far off places and called spiritual delusion by the orthodoxy, as they knew if they did not do this they would have the same problem that the Jerusalem church had in the first century. . A flowery bed of chaos. Why Pontus Pilot killed Jesus? He was acutely unaware of the Pandora’s box he was about to throw open. Esoteric Mysticism draws from the mind phantasms. The more powerful the practice the more real the phantasms appear. And if you talk to mystics they often mention a spiritual guide, some one, a relative or someone they knew when they were young as a parent figure. Beyond this they also tend to see the recently dead. So if you combine envisioning of phantasms that appear real with a recent, rather emotional death, you get resurrection. The more powerful the mystic, the more godly their phantasm seems. These are all profanities of course, but to them and their followers they seemed real enough. Dr Mason is trying to explain why people (what is the motivation) use the literary tools that they have to create the stories that they do. We have to come to realize that there are truths to many of the stories that are layered over by rhetoric and embellishments. Even Josephus is creating stories. The gospels, however fanciful were not the full extent of the fictionalization of Yeshua that occurred. The church created a balance between what people wanted to hear and what teachings would cause further chaos and the got rid of as much of the second as they could. Even in the eight century when the church realized that the iconography contradicted the sayings, tried to get rid of them, but they were too widely appreciated and they had to withdraw and come up with a clever explanation why it’s not idolatry. Religion is religion. There is the search for truth and the search for faith in religion. It has its own special logic. When you ask the question why Catholics think Jesus Christ is their Lord, Savior and this aspect of the Trinity it’s best not to begin the discussion with a itinerant teacher from Galilee who got a buzz when he was Baptized. Instead it’s best to go inside the mind of Paul as he’s having his hallucination. Moreover when we ask about John 3:16 think about who(m) wrote it, where was it written, when, and what was going on in that community at that time.
@@Darisiabgal7573 If I am conveying something unknown to you, I try to compare it to things that you do know and can grasp. Using historical characters and places only demonstrates this concept of using known objects and people to convey an idea. I retired from 25 years of teaching and this is the strategy of teaching, taking something the student knows and understands and add to it. When one is in the Third Heaven, it is entirely outside the world of thoughts. One has no idea what it is like in the Third Heaven. Spiritual Guides? Not in the Third Heaven. How does one know if one has been in the Third Heaven? By the inner changes it has created. The fruits of the tree!
@@stridedeck I’m not trying to convince you to believe anything. I’m trying to explain why JtB only results in one religion and Yeshua so many. Mocking is not an explanation it’s a pejorative. No one can effectively understand the breadth of early Christianity unless one comes to grip with practiced mysticism. One does not have to ‘believe’ anything about it, just understand it’s dance with theology and with experiences of the dying (I.e. the ghosts of fukushima). If you cannot fathom these types of experiences you will always reject that there was a radiation of belief because, in essence you reject that the mechanism can exist. I am not asking you to believe Christianity, if anything it’s an appeal to reject it. I’m trying to explain that divine emanates from the mind, mystic practices are things of the mind, irreverent mystic practices (the occult) do not conserve religions. Consequently, those who practice occult practices (those that do not agree with their religions) are necessarily creating notions of divinity that differ from those religions.
@@Darisiabgal7573 Beliefs, or the act of believing, are all from the mind. The mind is a thought-making process. Mystics go through a lot of pain to state that their "experiences" are not known to thoughts. Knowing the experience is reducing it.
40:20 It's not that unlikely if you consider the fact Galilean towns like Capernaum were razed to the ground after Judas' revolt in 6 CE. Since Jesus and probably his father were builders(Tektōn) the Galilee would be a great place to find work repairing the damage the Romans did. Why didn't they live closer to Capernaum? Because they were poor, Nazareth was a tiny little backwater. That's the only place they could afford, having a home already in Bethlehem. It would be akin to someone having a summer cottage on a lake and another in town. They lived in Nazareth only to save money but considered Bethlehem their true home. Btw, Luke being written so late, after Josephus' history doesn't change much, you go from ~60 CE to ~100 CE. It's also possible Luke took many years to finish his Gospel, perhaps the parts he lifted from Josephus were the last part of his book. Plenty of authors take 10+ years to write a book or even longer. It's sometimes even a "life's work". You can't assume Luke was written in one sitting.
1:17:05 Dr Mason, I can tell you how he makes the distinction: John the Baptist, the Essenes & even Jesus weren't interested in organized military rebellion against Rome while Theudas certainly was. That military self-restraint in relation to Rome despite expecting God to carry out an Eschatological action to restore Israel's independence & resurrect the dead to rule the eternal theocratic kingdom on earth, was what Josephus approved of (summarized in Jesus' own words, _"love" your Roman enemies_ )
Please pray for us. We are a family with two preschool children. We don't have: house, jobs, salaries, savings, food, winter clothes and shoes. Thank you
My best guess says 1 core with a few more woven in. Just because something is just in your head doesn't mean it's safe to think that negates it's existence.
What are the odds that the names "Simon" and "Rufus", and a purple robe/cloak would all appear by accident in two supposedly unrelated accounts? Josephus Wars, book 7, chapter 2 "And now Simon, thinking he might be able to astonish and elude the Romans, put on a white frock, and buttoned upon him a purple cloak, and appeared out of the ground in the place where the temple had formerly been. At the first, indeed, those that saw him were greatly astonished, and stood still where they were; but afterward they came nearer to him, and asked him who he was. Now Simon would not tell them, but bid them call for their captain; and when they ran to call him, Terentius RUFUS who was left to command the army there, came to Simon, and learned of him the whole truth, and kept him in bonds, and let Caesar know that he was taken." Mark 15:16-21: 16The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. 17They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him. 21 A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross. 22They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”). 23Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. 24And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get. Could this be the reason that Gnostics thought that Simon of Cyrene had been crucified instead of Christ? Also, could this "Rufus" refer to Quintus Curtius Rufus whose only surviving work is a history of Alexander the Great which then explains why the names "Alexander and Rufus" were placed together in the Gospel of Mark? Rufus shows up again here: Wars, Book 7, Chapter 6, paragraph 4 "There was a certain young man among the besieged, of great boldness, and very active of his hand, his name was Eleazar; he greatly signalized himself in those sallies, and encouraged the Jews to go out in great numbers, in order to hinder the raising of the banks, and did the Romans a vast deal of mischief when they came to fighting; he so managed matters, that those who sallied out made their attacks easily, and returned back without danger, and this by still bringing up the rear himself. Now it happened that, on a certain time, when the fight was over, and both sides were parted, and retired home, he, in way of contempt of the enemy, and thinking that none of them would begin the fight again at that time, staid without the gates, and talked with those that were upon the wall, and his mind was wholly intent upon what they said. Now a certain person belonging to the Roman camp, whose lame was RUFUS, by birth an Egyptian, ran upon him suddenly, when nobody expected such a thing, and carried him off, with his armor itself; while, in the mean time, those that saw it from the wall were under such an amazement, that Rufus prevented their assistance, and carried Eleazar to the Roman camp. So the general of the Romans ordered that he should be taken up naked, set before the city to be seen, and sorely whipped before their eyes. Upon this sad accident that befell the young man, the Jews were terribly confounded, and the city, with one voice, sorely lamented him, and the mourning proved greater than could well be supposed upon the calamity of a single person. When Bassus perceived that, he began to think of using a stratagem against the enemy, and was desirous to aggravate their grief, in order to prevail with them to surrender the city for the preservation of that man. Nor did he fail of his hope; for he commanded them to set up a cross, as if he were just going to hang Eleazar upon it immediately; the sight of this occasioned a sore grief among those that were in the citadel, and they groaned vehemently, and cried out that they could not bear to see him thus destroyed. Whereupon Eleazar besought them not to disregard him, now he was going to suffer a most miserable death, and exhorted them to save themselves, by yielding to the Roman power and good fortune, since all other people were now conquered by them. These men were greatly moved with what he said, there being also many within the city that interceded for him, because he was of an eminent and very numerous family; so they now yielded to their passion of commiseration, CONTRARY TO THEIR USUAL CUSTOM. Accordingly, they sent out immediately certain messengers, and treated with the Romans, in order to a surrender of the citadel to them, and desired that they might be permitted to go away, and take Eleazar along with them. Then did the Romans, and their general, accept of these terms." But this sounds more like Jesus Barabbas: Mark 15:6-15 (Immediately before the the purple robe account): "6 Now IT WAS THE CUSTOM at the festival to release a prisoner whom the people requested. 7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. 8 The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did. 9 “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate, 10knowing it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead. 12“What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them. 13“Crucify him!” they shouted. 14“Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!” 15Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
Purple was an expensive color and the color of royalty/aristocracy, so it showing up in both accounts is not unexpected. Jesus was mocked for being called "King of the Jews" and thus dressed up appropriately while Simon was the leader of one of the rebel factions during the first Jewish revolt. The fact that two names appear in different contexts is something I find far from convincing to establish a connection between the two.
@@HistoryandReviews Aside from both being named Jesus, there really aren't that many strong similarities. This Jesus is just a guy who screamed about Jerusalem's future fall until the authorities had enough and punished him. After seeing that he was insane, they let him go. So the only similarities were that both were in Jerusalem, both said Jerusalem would be destroyed in the future (your average "the end is neigh" preacher) and that they had run-ins with the authorities. This Jesus didn't have followers, lived at a different time (*after* Paul's episltes even) and wasn't even crucified or killed for that matter. Besides both being apocalyptic preachers, I don't really see the connection. I don't even oppose the idea that ideas/events concerning other preachers were conflated with Jesus and added as another story about him,but this one doesn't seem likely to be connected.
