The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled.

[Cato]

From the website of the formidable Acharya S.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

[Wulfhere]

From the website of the formidable Acharya S.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

I notice that it's an excerpt from a longer piece arguing that Jesus, Buddha and Krishna were all the same individual. This is exactly what the Oera Linda Book says, in this chapter http://frya.angelfire.com/olb.htm#br

[Cato]

All a part of the same mythological meme, the solar savior godman. The likelihood of Buddha, Christ, and Krishna having been the same person isn't likely if you view them as being three distinct historical figures.

If you view them as three mythological figures, then the chances are likely that there's some cross-pollinating at work. The ultimate object of worship, the sun itself, has universal as well as specific forms of worship and the reason why the Jesus meme seems like, say, the Horus meme or the Mithra meme, to say nothing of Buddha and Krisha, is because of borrowing and burgling in the ancient world.

The TF is just a piece of Christian propaganda. When I first read it, back when I was still something of a Christian, I basically wondered why Josephus, while more or less admitting that Jesus was the expected messiah of the Jews, failed to go into any detail about him. I can only liken it to, say, SETI finally gaining proof of the existence of extraterrestrial life and then mentioning it as a blurb in the back pages of a newspaper as single paragraph. The singular most important event in Jewish (and supposedly world) history, admitted to by the Jewish historian among historians, swept under the rug in a few lines.

As complete a fellow as he was, Josephus would've gone to great lengths to detail the messiah, which he didn't do. And one wonders why... Either Jospehus knew of it and, being a devout Jew, put no stock in the belief of this paganized godman; or the legends around Christ hadn't matured into what they are now.

[Wulfhere]

The fact that Christians doctored the text of Josephus is accepted by all historians. What is more controversial is the theory of Ralph Ellis (elaborated in his book King Jesus) that Josephus and St Paul were the same person. Ridiculous as it sounds, the evidence is surprisingly good.

[Cato]

Paul as Josephus? I've never heard that theory before. What was his agenda then, to undermine the Jews at the behest of his Flavian imperial patrons?

[Wulfhere]

Paul as Josephus? I've never heard that theory before. What was his agenda then, to undermine the Jews at the behest of his Flavian imperial patrons?

Yes, exactly. And to channel those who felt attracted to Judaism into a cult under Imperial control. Another part of his agenda was his own personal greed, milking his new followers dry.

[Cato]

That might bear looking into then. I've got a copy of Josephus' histories someplace, never really read them, but the guy seems to have been more than passingly familiar with the popular non-Jewish beliefs at the time.

[Wulfhere]

That might bear looking into then. I've got a copy of Josephus' histories someplace, never really read them, but the guy seems to have been more than passingly familiar with the popular non-Jewish beliefs at the time.

From memory, some of the similarities are as follows.

Both Paul and Josephus were imprisoned, released, sailed to Rome, were shipwrecked, rescued and taken to Naples - then stopped off at a pub called the Three Taverns on their way to Rome - and both incidents happened in AD 62.

Both had remarkably similar styles of writing (apparently long noted by academics).

Both were in the same places at the same time on many occasions in their lives.

Both persecuted the followers of Jesus (when Josephus was military governor of Galilee), then became turncoats.

And this is the best one for me, because it's so trivial - both had the same publisher, a Greek named Epaphroditus - in fact both thank him in almost identical words.

[Cato]

If this bears true, then the fruits of Josephus' labors as Paul bore Rome a poisoned fruit in the decades and centuries to come.

I've heard some of the theory that Christianity was a Roman creation, in conjunction with one of the Calpurnius Pisos, the same family that supposedly assassinated Germanicus the Younger, and other Roman aristocrats (imperial aristocrats?) and that Paul was their agent of the pen. The idea was to discredit the Jews, who were causing trouble at the time (50s/60s CE, but the Jews caused trouble all throughout Roman times it seems), and draw away some of their non-Jewish support by creating a properly Romanized/Jewish cult.

[Wulfhere]

If this bears true, then the fruits of Josephus' labors as Paul bore Rome a poisoned fruit in the decades and centuries to come.

I've heard some of the theory that Christianity was a Roman creation, in conjunction with one of the Calpurnius Pisos, the same family that supposedly assassinated Germanicus the Younger, and other Roman aristocrats (imperial aristocrats?) and that Paul was their agent of the pen. The idea was to discredit the Jews, who were causing trouble at the time (50s/60s CE, but the Jews caused trouble all throughout Roman times it seems), and draw away some of their non-Jewish support by creating a properly Romanized/Jewish cult.

Ralph Ellis doesn't mention the family of Calpurnius Piso (who always brings to mind Stratford Johns, the actor who played him in I Claudius), but it makes a lot of sense.

Here's another odd fact, which I noticed myself after buying a copy of Tacitus's Annals - the part dealing with the years surrounding the Crucifixion are suspiciously missing. This is a great pity indeed, since the Annals are the major source for Roman history in the first century - the only other writer of note, Seutonius, concentrating on gossip.

[Cato]

Ralph Ellis doesn't mention the family of Calpurnius Piso (who always brings to mind Stratford Johns, the actor who played him in I Claudius), but it makes a lot of sense.

Here's another odd fact, which I noticed myself after buying a copy of Tacitus's Annals - the part dealing with the years surrounding the Crucifixion are suspiciously missing. This is a great pity indeed, since the Annals are the major source for Roman history in the first century - the only other writer of note, Seutonius, concentrating on gossip.

I don't recall Suetonius mentioning anyone named Saul/Paul for that matter...

[Wulfhere]

I don't recall Suetonius mentioning anyone named Saul/Paul for that matter...

Nor indeed anyone named Jesus - though at one point during the reign of Claudius (41-54) he mentions that the Jews of Rome were rioting at the instigation of a certain Chrestus. Chrestus, as it happens, was a very common name given to slaves.

[Cato]

The Chrestus references, to me, means that Jews at that time during the reign of Tiberius Claudius were being riled up by someone, a Jew, named Chrestus- in Rome herself. Some Christians have latched onto that to mean Christ(us), which is kinda like trying to make the name Tom out of Tim or somesuch.

[Wulfhere]

The Chrestus references, to me, means that Jews at that time during the reign of Tiberius Claudius were being riled up by someone, a Jew, named Chrestus- in Rome herself. Some Christians have latched onto that to mean Christ(us), which is kinda like trying to make the name Tom out of Tim or somesuch.

Indeed - the clear meaning of Seutonius's words are that this Chrestus was alive at the time, and in Rome.