The Emperor’s New History is Trash, Bro
Yes, I accept the legitimacy of this historical account, just like everybody else! I’m smart too, because I believe!
JLB1837 – The Emperor’s New History is Trash, Bro (8-May-2018)
Donnie Darko Syncs video: https://www.johnlebon.com/member-videos/donnie-darko-syncs-numbers-history/
Primary Source Research Methodology article: https://www.johnlebon.com/articles/primary-source-research-methodology/
This is an excellent video JLB.
I first got into your work not because I agreed with you, but because I found your methodology infuriatingly intriguing. Like an itch I couldn’t quite scratch, I wasn’t sure how to deal with it but I recognised it required my attention.
Most people I referred to you found that same material just infuriating. Their patience ran out before they made the connections that you left to the audience. I realise this was by design.
This is much more digestible. There is no harm in spelling things out from time to time.
Thank you very much for the kind words. It may seem strange but in some ways I prefer to hear that people like my work not because they like ‘me’ (or my ‘character’), but because they sense an innate validity to my questions/method.
I use the word ‘sense’ here intentionally. For me, there has long been a sense that something is not quite right with official history. I could never quite put my finger on it.
I still remember when somebody first told me that the ‘slaves’ who built the pyramids of ‘ancient egypt’ were not slaves: ‘experts’ now believe that the workers were paid in beer and accommodation.
It was a small party at my apartment, when I lived in St Lucia. The guy who informed me of the new truth about the pyramid builders was a guy I had met at uni. We may have been discussing beer/alcohol at the time, and my interlocutor explained that the workers of ancient Egypt were kept happy and passive with alcohol, so there was no need to enslave them in the first place.
Somehow, between primary school and my early twenties, the official story had changed. It seemed strange to me, but I checked into it and found out that this was indeed the story now. The workers were paid with beer, and they were not slaves, they were willing, skilled workers.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/11/great-pyramid-tombs-slaves-egypt
Still relatively blue-pilled at the time, I went along with it. Something about it seemed peculiar to me, but this was the experts’ story (and I was able to fit it into other ideas/beliefs I had about people at the time) so along with it I went.
I suspect that if the 26yo me had been exposed to the concept of the History Hoax, he would have been open-minded and willing to check the sources for himself. My sense of something being not quite right was there, but I had no direction/encouragement with regards to the importance/utility of checking through the sources for myself.
The point of all of this being that what I could have benefited from back then was somebody who promoted primary source research methodology, rather than somebody likeable or friendly. This is not to suggest that likeability and friendliness are not important, or that they are mutually exclusive from sharing worthwhile ideas/concepts; I’m simply stating that what I see as the value of my work is not my presentation as a messenger, but the message itself.
So once again, thank you.
The Pilate story reminds me of the Herodotus story.
Looking briefly into primary sources, we see in addition to the 1961! stone tablet “found” in a place that makes little sense, some literature.
Apparently there’s some author named Josephus, a Jewish “historian” who was supposedly churning out volumes of history in the first century A.D. Like some of his modern day co-ethnics, he saw fit to change his name…from Yosef ben Matityahu to Titus Flavius Josephus. Supposedly he is the source that told us much about ancient Judea and the beginnings of Christianity.
Then we see “translations” done much later, many of which are clearly admitted to be translations not of the original, but of each other.
e.g. “For many years, printed editions of the works of Josephus appeared only in an imperfect Latin translation from the original Greek. Only in 1544 did a version of the standard Greek text become available in French, edited by the Dutch humanist Arnoldus Arlenius. The 1544 Greek edition formed the basis of the 1732 English translation by William Whiston.”
Also interesting: “the Whiston “translation” (not of the original) achieved enormous popularity in the English-speaking world. It was often the book—after the Bible—that Christians most frequently owned. ”
Also very interesting: “Whiston [with a wink?] claimed that certain works by Josephus had a similar style to the Epistles of St Paul.”
It’s not quite as bad as the Herodotus stuff, essentially ALL from the 1800s at Oxford! The claims here at least cover a longer time period, with various “translations” of Josephus claimed to have appeared in the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, etc. But that’s still awfully far removed from the “primary source.”