DEREK, PLEASE DO A VIDEO EXAMINING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SCHOOLS OF PHARISEES - - THE HUMANISTIC (spirit of the law) HILLELITES AND THE HARSHER (letter of the law) SHAMMAITES!
Sure, so they also wrote all the different letters to the different churches at that time that actually existed, and the apostles that actually were persecuted for their faith and taught at those churches with those people that knew them, ahh ok?
@2:30:00 having workes for 25 years with people suffering from scizophrenia I never understood the difference between the voices they heard in their heads and the messages of Jesus reveiled to priests or preachers. And I think I prefer the scizophrenic voices of the godly voices because the ones who hearded the first catagory were at least honest, which I would not garantee for with preachers. @2:36:00 ....after risen to heaven , he disgarded his body?.......so there must be an impact crater somewhere in Judea?
I can't like these podcasts enough. Thanks Derek and Dr. Mason. What do you think about the idea that Jesus is the Judean Phoenix? Spiritually you divorce yourself from your old life, your old world views, religious perspectives and beliefs, and rise again as a Gnostic of God?
Steve Mason's thesis here can be reconciled to Joseph Atwell's "Ceasar's Messiah" in my opinion. Josephus was in the employment of the Roman court. One should consider that in order for Josephus to keep his cozy life he would be an apologist for Titus or Rome writing against Judea's natural hatred for foreign rule. Joseph may have even been under pain of death to be a puppet of Titus. Josephus may have also been a fictitious character (pseudo author) by Rome used to invent a story line that shows that Judea should not always rebel against foreign rule (or their Gods appointed overlord Titus). For what is the Antiquities written for other than to show how much trouble the stiff-necked people got into when they fought foreign rule through the ages! So imagine if you Titus had his scribes not only make up Josephus' War narrative but could also have had his scribes invent the gospels and other books such as Acts at the same time? This would answer the mixed-up authorship of the books discussed here.
It's Acts 12:21 that says he put on his robe, not Acts 12:20 though. It also says in verse 22 that the people just thought his voice sounds like that of a deity.
I'm now imaging Acts as being a deconversion story from a cult that unfortunately ended up being the perfect guide on how to create a cult. We'll never know the actual intent of the writers. Which is exactly how we judge literature always anyway - what was the writer's intent lol
hi there.hola hooray hey. here we go the truth coming up,actually turah&bible were from god but they had been corrupted afterwards as a result god sent down quran upon prophet muhammed&god said i`ll preserved the quran thereby god had fulfilled his promise ,let me show u friendly&honestly the truth,okee dokee.shedding the light on christianity to know the truth first of all there is no original bible the 4 main bible are contradicted to each other yet there is 1 quran but who is the writer of bible the answer is paul the jewish who hates jesus let us discuss about the significant event which is crucifixion why does your would claimed god left his only son to crucify without any sin he had committed the disaster reached its uttermost when u found bible said on the tongue of jesus my god my god why do u forsaken me means jesus has never crucified willingly have u an idea why do they `ve crucified jesus because it`s a penalty of an impure &particularly crucifixion because dindn`t touched the earth make it an impured that what paul said jesus gets impure for the sake of us &see the authentic god what does said in quran chapter 3 verse 55 by the name of god the most gracious&most merciful , O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to me, and had purified you from those who disbelieve, and He will place those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection, then to Me is your return, so I will judge between you regarding that in which you differed,the authentic god rose jesus to the sky before they kill him in addition he had purified him from a false accusation of he was an impure . quran verse is comply with the bible itself :So they lifted up stones to stone him. But Jesus did and went out of the temple, passing through them." ( John 8:59 ),let alone of many verses in the bible incites to violence thus u found the largest massacres had happened in history the ww1&2 christian countries against christian countries 100 millions had been killed not to mention the sex stories in the bible nay u never found a single sex word in quran,don`t take it in personal just i clarify u the plain truth,bible said woman when she during the menstruation she gets impure &any thing she would touched it will be impure &should stay at her room till had done of it don`t see that an insulting to woman &how does the claimed god in bible said so he demeans& underrates his own creatures, yet islam honored the woman &she has a complete chapter its name women show us her rights,let us look at modern medicine which refutes the bible, ovulalation happens every 28 days from overy next month from other ovary when fertilization fails to happen mestrual bleading happens it always stops when a female gets pregnant ,menstrual cycle ovulation the female genital system consists of one uterus to overuse vagine& externat genital organs ,,the blood during menstruation could cause diseases to spread and that’s why does a woman during her menstruation needed to isolate so the blood would not be passed around to other people & diseases not be spread that`s what god has said in quran and they ask you about menstruation say, isolate women don't come near them untill they get purified verse 222 chapter 2,why there are priests,pastors&nuns are reverted daily to islam,yet u `ve never a muslim clergy left islam as per western media said that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world,i didn`t like to push islam onto u god said no compulsion in religion verse 256 chapter 2,figure it out then make up your mind,peace....;;;;
@@lufhopespeacefully2037 I hope you just copy pasted that because I'm not a religious type. I'm into the cultural historical stuff as far as it being truth as you say - not my concern. Never was my concern. I am fine with my beliefs. TY 🙂
2:28:20 If the resurrection body had absolutely no conceivable continuity with the corpse then why would he think the "spiritual" (pneumatikos) body originates from the location of burial and not the initial location of the "giving up the ghost" (death). Why did Paul need to emphasize a burial if it didn't matter for resurrection, the emptiness of the burial site??? The prejudice that wants the empty tomb to be a later legendary development is amazing in the way it leads serious Academics to dream up utter nonsense with confident articulate sophistication (no sane adult speaker of ancient greek could conceive of any _anastasis_ that didn't involve an empty tomb). Roman Emperor who were thought to ascend to heaven WITHOUT AN EMPTY TOMB were NEVER said to have been RESURRECTED by any speaker of ancient Greek!!
This is interesting stuff, but it it falls very short of proving that Luke borrowed from Josephus. In fact there is a major problem with this theory, and this is one of time. It is believed by several scholars that Luke-Acts were written as the legal case for Paul during his imprisonment in Rome. This is supported by teh fact that Luke was written to the "Most Excellent Theophilius", a title that is fitting for a legal council. Acts was written to Theophilus, where teh exalted title has been dropped, indicating a growing familiarity between Luke and Theophilus. Luke gives the background to Jesus, teh founder of teh Christian faith, and teh first half of Acts describes the bebginnings of the church; the second half of Acts is concerned only with Paul's role in establishing the church. Thus it reads very much like a defence narrative for Paul. Lastly, Acts ends with Paul in a Roman prison. We know that Luke was with him, as Pauls says this in 2 Timothy. Very significantly, Luke ends before Paul's death, which is accepted to have occurred in AD 64 or 65. Given Luke's attention to detail, and his complete interest in Paul's ministry, would not have included an account of Paul's death if this had happened before he completed the writing of Acts. We may conclude that the most likely reason for writings Luke-Acts was as legal defence for Paul, and was completed prior to the conclusion of his trial. Josephus was written after the falls of Jerusalem in AD 70. This time issue completely opposes Steve Masons position. Mason has no plausible argument for why Luke would omit Paul's death if it had occurred before writing Acts.
The gospel accounts are not written until after the destruction of Jerusalem, after 70AD. That's why Jesus has said the temple will be destroyed. So there is no time problem when you place Luke well after the Jewish revolt. Late first century at least
Historians agree that there is not one written eyewitness account of Jesus during his lifetime. Strange since he was famous at birth, because wise men expected to see the future king of Jews who was born from a virgin married mother. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, five hundred years ago, has maintained that the gospels were originally written in Greek from 70 to 140 CE (Mark after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John no earlier than 140 CE). This proves that they were not written by Christ's apostles, disciples or by any of the early Christians. Others say: “There is no proof of the Gospels existing before 130 CE” Jesus is depicted as hugely popular in the gospels. Yet he is unrecorded by non-Biblical historians. Paul was the first one to write about Jesus around 60CE; but he, like everyone else, never saw Jesus. He experienced a vision of the resurrected Jesus. Even Paul’s existence is in serious doubt. John Gresham Machen wrote: The establishment of Christianity as a world religion, to almost as great an extent as any great historical movement can be ascribed to one man, was the work of Paul. I also read that the history of the first three popes was invented because they never existed. All myth! Seek the truth!
Live by the 10 commandments and love others. Bottom line. Be a good person and change your own evil heart. Thats the whole bible in a nutshell. How can anyone argue with that?
I'm 25% done with the video, which is funny, because, it's 4 hours in total. I have to say that I love it. I mean, even though this is just a micro cosmos, a small bubble of people, it is so hilarious to me how a group of atheists is basically sitting together and listening to all of the detailed information about Jesus's life. My friends tell me that, how small this bubble is. It doesn't feel like that from the inside. Seriously, how many Christians are there, knowing about the stuff you present on your channel? Is it 0.1%? Is it less? It has to be less. I mean, I once lectured a secular Jew on her culture, due to feeding myself with religious knowledge all day every day, while being an atheist all my life. This bubble contains the only true Christians, who do not believe in God :D I love it.
Luke may have revised Acts to make it line up with Josephus's writings, but the idea that Acts 21:38 is an example of this seems like too much of a stretch.
Derek, I thoroughly enjoy Myth Vision!!! YOU are a conduit for the Holy Spirit of the Trinity to direct the mind of Josephus, in the supernatural realm, to help you in your quest for the TRUTH. Be careful not to enter The Hall of Mirrors in Satan's 'trick bag'!!! Those who enter never come back to Reality and lose all faith in Jesus and God!!!😇
I just started watching this, but it seems to me that, if you do the calculations, then when King David’s descendants 1000 years later converged on Bethlehem, they would constitute a very large proportion of the population of the region. That is even if you only count 2.5 generations per century.
