Mix of scholarship and unfounded speculation
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“This podcast is a mixed bag. Some of the information is based on solid academic research and mainstream historical-critical New Testament scholarship. On the other hand, there is a lot of speculation and hypothesizing which strays out of the realm of history and into the mist of Christian piety. This ends up muddying the waters a bit, and neither Dave nor Helen take much time to clarify when they make that leap.
For example, in the very first episode of the podcast, Dave asks if there are any extra-Biblical sources which make reference to the historical Jesus. Helen briefly mentions the material written by Tacitus and then spends a good deal of time talking about the reference Josephus makes to Jesus. Helen readily acknowledges that most scholars think later Christian scribes tampered with the relevant passage and added material that Josephus would have been unlikely to include.
So far so good.
Then Helen begins speculating regarding the origin of Josephus’ information about Jesus. She says Josephus’s family would have told him stories about John the Baptist and Jesus and that a lot of this information would have come from “first-hand testimony”. That is pure speculation! Is it possible Jospehus received first-hand information about the historical Jesus from his older family members? Yes. Is that what Josephus says? No. It’s also possible Josephus obtained his information from any number of Christian sources (written and/or oral) or from information floating in the zeitgeist of his time. I know that Mormons believe Joseph Smith discovered the book of Mormon in upstate New York without having ever read a single book about Mormonism. I just know this because it’s a form of cultural knowledge.
Josephus doesn’t cite any source(s) for his information about Jesus, and an honest historian would be clear about this. There’s no reason to think he’s relying on first-hand testimony, and even using the term “first-hand testimony” is somewhat disingenuous. The honest position is to say we don’t know how accurate Josephus is or where he obtained his information.
I’ve listened to seven other episodes, and this trend has continued. Helen accurately discusses many ideas that have broad scholarly support, but there is also a fair amount of speculation and digressions into “maybe it could have been this way”. I find Bart Ehrman’s podcast ‘Misquoting Jesus’ more informative and clear because he makes obvious distinctions between scholarly consensus and what some Christians speculate.”
gawdeb via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
02/29/24
More reviews of Biblical Time Machine
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“The guests for the Eucharist Origins and Crash Course on the history of the Bible were excellent. Absolutely excellent. And it’s a treat getting deep historic information like the discovery that the mystery of the assembly of the New Testament can be pinned on Constantine at the Nicean council,...”Read full review »
Jammyjimmy via Apple Podcasts ·
Canada ·
07/02/24
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“Great podcast that gives a new perspective on biblical times. Just binged all the episodes I can’t get enough of it”
Jadaltonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
12/27/23
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“Stumbled upon this episode when Josh and Chuck mentioned it on an episode of SYSK. Stopped listening to that episode and came over to Bible Time Machine and have been binging since then. Great show!”
dayspring85 via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
03/27/23
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
Listen now
Links
Twitter
Facebook
Instagram
Patreon
Genres
Artwork or description wrong?
Request an update »
Updates may take a few minutes.
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