And now that the culture no-longer so inclined to view the Bible as a historical document, they conveniently found a stone tablet “proving” the existence of Pilate….in 1961!
Excellent work looking into the sources of Josephus yourself. This, in my opinion, is a vital step along the journey of trying to understand 'what is going on': selecting a story of 'history' and tracing through the sources for oneself.
I agree with you that the Josephus story does not seem quite as ludicrous as the Herodotus story, but it also does not seem to me to be that much better. In time I might try to track down pdf copies of the different alleged versions/translations and see what is the oldest/earliest substantiated source. I would be surprised if the oldest/earliest substantiated source for Josephus was much older than the equivalent for Herodotus.
This is the tedious and time-consuming part of the process: tracking down each purported version/translation, then tracing through their sources/bibliography, and so on.
In the case of Josephus, we are told that it went:
Josephus original in Greek -> Latin translations -> French translation in 1544 by Arlenius
AND
Josephus original in Greek -> English translation by Whilston 1732
So what I would need to do is track down that original Greek and then (using a translation website if necessary) determine what that 'original Greek' claims to be its source.
I would expect that the 'original Greek' would claim that it is based on no-longer-available/extant documents/artefacts.
So then the 'original Greek' would be no older than 500 years, and even this would be if we take that story on face value.
I would also expect that any available copies of the 'original Greek' would be dated much later i.e. later editions/publications of the 'original'.
In other words, I predict that the 1500s 'original Greek' would in fact be from the 1700s at best, and more likely the 1800s.
This is generally how things seem pan out, when I begin going through the process of identifying, finding and checking the alleged sources.
Your last sentence is also spot on. As people lose faith in the bible, a rare artefact suddenly appears! lol
Growing up in a catholic environment, Josephus was frequently referenced as a reliable historian by the church and the few members of its audience who needed more than hearsay to support their beliefs.
these elephant-in-the-room time gaps between the purported events and their documentation were always conveniently bridged (in people’s minds) with ‘similar writing styles’ and ‘oral transmission was amazing back then’ arguments.
hearing names like pontius pilate and josephus brings back memories – good and bad – of my early indoctrination years. i recall being a pain in the ass to many of the church school teachers, nuns..and my father who – years later – when pressed him on how he could still maintain his conviction in the accounts of christ, knowing full well it’s a gigantic leap of faith. a shoulder shrug and a smile…followed by: ‘it’s a convenient truth’
not convenient for a rambunctious 10 year old having to listen to boring hymns and gospels every week.
but i digress.
the provenance of the stone or papyri hardly matters. the millions of bible believers don’t care about the origins or veracity of the document(s) / artifacts(s). what matters is that they have something to believe in. something that makes them feel good. something to remove having to think about potentially discomforting existential questions.
en masse people were told these stories at a young age, by their parents or parish. and what comforts them trumps any and all evidence to the contrary, no matter how obvious the chicanery is.
last, it is a rare sight to see people who profess their faith in jesus …and simultaneously adhere to the basic supernatural instructions / injunctions. rarer still to see anyone who has actually read the old and or new testament.
what bothered me then is essentially the same thing that bothers me two decades hence…and ive far too late, but finally come to terms with the reality that the majority of the people i interact with will continue to hold onto beliefs that are without merit…until they die. the common sense retort is ‘who cares what anyone believes?’ and this may be true. but how and why they come to these beliefs is pertinent to many other aspects of life. which impacts my relations with them. which can result in loneliness and isolation. which alienates me ‘the crazy in the head guy’ – from normieville. but normieville is where one must survive. so one is limited to hangouts like this else be shunned by the thought police…not unlike winston and julia escaping into briar patches! :
even if i don’t bring up any of these topics. it’s an invisible character in the air. ‘something’s ‘off’ with that guy.’ or as jlb aptly phrased a couple of weeks ago ‘he’s not a team player!’
“Where am I? Who am I?
How did I come to be here?
What is this thing called the world?
How did I come into the world?
Why was I not consulted?
And If I am compelled to take part in it, where is the director?
I want to see him.”