They would probably constitute the entire population of the region given that the town of Bethlehem was destroyed during the time of the Greek invasion of Judea and there was no city there at the time of Jesus. The Bethlehem birth stories are complete fiction all the way down to the town where they take place.
I seem to remember years ago hearing some professor claim that Luke was a "first rate historian" - and I think the proof of this was that Luke got so many details correct. And how did we know they were correct? Because they agreed with Josephus!
Mark was the oldest of these Gospels, and its material was later used by Matthew and Luke. This much is obvious to anyone reading the Gospels, even in translation:if for nothing else, because the basic material in Mark is found in Matthew and Luke, while important materials in Matthew and Luke are not found in Mark. According to the theory, there was a source other than Mark which both Matthew and Luke used: the so-called Q ( from the German Quelle, for 'source'), which was also in the Greek language. This is clear because there are passages in Matthew and Luke which do not come from Mark, yet are textually identical, or virtually so. Had this common source been in Aramaic, or in any language other than Greek, the renderings of the same passages derived from this common Q into the Greek of the two Gospels would have been different. The theory, however, recognizes a special source for Luke: the 'Luke' source, called L, which is believed to have been Aramaic. We know that Luke could read Aramaic because of the striking unity of his Greek style where he directly quotes from sources in languages other than Greek. For example, where he copies the ' we passages' in the book of Acts from the travelling diary of one of Paul's companions (chapter 1), his personal style in Greek remains noticeable, which indicates that his source was in another language, (what other than Aramaic?) which he could read and translate by himself. The same applies to the unity of style maintained by Luke where he copies from L. We earlier proposed, on the basis of evidence from the Koran and of Islamic tradition, that L was the Gospel of the Nazarenes: an account concerning an Arabian Israelite prophet called Issa who lived in about 400 B.C. We further know that L was also used by John. While Luke derived some of his special Jesus stories from L, John ignored its narrative parts, and became aware that the Jesus who was the son of Mary was not the same Jesus who was the son of Joseph. From this source John derived his peculiar theory of Jesus as the Logos, or 'Word', who promised the coming of the parakletos, or 'Comfortor' (see chapter 4 and 5). It also became clear to us that John used the special terminology of the Nazarene Gospel to constuct his theory of the Jesus who died on the cross in Jerusalem, while being fully aware of the fact that this Nazarene Gospel was concerned with a different Jesus. Luke used the same source without appearing to be aware of this fact (see chapter 6) The theory under consideration further maintains that Matthew also had a source for his Gospel which he alone used-the 'Matthew' or M source- probably an Aramaic one, or at least one whose original was in Aramaic. From Q he took the materials which are peculiar to his own Gospel. Without having a base document to help us determine what Q and M actually were ( we have the Koran with respect to L), they must remain subject to conjecture. this, however, does not mean that we cannot investigate the broader question of the Gospel sources at another level. We can start from points already determined, and their corollaries: Extract from Professor Kamal Salibi's book 'Conspiracy in Jerusalem'.
Re-wording this comment to make it simpler: The tangent on J's historicity begins around 3:02:10. There are some (imo) unnecessary contrasts with absolutist pov's, and some (imo) suggestive linking of mythicism with unserious/obscure theories about Xianity being cobbled out of 'Egyptian' ideas... no serious mythicist argues this; nor that Xianity emerged as a single, coherent movement. It's worth pointing these out because Mason says that he has interacted with the work of Carrier et al. I'm not sure he has. A more exact question: When Mason mentions those who opposed Paul arguing (about themselves) that they "knew [Jesus]" and that they were "his brother" and that they "hung out with him - you didn't. You just had some dreams about him Paul. We actually knew the guy."... what does Mason mean by saying these things are present "right at the beginning"? Can someone refer me to these passages, so I can check how close to "the beginning" they fall? My sense is that "I'm his brother" doesn't fall into these disputes - but refers to Paul's passive reference to James as "brother of the lord". Whatever the other references are about, I'd like to know. Is there anything in Paul's accounts to tell us that his opponents were claiming to have "hung out with him" or that they "actually knew the guy", as Mason says they claimed? If not, then this is falsely suggestive... and a confusion easily avoided by checking references.
How do we know Josephus even existed? Is he mentioned by any contemporary historians? Where's the tomb of Josephus? Are there any monumental artifacts bearing his name? Whom is Josephus first mentioned by? What's the date for that author? What's the date for the oldest copy or fragment of that author's writings? What's the oldest copy or fragment of Josephus' writings?
Also an example of the author’s use of detail for ironic purposes from unmentioned knowledge: Felix ‘trembled’ when he hear about coming judgement, and his wife Drusilla and their 20 year old son were killed in the volcanic eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE - Dr G. craig Fairweather.
If Jesus as a baby supposedly fled to Egypt with his parents only returning later…could it be that Jesus is the “Egyptian’? The connection with the mount of olives and hanging out in the desert attributed by Josephus in his reference to the Egyptian seems also to echo Jesus… don’t know whether this has ever been considered (and dismissed)…
Not just Luke, but John also concludes with the fates of the two resistance fighters in Jerusalem, Simon and John, with the fulfillment found in Josephus' "The Wars of the Jews" four decades later!
Most scholars believe Josephus started his work of writings sometime in the 70's AD after the destruction of the temple. Most scholar believe Luke was written in the mid 50's AD to mid 60's AD. Clearly Josephus took from the gospel to add to his writings. That's what historians do. The gospels and the letters to the churches were already circling around getting copied before Josephus started his work. Its possible, Josephus was a fan of the literature that encouraged him to take note of his own writings.
@@HistoryandReviews Bro we have letters from the early church father Clement corresponding to Paul’s letters to the Corinthians that Luke wrote in Acts 18 in the 70’s AD. If Clement’s letters are dated in the 70’s AD then the scholars date of Mid 50’s to 60’s AD for Luke writing the gospel and Acts is very close to being accurate.
@@beslanintruder2077 Any follow ups with what? Rome of Clement wrote to the Corinthians in the 1st century corresponding with Paul’s letters in the NT. Not to mention Papias, Polycarp and Ignatius where all mentored by John in the 1st century. We have their writings that validate the times of the gospels written. Paul and Peter taught Clement of Rome. Irenaeus of Lyon is believed to be John’s grandson. The list goes on. This is why no one believes in the ignorance the non believers spews because there are no evidence that supports their claims and plenty evidence that supports the NT.
If anyone would be willing to time stamp this video, I will gladly put it in the description as well as give you credit for doing so. I love you all!
4 hours? Are you serious
Could you enable subtitles? I'm not an english speaker, and my listening skills are very bad.
Get vid thank you.
@@ekhoury1000 Are we lucky or what? :-)
00:01:45 Dr. Steve Mason Introduced
00:04:10 Talk begins on best evidence used for hypothesis. "Was Josephus a source for Luke/Acts?"
Striking overlaps/similarities in Josephus, Luke/Acts.
00:12:00 - Three assumptions: Rhetorical Training, Josephus, Lived reality (events)
00:26:30 - Graph showing Josephus, Luke/Acts narrative parallels
00:36:40 Historical events (Problems with Bible narrative of Quirinius' Census; Josephus' selective narrative of Quirinius)
00:53:30 Luke's mention of Lysanius of Abila
01:09:00 Theudas in Acts: Example of Troublesome "Prophets"
01:25:10 "The Egyptian" and "sicarii" (Acts 21:30-38) Luke copies story from Josephus.
01:46:40 Pharisees: "Most exact school of Philosophy" Mark, Matthew, John have starkly opposite view of Pharisees than Luke/Acts. Where does Luke get this view from?
Super Chat questions
02:11:45 - Q1: Why doesn't Luke/Acts discuss the death of Paul?
02:16:20 - Q2: Did Jesus (name or origin) come from Josephus?
02:19:50 - Q3: If Luke was using Josephus as a source, how late was the author writing?
02:26:40 - Q4: Hallucination Hypothesis, Did Peter and Paul suffer from PTSD, Post-Bereavement?
02:36:40 - Q5: In Acts, High Priest authorizes Paul to pursue Christians, later on slaps Paul but doesn't recognize him. Were there two authors?
02:39:40 - Q6: Roman's killed rebel leaders AND their followers. The Early church started in Jerusalem. Were the leaders not in danger?
02:45:00 - Q7: When did Christianity change from a "belief" to a "hierarchy"?
02:51:20 - Q8: Scholars that wrote about labour, trade and industry in the ANE?
02:54:35 - Q9: Do Christian churches have Paul's Christian writings?
03:12:20 - Q10: Thoughts on Roman Provenance Theory
03:17:20 - Q11: Did he ascend to the cosmic sperm bank (Acts 1)?
03:21:20 - Q12: Is Paul turning the Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls into the opposite of its original intention?
03:44:05 - Q13: Was Luke/Acts written by Luke, companion of Paul? Why doesn't Luke name himself in the Preface?
03:49:10 - Q14: Are Judas of Sepphoris and Judas of Gamala the same person spoken by Josephus?
Time Stamps:
00:01:45 Dr. Steve Mason Introduced
00:04:10 Talk begins on best evidence used for hypothesis. "Was Josephus a source for Luke/Acts?"
Striking overlaps/similarities in Josephus, Luke/Acts.
00:12:00 - Three assumptions: Rhetorical Training, Josephus, Lived reality (events)
00:26:30 - Graph showing Josephus, Luke/Acts narrative parallels
00:36:40 Historical events (Problems with Bible narrative of Quirinius' Census; Josephus' selective narrative of Quirinius)
00:53:30 Luke's mention of Lysanius of Abila
01:09:00 Theudas in Acts: Example of Troublesome "Prophets"
01:25:10 "The Egyptian" and "sicarii" (Acts 21:30-38) Luke copies story from Josephus.
01:46:40 Pharisees: "Most exact school of Philosophy" Mark, Matthew, John have starkly opposite view of Pharisees than Luke/Acts. Where does Luke get this view from?
Super Chat questions
02:11:45 - Q1: Why doesn't Luke/Acts discuss the death of Paul?
02:16:20 - Q2: Did Jesus (name or origin) come from Josephus?
02:19:50 - Q3: If Luke was using Josephus as a source, how late was the author writing?
02:26:40 - Q4: Hallucination Hypothesis, Did Peter and Paul suffer from PTSD, Post-Bereavement?
02:36:40 - Q5: In Acts, High Priest authorizes Paul to pursue Christians, later on slaps Paul but doesn't recognize him. Were there two authors?
02:39:40 - Q6: Roman's killed rebel leaders AND their followers. The Early church started in Jerusalem. Were the leaders not in danger?
02:45:00 - Q7: When did Christianity change from a "belief" to a "hierarchy"?
02:51:20 - Q8: Scholars that wrote about labour, trade and industry in the ANE?
02:54:35 - Q9: Do Christian churches have Paul's Christian writings?
03:12:20 - Q10: Thoughts on Roman Provenance Theory
03:17:20 - Q11: Did he ascend to the cosmic sperm bank (Acts 1)?
03:21:20 - Q12: Is Paul turning the Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls into the opposite of its original intention?
03:44:05 - Q13: Was Luke/Acts written by Luke, companion of Paul? Why doesn't Luke name himself in the Preface?
03:49:10 - Q14: Are Judas of Sepphoris and Judas of Gamala the same person spoken by Josephus?
This needs to be 📌 pinned at the top
You rule!
I wish there was always this type of breakdown of key points especially on the long videos
That is not proof.Two people can i dependently write similar things
Ty
Watching Derek’s eyes sparkle with intense interest while Dr. Mason speaks made these four hours go by so fast. Love you Derek for making this discussion happen and for your passion in these topics.
*GAAAAAY!!!*
Damn you Mythvision! I see these 4 hr discussions and always think, Ha! No way I'm down for a 4 hr commitment, but the topic is interesting so I'll just listen for a bit...and then I'm stuck listening for the next 4 hrs 😑
Every. Single. Time.
Watch it at 1.5 or 1.75 times speed. It goes by faster and if you pay attention it doesn't go by too fast to understand it.
Why in the world use that word?? !!
Me too 😅
This is a really good point because 2000 years ago there was no Wikipedia, internet, television or radio, where the necessary information could be retrieved. The books of Josephus were the first source from which the author of Luke-Acts was able to obtain information about the conditions in the Middle East, the Asia Minor, and the rulers of that eastern area (such as Lysanias who was ruler of Abila c. 40 BCE!). Josephus was the first and the only who wrote about the Jewish War and the destruction of the temple. And, at the time, that information was not available anywhere other than the works of Josephus which gives to us good reason to believe that why Luke-Acts uses the works of Josephus as its source.
Steve Mason is always very informative. It raises the question of the when and where of the circulation of the works of Josephus.
Yep and where the author of Luke might have encountered them.
If he wrote all in Greek than probably the places that spoke Greek, namely Rome and Alexandria as the most major cities of the time
@@Darisiabgal7573 Yes, and what caused him to redact "Acts?" Was it mainly to make his account "line up" with Josephus' historical account, in an attempt to make his account in the book of Acts seem more credible?
"Antiquities" is dated rather narrowly to 93-94 C.E. As a former Jewish priest, military leader, prophet, and eventual Roman citizen, he was well-known at the imperial court in Rome.
We know that Josephus wrote in Rome mostly; due to his Patron family
I always heard Canadians are nice and when I realized he was Canadian from the CD super chat, I had to chuckle. Ha...u just commented about how delicate he can with his answers! At first I thought you were laying it on a little thick in the beginning of the show but I'm a convert! It was all well deserved praise. For scholars like Dr. Mason to willingly spend 4 hours of his time and expertise answering questions and sharing his presentation is beyond awesome. ID LOVE TO KNOW THE Podcast Dr. Mason mentioned he did or does. If I'd had this kind of content, my servant from audible and the great courses I could have skipped college and just bought a big tv (imagine a life size Bart Ehrman anytime you wanted to get your Bible on!) and a house with my savings! I apologize for running on like this. i guess I'm just trying to say a big Thank You to you both! I'll never dismiss the war of 1812 again! 🤢
Amazing episode today, @Mythvision Podcast!! Thanks for bring Dr. Mason on today, Derek!!!
I'm on my third 3 hr plus Dr Mason video today 😆 Thank goodness I'm on holidays. Love Dr Mason videos on MythVision
Top Form, so well presented. A zillion years ago I took a theology elective - how Paul is presented. Raised evangelical with a Sunday School level of understanding I was increasingly worried (I was still a believer) as time passed. The professor was "old school" and used a large blackboard(!) with Acts on one side and the letters on the other. He'd add or edit the subject - "visions", "miracles", "journeys", "time frames", "wrong people", "relation with disciples"
I still recall his polite explanations of the contradictions and his suggestion that "Luke" makes sense if he was writing 50-60 years after the alleged events using stories, Josephus, mixing dates and people, presenting a sanitized version of the Paul-disciples battles.
How can you not love Dr Mason, wonderful teacher. Thank you Derek and Dr Mason
That was fascinating. Dr Mason and Jonathan Pierce are two of my favourite guests you've ever had on your channel.
Information packed talk. Prof. Mason's insightful work would be easier to digest by us non-experts if he used a few figures. For example: One showing side-by side passages of Josephus vs. Luke, Another showing the roman rulers named by both authors, perhaps accompanied with a map. Finally, it would help to have a single concluding sentence for each major point. For example, what I concluded from the first half was: "Luke appears to have read Josephus, misunderstood certain parts, and repackaged parts to make his point". I"m not sure if that's accurate though.
I very much respect the way that Dr Mason doesn’t claim more for his position than the facts can stand. If only everyone were like this!
Steve N. Mason is Exciting as a Teacher Please Give us More of him. I love to be Excited!
This is what is best about Mythvision: Steve Mason's and Dennis Mc Donald's literary comparative analyses. This clarifies so much.
Fascinating! Good information from Dr. Steve Mason...I watched the lecture attentively! Makes me want to read Josephus...Thanks Derek and Dr. Mason!
THIS GUY MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
I'm always here for a Steve Mason video.
Dr. Bart Ehrman is always a good listen.
Even Bartholomew has his bias, he is a good scholar yet he bears a grudge against the faith, for he has a great deal of knowledge but lacks understanding.
He clothes his body as he clothes his heart, for it is dipped in darkness.
@@larocdokarnap3227 Bart does a blog that he gives all of the proceeds to starving children…how’s that dark ?
@@rivers9135
Matthew 6:1
Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them.
And you only know because he told you.
Something else worth mentioning is how the radical Paulinist, Marcion excluded 'Acts' from his canon circa 150. My question is, did Marcion even know of 'Acts' when he was busy editing Luke's gospel and Paul's letters?
Fantastisch hoop snel weer iets te zien Steve Mason. Deze aflevering al 2 keer bekeken
I love your work, Derek! I have one small pet peeve: the expression that something "begs the question" is actually a term for a logical fallacy. What you mean is "brings to mind" or something near to that. Just a small thing, and it is a pleasure to have your channel. Thanks for all your hard work!
Just an observation but this could just be a dialectal thing. In British English saying something "begs the question" colloquially means "a question that is begging to be asked is..." rather than the formal fallacy. I'm not sure how this holds up around the world however!
Philosophy degree here. It's annoying to hear "begging the question" used wrong. But I also understand what you mean, and that's what language is supposed to do.
It's similar to theory, proof, chemical, radiation, etc.
I suggest also "this raises the question..."
@@EscepticoHumanistaUU This is the phrase that I always use and prefer.
@@leobound2763 agreed
Love the entire talk! Thank you MythVision! 🌞
This gentleman is very erudite, greatly appreciate that. I think that as he is explaining his narrative to the viewing audience, it would be useful to include the fact that Josephus didn't write the Antiquities of the Jews nor the Jewish Wars or any of his historical accounts of those events, until after he himself had been captured during the war and imprisoned. Since Josephus had a high pedigree from his Jewish linage and was a general in the Jewish military, he was considered a valuable prize to the Roman's and his capture by the Romans was a demoralizing blow to jews once the word had spread of his capture. Subsequently in time Josephus would eventually divorce his wife and then take a new wife who was not only Roman but also of royal blood to the Roman conquerer and Ceasar Flavian. Thenceforth, Josephus became Flavius Josephus and took up his new residence inside the royal palace. His writings thus have a slant or leaning in favor of the Roman's and faulting the jews for all of their calamity. It therefore should be apparent as to why Josephus excluded mentioning somethings in his books because he was being careful not to in any way inflame his benefactors the romans by portraying them in a bad light to posterity. He had become a traitor to his own people for self preservation. This information should be included by Mr. Mason as a back drop to fully inform his audience and allow them to have a better and clear realization of Josephus, since he his the primary source of reference in this discussion.
I love listening to Mason but his avoidance of this glaringly important context always stumps me.
I love these steve mason discussions! Thank you derek!!
You keep bringing the A game with these awesome guests! Many thanks to you, sir 💪👍
Just tuned into this great show and it’s exactly what I thirst for… honest intelligent informed contextual knowledge without the usual defensiveness rancor oneupmanship I experience when watching the evangelical and many other ideologically possessed argue scripture and religion.
Never would've guess Dr Mason is an avid music aficionados. Keep on saxing👍🏿
Critical historians: Mark was written first because his gospel is shorter and other writers used his work and injected their own ideas into it.
Also critical historians: Josephus wrote first because his account is longer and Luke took what he said, shortened it, and injected it into his work. 🤷♂️
Hypothesis: A bunch of people took an elixir made of Amanita muscaria, ergot, or another substance, and had hallucinations of a god-man on a heavenly plane. They applied it to one or more earthly charismatic and beloved leaders who physically disappeared.
Isn't that not an idea featured by Robert Graves in King Jesus?
@@victorjordan4794 Well that's how the eastern mystics do it, so absolutely, why not?
Check out The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross by John Allegro.
@@mg-ew2xf Yes, I read that, and I highly recommend it because it sheds a lot of light on ancient languages and the origins of religions. Another book I read and also highly recommend is Supernatural by Graham Hancock, which discusses the author's experiences with ayahuasca and a lot more about altered states of consciousness.
@@kamion53 I think so, although i haven't read that novel.
Very good interview, amazing correlations hard to dismiss, and nice speech at 2:08:00
I am very very new fan of MythVision! That's good Derek. I will be waiting Dr Bart Ehrman for next month. BTW, very great video!
Steve Mason is Great. Thank You Derek.
It's absolutely amazing this channel has led so many people to Christ. It. Shows the evidence, the speculation, and the bias causing many to believe in God. You're doing God's work.
Many talented writers in the Roman period relied on patrons to live and eat wile they wrote and to pay for copies of their words to be written out, sold in the markets or distributed to interested prominent people, or promoted through public readings. The Villa of the scrolls near Herculaneum is believed to have contained a live-in writer for years. The openings of Luke and Acts read like an acknowledgement of a wealthy patron, with a pseudonym Theophilus (‘God friend’). Perhaps Theophilus let the writer use his library which contained the works Josephus and poets and playwrights quoted in Acts. The patron and his family would likely know the back story of Gallio, Felix, Agrippa Berenice and Drusilla and also the echoes of the Odysee in Paul’s journey to Rome.
really i learned a lot from mythvision good luck and continue this work i'm from Haiti but leaving in Brooklyn, New York
Guitar is hard as fuck. Totally counter intuitive and if you don’t have really thin long fingers the contortions necessary for creating the notes are painful.
Absolutely brilliant!Amazing Mason.
I am not surprised. Josephus witnessed the capture of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. But in school Latin, I studied the description in the Vulgate of St Paul's voyage to Rome, which reads as an eye-witness account, and uses "we" throughout. In one of his letters, Paul writes "Only Luke is with me." So, there are still questions to be answered. (The reason why I had to study it, was to show the significant changes in the Latin language between Cicero's time and that of St Jerome.)
I heard that after Barnabas split from Paul he came to America and ended up with a hit TV show in the 60's called Dark Shadows. 😉 😉
I've often thought that the name change from Saul to Paul was a dead giveaway of the movement away from worshipping the sun to worshipping a shadow.
"Banana split" huh?!
🤔
.....Oh, Barrrrrnabbbas!
Lol
Yes I remember watching it back in the day.
How about an episode where Dr. Mason explains why he thinks Lazarus is "the beloved disciple"?
In America you practically have to go to a Universalist church to hear inerrancy preached against from the pulpit. You'll never hear it anywhere else.
What an deeply enlightened discourse!🤔🤔🤔
*_Early Christian Reader: Christian Texts from the First and Second Century_* Mason co-edited and annotated (w/Tom Robinson) is such a must own book. Especially at the price you can still find the hardcover in. There's such a wealth of data and commentary packed into introductions, commentaries and footnotes (along the bottom of each page/ w/biblio's at chapter ends) followed by extensive appendices. It is , none the less, written in a fluid style that a lay person (like myself) can find engaging. It would not surprise me to learn that this is one of (if not the) definitive books on the subject.
Luke 's Koine Greek writing style is the most sophisticated among the 4 gospels. He was an erudite for sure ( he was a Greek doctor, a big thing back then...) and certainly he knew the writings of Josephus, one of the most famous historians of that time.
Derrick, I was trying to ask questions with those little tiny Super Chats, but my ancient PC wouldn’t do it. I enjoyed church this Sunday with you and Professor Mason enormously.
I wanted to comment that folks in the modern day who are obsessed with the Second Coming, although mostly harmless, can be led FAR astray from morality into into cults (I am thinking of the Daybell/Ballow case in particular).
I also had a question about CS Lewis and “Mere Christianity,” but in retrospect, my question wasn’t interesting (lol).
Heaven is not for the religious but for the righteous only. Righteousness without religion is still righteousness, but religion without righteousness is murder of the soul.
Sounds a tad self righteous!😇😎
Great show!
Best 4 hours spent.... ever!
Get a life.
@@troelsvestergaard6644
i have one bro...
and i bet it is better than yours!
@@jhake67
I doubt it if your running around like a a child believing you have a skydaddy. It doesn't correspond with reality.
@@troelsvestergaard6644
Haha... this is mythvision bro!
Nobody here believes in your skydaddy.
You should think before you click... or rather you should at least watched the podcast to know the content before you comment!
@@jhake67
Why is it the time of your life watching this bla bla bla if you don't believe in a skydaddy?
I would think 4 hours of intense sex would be a better way to spend 4 hours.
Love the content, but damn, almost 4hrs!? I want to listen to all of the great insight, but hard to commit to all that time unless I’m driving on a road trip.
There is a contemporary book called Steal This Plot. The thesis is that there are only a handful of plots in literature. And Ezra Pound said, actually these are not exactly his words, but how people understand it, Good writers borrow. Great writers steal.
TS Eliot*
@@mjt1517 TU
This makes total sense if Ralph Ellis theory is correct that Josephus and Paul/Saul were the same person.
Unfortunately it's not!
@@ghostriders_1 They did spend time together on an island; there is consensus on that point. Ralph doesn't have to be 100% correct; his lacunae explains a lot; as does his Arthurian legend stuff. Listening to Dr. Mason and Bart Ehrman, one might get the impression that meditative experience and astrology didn't even exist at the time of these events; nothing could be further from the truth.
There was a hold-up when Rome was going to invade Britain; the soldiers wouldn't cross the channel because of superstition. These issues were taken seriously and used to manipulate armies.
@@mediocrates3416 how could they do that if they were the same.person?
@@ghostriders_1 How could they not do that if they were the same person?
This guy sounds like Alan Alda
Some serious detective 🕵️♀️ work done here .
Great 👍
lol I thought it was gonna be extremely dry but Dr Mason is so good at teaching
I have read Josephus, it amazes me how all these myths ever came into these crazies. Josephus talks all about war and uncivilized savages. Most Christians should read Josephus, he has a great view. Only violence,wars, death.
He was also Cestius Gallus, Gessius Florus, Caesennius Paetus, Antonius Primus, Flavius Archippus. He was a sociopath with many aliases.
@@arriuscalpurniuspiso it amazes me the different people he was supposed to be.If he wrote the gospels the whole NT is a joke. Julian Piso wrote the apocalypse of John, Pliny the Younger wrote as Paul. Fundamentals believe the Bible is the truth, historical and without errors. Me I don’t believe these stories have any evidence of the truth. But most believe because they’re ignorant, just because they own a Bible, which they have never read.
Vision is a great eye opener. I don’t know how many books I have bought because of it.
@3:00:00
was the preaching and writing of Paul not done to the upper middle layer of citydwellers if one could made such a distinction. It is not to the poor, the slaves or labourers, but to people who could permit finanching charity and such and was probably a literated stratum in society.
An economic picture of the Classic economy should be helpfull. Following Rodney Starks relationmodel I think Paul mainly addressed Hellenisated Jews, who did not set themselves apart from the gentile community and when one wonders what kind of profession they had, the concept trade pops up. But the link Jews and trade is something that was maybe true in the MiddleAges but need not be the case in 1st century Roman Empire.
At the 1:52:00, Pharisees and Sadducees. Content and context is the big difference! Paul uses Pharisees as a school of righteous learning and virtues that supports his interpretations of a newer insight and personal transformation of God within the individual. The Gospels uses Pharisees and Sadducees as those who support the traditional Temple rigid authority that man by one's own action can be righteous before God. Paul was probably adhering to Gnostic and mystery religions concepts and personal enlightenment! Again, this suggests that Jesus was not a historical person, but rather symbolic process (outside the thought-making process) for the inner transformation of God coming inside!
Thanks Dr. Mason. I'm your age and totally got the music reference to Bangles, Walk like an Egyptian. BTW they also did manic monday. Hot chick band back in the day! ; < )
3:04:00 diversity of Early Christians demonstrates the variety of personal experiences and interpretations. It is very subjective! This gives more support that Jesus is not a historical character.
Practicing your Greek rhetoric? It’s not that they were diverse, it’s that they were all mystic beliefs with a devotion to this odd nobody teacher who suddenly goes from rabbi, to lesser messiah, to full blown messiah, to virgin born, to equal of god, to a replacement god.
The problem with Mythicism is it’s a concretization of the innate uncertainties of history. This Yeshua fellow was trying, so he thought, to get people to use there inner spirituality to see Yahweh from the inside out, not from the fear of the zealots of the law. What happened however was quite different. He got killed, and distraught they tried to find their inner source and a few of them, not many at first, found a new source and it has his face on it. And so they went running to the four winds (obviously they did not want to get killed in Judea) proclaiming there new inner explanations of the law, fulfillment of prophets and mystic beliefs.
Most of these things we will never hear about, but the ones we do lead us to understand the Jesus movement was out of control. Jacov was brought into maintain discipline in Jerusalem and was conservative with respect to the fanciful hallucinations and for a time things settled down. Then he was killed and the box was left wide open.
keep in mind that the mystic practices of the first and second century, those used to construct the New Testament became discourage in the 3rd and 4th century sheltered away in far off places and called spiritual delusion by the orthodoxy, as they knew if they did not do this they would have the same problem that the Jerusalem church had in the first century. . A flowery bed of chaos.
Why Pontus Pilot killed Jesus? He was acutely unaware of the Pandora’s box he was about to throw open.
Esoteric Mysticism draws from the mind phantasms. The more powerful the practice the more real the phantasms appear. And if you talk to mystics they often mention a spiritual guide, some one, a relative or someone they knew when they were young as a parent figure. Beyond this they also tend to see the recently dead. So if you combine envisioning of phantasms that appear real with a recent, rather emotional death, you get resurrection. The more powerful the mystic, the more godly their phantasm seems. These are all profanities of course, but to them and their followers they seemed real enough.
Dr Mason is trying to explain why people (what is the motivation) use the literary tools that they have to create the stories that they do. We have to come to realize that there are truths to many of the stories that are layered over by rhetoric and embellishments. Even Josephus is creating stories. The gospels, however fanciful were not the full extent of the fictionalization of Yeshua that occurred. The church created a balance between what people wanted to hear and what teachings would cause further chaos and the got rid of as much of the second as they could. Even in the eight century when the church realized that the iconography contradicted the sayings, tried to get rid of them, but they were too widely appreciated and they had to withdraw and come up with a clever explanation why it’s not idolatry.
Religion is religion. There is the search for truth and the search for faith in religion. It has its own special logic. When you ask the question why Catholics think Jesus Christ is their Lord, Savior and this aspect of the Trinity it’s best not to begin the discussion with a itinerant teacher from Galilee who got a buzz when he was Baptized. Instead it’s best to go inside the mind of Paul as he’s having his hallucination. Moreover when we ask about John 3:16 think about who(m) wrote it, where was it written, when, and what was going on in that community at that time.
@@Darisiabgal7573 If I am conveying something unknown to you, I try to compare it to things that you do know and can grasp. Using historical characters and places only demonstrates this concept of using known objects and people to convey an idea. I retired from 25 years of teaching and this is the strategy of teaching, taking something the student knows and understands and add to it.
When one is in the Third Heaven, it is entirely outside the world of thoughts. One has no idea what it is like in the Third Heaven. Spiritual Guides? Not in the Third Heaven. How does one know if one has been in the Third Heaven? By the inner changes it has created. The fruits of the tree!
@@stridedeck I’m not trying to convince you to believe anything. I’m trying to explain why JtB only results in one religion and Yeshua so many. Mocking is not an explanation it’s a pejorative.
No one can effectively understand the breadth of early Christianity unless one comes to grip with practiced mysticism. One does not have to ‘believe’ anything about it, just understand it’s dance with theology and with experiences of the dying (I.e. the ghosts of fukushima). If you cannot fathom these types of experiences you will always reject that there was a radiation of belief because, in essence you reject that the mechanism can exist.
I am not asking you to believe Christianity, if anything it’s an appeal to reject it. I’m trying to explain that divine emanates from the mind, mystic practices are things of the mind, irreverent mystic practices (the occult) do not conserve religions. Consequently, those who practice occult practices (those that do not agree with their religions) are necessarily creating notions of divinity that differ from those religions.
@@Darisiabgal7573 Beliefs, or the act of believing, are all from the mind. The mind is a thought-making process. Mystics go through a lot of pain to state that their "experiences" are not known to thoughts. Knowing the experience is reducing it.
40:20 It's not that unlikely if you consider the fact Galilean towns like Capernaum were razed to the ground after Judas' revolt in 6 CE. Since Jesus and probably his father were builders(Tektōn) the Galilee would be a great place to find work repairing the damage the Romans did. Why didn't they live closer to Capernaum? Because they were poor, Nazareth was a tiny little backwater. That's the only place they could afford, having a home already in Bethlehem. It would be akin to someone having a summer cottage on a lake and another in town. They lived in Nazareth only to save money but considered Bethlehem their true home.
Btw, Luke being written so late, after Josephus' history doesn't change much, you go from ~60 CE to ~100 CE. It's also possible Luke took many years to finish his Gospel, perhaps the parts he lifted from Josephus were the last part of his book. Plenty of authors take 10+ years to write a book or even longer. It's sometimes even a "life's work". You can't assume Luke was written in one sitting.
1:17:05 Dr Mason, I can tell you how he makes the distinction: John the Baptist, the Essenes & even Jesus weren't interested in organized military rebellion against Rome while Theudas certainly was. That military self-restraint in relation to Rome despite expecting God to carry out an Eschatological action to restore Israel's independence & resurrect the dead to rule the eternal theocratic kingdom on earth, was what Josephus approved of (summarized in Jesus' own words, _"love" your Roman enemies_ )
These cool informations are nicely complementary to what Lena Einhorn writes about. Thank you!
Please pray for us. We are a family with two preschool children. We don't have: house, jobs, salaries, savings, food, winter clothes and shoes. Thank you
I’m watching In 1080p and I’m having trouble following along with these very tiny visuals.
While I love watching the Steve Mason lectures, there is no need to throw shade on Bart. I enjoy him too.
The 4th example is the absolute best evidence of Luke-Acts’ use of Josephus; granted, it’s from the earlier 70s source, but it’s also non-sensical.
\
My best guess says 1 core with a few more woven in. Just because something is just in your head doesn't mean it's safe to think that negates it's existence.
Oh great, you got Steve Mason back! He is really great, is it possible to get Paula Fredrikson on at all?
Let's "reach out" to all the "Christian Sicarii" (2:08:47), Derek! You nailed it! That's our mission... :)))
What are the odds that the names "Simon" and "Rufus", and a purple robe/cloak would all appear by accident in two supposedly unrelated accounts?
Josephus Wars, book 7, chapter 2
"And now Simon, thinking he might be able to astonish and elude the Romans, put on a white frock, and buttoned upon him a purple cloak, and appeared out of the ground in the place where the temple had formerly been. At the first, indeed, those that saw him were greatly astonished, and stood still where they were; but afterward they came nearer to him, and asked him who he was. Now Simon would not tell them, but bid them call for their captain; and when they ran to call him, Terentius RUFUS who was left to command the army there, came to Simon, and learned of him the whole truth, and kept him in bonds, and let Caesar know that he was taken."
Mark 15:16-21:
16The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. 17They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.
21 A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross. 22They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”). 23Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. 24And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.
Could this be the reason that Gnostics thought that Simon of Cyrene had been crucified instead of Christ? Also, could this "Rufus" refer to Quintus Curtius Rufus whose only surviving work is a history of Alexander the Great which then explains why the names "Alexander and Rufus" were placed together in the Gospel of Mark?
Rufus shows up again here:
Wars, Book 7, Chapter 6, paragraph 4
"There was a certain young man among the besieged, of great boldness, and very active of his hand, his name was Eleazar; he greatly signalized himself in those sallies, and encouraged the Jews to go out in great numbers, in order to hinder the raising of the banks, and did the Romans a vast deal of mischief when they came to fighting; he so managed matters, that those who sallied out made their attacks easily, and returned back without danger, and this by still bringing up the rear himself. Now it happened that, on a certain time, when the fight was over, and both sides were parted, and retired home, he, in way of contempt of the enemy, and thinking that none of them would begin the fight again at that time, staid without the gates, and talked with those that were upon the wall, and his mind was wholly intent upon what they said. Now a certain person belonging to the Roman camp, whose lame was RUFUS, by birth an Egyptian, ran upon him suddenly, when nobody expected such a thing, and carried him off, with his armor itself; while, in the mean time, those that saw it from the wall were under such an amazement, that Rufus prevented their assistance, and carried Eleazar to the Roman camp. So the general of the Romans ordered that he should be taken up naked, set before the city to be seen, and sorely whipped before their eyes. Upon this sad accident that befell the young man, the Jews were terribly confounded, and the city, with one voice, sorely lamented him, and the mourning proved greater than could well be supposed upon the calamity of a single person. When Bassus perceived that, he began to think of using a stratagem against the enemy, and was desirous to aggravate their grief, in order to prevail with them to surrender the city for the preservation of that man. Nor did he fail of his hope; for he commanded them to set up a cross, as if he were just going to hang Eleazar upon it immediately; the sight of this occasioned a sore grief among those that were in the citadel, and they groaned vehemently, and cried out that they could not bear to see him thus destroyed. Whereupon Eleazar besought them not to disregard him, now he was going to suffer a most miserable death, and exhorted them to save themselves, by yielding to the Roman power and good fortune, since all other people were now conquered by them. These men were greatly moved with what he said, there being also many within the city that interceded for him, because he was of an eminent and very numerous family; so they now yielded to their passion of commiseration, CONTRARY TO THEIR USUAL CUSTOM. Accordingly, they sent out immediately certain messengers, and treated with the Romans, in order to a surrender of the citadel to them, and desired that they might be permitted to go away, and take Eleazar along with them. Then did the Romans, and their general, accept of these terms."
But this sounds more like Jesus Barabbas:
Mark 15:6-15 (Immediately before the the purple robe account):
"6 Now IT WAS THE CUSTOM at the festival to release a prisoner whom the people requested. 7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. 8 The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did.
9 “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate, 10knowing it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.
12“What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them.
13“Crucify him!” they shouted.
14“Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”
15Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
Purple was an expensive color and the color of royalty/aristocracy, so it showing up in both accounts is not unexpected. Jesus was mocked for being called "King of the Jews" and thus dressed up appropriately while Simon was the leader of one of the rebel factions during the first Jewish revolt. The fact that two names appear in different contexts is something I find far from convincing to establish a connection between the two.
@@HistoryandReviews in both quotes it says purple though... It's also rather pedantic since both colours are pretty similar anyway
@@HistoryandReviews alright, sure, but that's irrelevant when it comes to whether or not Mark had access to Josephus
@@HistoryandReviews It was actually Jesus brother Isukiri who was crucified in Jesus' stead. Jesus grave is in Japan, didn't you know?
@@HistoryandReviews Aside from both being named Jesus, there really aren't that many strong similarities. This Jesus is just a guy who screamed about Jerusalem's future fall until the authorities had enough and punished him. After seeing that he was insane, they let him go.
So the only similarities were that both were in Jerusalem, both said Jerusalem would be destroyed in the future (your average "the end is neigh" preacher) and that they had run-ins with the authorities. This Jesus didn't have followers, lived at a different time (*after* Paul's episltes even) and wasn't even crucified or killed for that matter. Besides both being apocalyptic preachers, I don't really see the connection. I don't even oppose the idea that ideas/events concerning other preachers were conflated with Jesus and added as another story about him,but this one doesn't seem likely to be connected.
DEREK, PLEASE DO A VIDEO EXAMINING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SCHOOLS OF PHARISEES - - THE HUMANISTIC (spirit of the law) HILLELITES AND THE HARSHER (letter of the law) SHAMMAITES!
Josephus was a Flavian - the Flavians wrote the New Testiment, as a book of pure fiction, to create a message of 'peace and love' to quell the Jews.
Sure, so they also wrote all the different letters to the different churches at that time that actually existed, and the apostles that actually were persecuted for their faith and taught at those churches with those people that knew them, ahh ok?
@@counterstrike89
It was necessary to keep their newly constructed religion of peace and love (towards their Roman masters) going
@@counterstrike89
Is there any reliable extra biblical accounts of the apostles being persecuted?
Imagination can create anything it believes and nothing is new under the sun. You may not see it yet but you will.
@2:30:00
having workes for 25 years with people suffering from scizophrenia I never understood the difference between the voices they heard in their heads and the messages of Jesus reveiled to priests or preachers.
And I think I prefer the scizophrenic voices of the godly voices because the ones who hearded the first catagory were at least honest, which I would not garantee for with preachers.
@2:36:00
....after risen to heaven , he disgarded his body?.......so there must be an impact crater somewhere in Judea?
I can't like these podcasts enough. Thanks Derek and Dr. Mason.
What do you think about the idea that Jesus is the Judean Phoenix? Spiritually you divorce yourself from your old life, your old world views, religious perspectives and beliefs, and rise again as a Gnostic of God?
he’s quaint and quite amusing. unassuming authority is rare.
Steve Mason's thesis here can be reconciled to Joseph Atwell's "Ceasar's Messiah" in my opinion. Josephus was in the employment of the Roman court. One should consider that in order for Josephus to keep his cozy life he would be an apologist for Titus or Rome writing against Judea's natural hatred for foreign rule. Joseph may have even been under pain of death to be a puppet of Titus. Josephus may have also been a fictitious character (pseudo author) by Rome used to invent a story line that shows that Judea should not always rebel against foreign rule (or their Gods appointed overlord Titus). For what is the Antiquities written for other than to show how much trouble the stiff-necked people got into when they fought foreign rule through the ages! So imagine if you Titus had his scribes not only make up Josephus' War narrative but could also have had his scribes invent the gospels and other books such as Acts at the same time? This would answer the mixed-up authorship of the books discussed here.
It's Acts 12:21 that says he put on his robe, not Acts 12:20 though. It also says in verse 22 that the people just thought his voice sounds like that of a deity.
Bart Ehrman? AronRa? Thomas Westbrook-Holy-Kool-Aid?
Daaaamn they ROCK!!
I'm now imaging Acts as being a deconversion story from a cult that unfortunately ended up being the perfect guide on how to create a cult. We'll never know the actual intent of the writers. Which is exactly how we judge literature always anyway - what was the writer's intent lol
hi there.hola hooray hey. here we go the truth coming up,actually turah&bible were from god but they had been corrupted afterwards as a result god sent down quran upon prophet muhammed&god said i`ll preserved the quran thereby god had fulfilled his promise ,let me show u friendly&honestly the truth,okee dokee.shedding the light on christianity to know the truth first of all there is no original bible the 4 main bible are contradicted to each other yet there is 1 quran but who is the writer of bible the answer is paul the jewish who hates jesus let us discuss about the significant event which is crucifixion why does your would claimed god left his only son to crucify without any sin he had committed the disaster reached its uttermost when u found bible said on the tongue of jesus my god my god why do u forsaken me means jesus has never crucified willingly have u an idea why do they `ve crucified jesus because it`s a penalty of an impure &particularly crucifixion because dindn`t touched the earth make it an impured that what paul said jesus gets impure for the sake of us &see the authentic god what does said in quran chapter 3 verse 55 by the name of god the most gracious&most merciful ,
O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to me, and had purified you from those who disbelieve, and He will place those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection, then to Me is your return, so I will judge between you regarding that in which you differed,the authentic god rose jesus to the sky before they kill him in addition he had purified him from a false accusation of he was an impure . quran verse is comply with the bible itself :So they lifted up stones to stone him. But Jesus did and went out of the temple, passing through them." ( John 8:59 ),let alone of many verses in the bible incites to violence thus u found the largest massacres had happened in history the ww1&2 christian countries against christian countries 100 millions had been killed not to mention the sex stories in the bible nay u never found a single sex word in quran,don`t take it in personal just i clarify u the plain truth,bible said woman when she during the menstruation she gets impure &any thing she would touched it will be impure &should stay at her room till had done of it don`t see that an insulting to woman &how does the claimed god in bible said so he demeans& underrates his own creatures, yet islam honored the woman &she has a complete chapter its name women show us her rights,let us look at modern medicine which refutes the bible, ovulalation happens every 28 days from overy next month from other ovary when fertilization fails to happen mestrual bleading happens it always stops when a female gets pregnant ,menstrual cycle ovulation the female genital system consists of one uterus to overuse vagine& externat genital organs ,,the blood during menstruation could cause diseases to spread and that’s why does a woman during her menstruation needed to isolate so the blood would not be passed around to other people & diseases not be spread that`s what god has said in quran and they ask you about menstruation say, isolate women don't come near them untill they get purified verse 222 chapter 2,why there are priests,pastors&nuns are reverted daily to islam,yet u `ve never a muslim clergy left islam as per western media said that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world,i didn`t like to push islam onto u god said no compulsion in religion verse 256 chapter 2,figure it out then make up your mind,peace....;;;;
@@lufhopespeacefully2037 I hope you just copy pasted that because I'm not a religious type. I'm into the cultural historical stuff as far as it being truth as you say - not my concern. Never was my concern. I am fine with my beliefs. TY 🙂
2:28:20 If the resurrection body had absolutely no conceivable continuity with the corpse then why would he think the "spiritual" (pneumatikos) body originates from the location of burial and not the initial location of the "giving up the ghost" (death).
Why did Paul need to emphasize a burial if it didn't matter for resurrection, the emptiness of the burial site???
The prejudice that wants the empty tomb to be a later legendary development is amazing in the way it leads serious Academics to dream up utter nonsense with confident articulate sophistication (no sane adult speaker of ancient greek could conceive of any _anastasis_ that didn't involve an empty tomb).
Roman Emperor who were thought to ascend to heaven WITHOUT AN EMPTY TOMB were NEVER said to have been RESURRECTED by any speaker of ancient Greek!!
This is interesting stuff, but it it falls very short of proving that Luke borrowed from Josephus. In fact there is a major problem with this theory, and this is one of time. It is believed by several scholars that Luke-Acts were written as the legal case for Paul during his imprisonment in Rome. This is supported by teh fact that Luke was written to the "Most Excellent Theophilius", a title that is fitting for a legal council. Acts was written to Theophilus, where teh exalted title has been dropped, indicating a growing familiarity between Luke and Theophilus. Luke gives the background to Jesus, teh founder of teh Christian faith, and teh first half of Acts describes the bebginnings of the church; the second half of Acts is concerned only with Paul's role in establishing the church. Thus it reads very much like a defence narrative for Paul. Lastly, Acts ends with Paul in a Roman prison. We know that Luke was with him, as Pauls says this in 2 Timothy. Very significantly, Luke ends before Paul's death, which is accepted to have occurred in AD 64 or 65. Given Luke's attention to detail, and his complete interest in Paul's ministry, would not have included an account of Paul's death if this had happened before he completed the writing of Acts. We may conclude that the most likely reason for writings Luke-Acts was as legal defence for Paul, and was completed prior to the conclusion of his trial. Josephus was written after the falls of Jerusalem in AD 70. This time issue completely opposes Steve Masons position. Mason has no plausible argument for why Luke would omit Paul's death if it had occurred before writing Acts.
The gospel accounts are not written until after the destruction of Jerusalem, after 70AD. That's why Jesus has said the temple will be destroyed. So there is no time problem when you place Luke well after the Jewish revolt. Late first century at least
Historians agree that there is not one written eyewitness account of Jesus during his lifetime. Strange since he was famous at birth, because wise men expected to see the future king of Jews who was born from a virgin married mother. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, five hundred years ago, has maintained that the gospels were originally written in Greek from 70 to 140 CE (Mark after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John no earlier than 140 CE). This proves that they were not written by Christ's apostles, disciples or by any of the early Christians.
Others say: “There is no proof of the Gospels existing before 130 CE”
Jesus is depicted as hugely popular in the gospels. Yet he is unrecorded by non-Biblical historians.
Paul was the first one to write about Jesus around 60CE; but he, like everyone else, never saw Jesus. He experienced a vision of the resurrected Jesus. Even Paul’s existence is in serious doubt.
John Gresham Machen wrote: The establishment of Christianity as a world religion, to almost as great an extent as any great historical movement can be ascribed to one man, was the work of Paul.
I also read that the history of the first three popes was invented because they never existed.
All myth! Seek the truth!
Live by the 10 commandments and love others. Bottom line. Be a good person and change your own evil heart. Thats the whole bible in a nutshell. How can anyone argue with that?
Gracias Derek... Gracias al Dr.: Manson... ¡ Increíble el aporte!
I'm 25% done with the video, which is funny, because, it's 4 hours in total. I have to say that I love it.
I mean, even though this is just a micro cosmos, a small bubble of people, it is so hilarious to me how a group of atheists is basically sitting together and listening to all of the detailed information about Jesus's life. My friends tell me that, how small this bubble is. It doesn't feel like that from the inside.
Seriously, how many Christians are there, knowing about the stuff you present on your channel? Is it 0.1%? Is it less? It has to be less. I mean, I once lectured a secular Jew on her culture, due to feeding myself with religious knowledge all day every day, while being an atheist all my life.
This bubble contains the only true Christians, who do not believe in God :D
I love it.
Luke may have revised Acts to make it line up with Josephus's writings, but the idea that Acts 21:38 is an example of this seems like too much of a stretch.
Pharisees were a political party in the Sanhedrin
Derek, I thoroughly enjoy Myth Vision!!! YOU are a conduit for the Holy Spirit of the Trinity to direct the mind of Josephus, in the supernatural realm, to help you in your quest for the TRUTH. Be careful not to enter The Hall of Mirrors in Satan's 'trick bag'!!! Those who enter never come back to Reality and lose all faith in Jesus and God!!!😇
Derek do you think there would be any chance or benefit of a Steve Mason/ Richard carrier show? Thanks, Raoul
I just started watching this, but it seems to me that, if you do the calculations, then when King David’s descendants 1000 years later converged on Bethlehem, they would constitute a very large proportion of the population of the region. That is even if you only count 2.5 generations per century.
They would probably constitute the entire population of the region given that the town of Bethlehem was destroyed during the time of the Greek invasion of Judea and there was no city there at the time of Jesus. The Bethlehem birth stories are complete fiction all the way down to the town where they take place.
I seem to remember years ago hearing some professor claim that Luke was a "first rate historian" - and I think the proof of this was that Luke got so many details correct. And how did we know they were correct? Because they agreed with Josephus!
Very interesting and learned.
Mark was the oldest of these Gospels, and its material was later used by Matthew and Luke. This much is obvious to anyone reading the Gospels, even in translation:if for nothing else, because the basic material in Mark is found in Matthew and Luke, while important materials in Matthew and Luke are not found in Mark. According to the theory, there was a source other than Mark which both Matthew and Luke used: the so-called Q ( from the German Quelle, for 'source'), which was also in the Greek language. This is clear because there are passages in Matthew and Luke which do not come from Mark, yet are textually identical, or virtually so. Had this common source been in Aramaic, or in any language other than Greek, the renderings of the same passages derived from this common Q into the Greek of the two Gospels would have been different.
The theory, however, recognizes a special source for Luke: the 'Luke' source, called L, which is believed to have been Aramaic. We know that Luke could read Aramaic because of the striking unity of his Greek style where he directly quotes from sources in languages other than Greek. For example, where he copies the ' we passages' in the book of Acts from the travelling diary of one of Paul's companions (chapter 1), his personal style in Greek remains noticeable, which indicates that his source was in another language, (what other than Aramaic?) which he could read and translate by himself. The same applies to the unity of style maintained by Luke where he copies from L.
We earlier proposed, on the basis of evidence from the Koran and of Islamic tradition, that L was the Gospel of the Nazarenes: an account concerning an Arabian Israelite prophet called Issa who lived in about 400 B.C. We further know that L was also used by John. While Luke derived some of his special Jesus stories from L, John ignored its narrative parts, and became aware that the Jesus who was the son of Mary was not the same Jesus who was the son of Joseph. From this source John derived his peculiar theory of Jesus as the Logos, or 'Word', who promised the coming of the parakletos, or 'Comfortor' (see chapter 4 and 5). It also became clear to us that John used the special terminology of the Nazarene Gospel to constuct his theory of the Jesus who died on the cross in Jerusalem, while being fully aware of the fact that this Nazarene Gospel was concerned with a different Jesus. Luke used the same source without appearing to be aware of this fact (see chapter 6)
The theory under consideration further maintains that Matthew also had a source for his Gospel which he alone used-the 'Matthew' or M source- probably an Aramaic one, or at least one whose original was in Aramaic. From Q he took the materials which are peculiar to his own Gospel. Without having a base document to help us determine what Q and M actually were ( we have the Koran with respect to L), they must remain subject to conjecture. this, however, does not mean that we cannot investigate the broader question of the Gospel sources at another level. We can start from points already determined, and their corollaries:
Extract from Professor Kamal Salibi's book 'Conspiracy in Jerusalem'.
Re-wording this comment to make it simpler:
The tangent on J's historicity begins around 3:02:10. There are some (imo) unnecessary contrasts with absolutist pov's, and some (imo) suggestive linking of mythicism with unserious/obscure theories about Xianity being cobbled out of 'Egyptian' ideas... no serious mythicist argues this; nor that Xianity emerged as a single, coherent movement. It's worth pointing these out because Mason says that he has interacted with the work of Carrier et al. I'm not sure he has.
A more exact question: When Mason mentions those who opposed Paul arguing (about themselves) that they "knew [Jesus]" and that they were "his brother" and that they "hung out with him - you didn't. You just had some dreams about him Paul. We actually knew the guy."... what does Mason mean by saying these things are present "right at the beginning"? Can someone refer me to these passages, so I can check how close to "the beginning" they fall?
My sense is that "I'm his brother" doesn't fall into these disputes - but refers to Paul's passive reference to James as "brother of the lord". Whatever the other references are about, I'd like to know. Is there anything in Paul's accounts to tell us that his opponents were claiming to have "hung out with him" or that they "actually knew the guy", as Mason says they claimed? If not, then this is falsely suggestive... and a confusion easily avoided by checking references.
How do we know Josephus even existed? Is he mentioned by any contemporary historians? Where's the tomb of Josephus? Are there any monumental artifacts bearing his name? Whom is Josephus first mentioned by? What's the date for that author? What's the date for the oldest copy or fragment of that author's writings? What's the oldest copy or fragment of Josephus' writings?
Also an example of the author’s use of detail for ironic purposes from unmentioned knowledge: Felix ‘trembled’ when he hear about coming judgement, and his wife Drusilla and their 20 year old son were killed in the volcanic eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE - Dr G. craig Fairweather.
If Jesus as a baby supposedly fled to Egypt with his parents only returning later…could it be that Jesus is the “Egyptian’? The connection with the mount of olives and hanging out in the desert attributed by Josephus in his reference to the Egyptian seems also to echo Jesus… don’t know whether this has ever been considered (and dismissed)…
It has been considered ... A LOT by other scholars and Ralph Ellis also makes this connection.
Not just Luke, but John also concludes with the fates of the two resistance fighters in Jerusalem, Simon and John, with the fulfillment found in Josephus' "The Wars of the Jews" four decades later!
Is it possible the inverse: did Josephus use the Gospel of Luke and Acts of The Apostles?
Most scholars believe Josephus started his work of writings sometime in the 70's AD after the destruction of the temple. Most scholar believe Luke was written in the mid 50's AD to mid 60's AD. Clearly Josephus took from the gospel to add to his writings. That's what historians do. The gospels and the letters to the churches were already circling around getting copied before Josephus started his work. Its possible, Josephus was a fan of the literature that encouraged him to take note of his own writings.
@@HistoryandReviews Bro we have letters from the early church father Clement corresponding to Paul’s letters to the Corinthians that Luke wrote in Acts 18 in the 70’s AD. If Clement’s letters are dated in the 70’s AD then the scholars date of Mid 50’s to 60’s AD for Luke writing the gospel and Acts is very close to being accurate.
@@uno23437 Any follow ups?
@@beslanintruder2077 Any follow ups with what? Rome of Clement wrote to the Corinthians in the 1st century corresponding with Paul’s letters in the NT. Not to mention Papias, Polycarp and Ignatius where all mentored by John in the 1st century. We have their writings that validate the times of the gospels written. Paul and Peter taught Clement of Rome. Irenaeus of Lyon is believed to be John’s grandson. The list goes on.
This is why no one believes in the ignorance the non believers spews because there are no evidence that supports their claims and plenty evidence that supports the NT.