Malachi151

Well, we have Origen, for example, from around 230-250, who cited the works of Jesuphus on Jesus, and who looked for as many references he could find to Jesus Christ.

Here we see his reference to a record that he thought could have referred to Jesus:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101610.htm

An advanced search of the New Advent section on Church Fathers gives 46 results for "Josephus Jesus".

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=jo...s=&safe=images

If you look through these you see that pretty much all of them are references to either Origen's quote of Josephus or to Josephus' work itself, and some are to the later presumed fraudulent addition to Josephus.

So, this is just one example. And Josephus' writing comes from 90 CE, pretty darn close.

mountainman

We do not have Origen necessarily saying anything.

We have Eusebius making claims about Origen's written
doctrines, which were to be the basis of controversy within
the same century that Eusebius made the claims.



Pete Brown

TedM

Thanks for the example. I'm not sure why you say he looked for as many references he could find to Jesus Christ. Can you explain please?

The context could support an expectation of mentioning the TF since he begins the discussion with mentioning his wisdom and miracles (both included in the TF). However, the fact that he immediately begins discussing each of his brothers, with emphasis on James--and thus the Josephus reference--leads me to suspect that Origen was trying to discuss the issue of Mary's virginity. He certainly could have referenced the gospels in order to discuss Jesus' wisdom, miracles, and such. So, I'm not convinced this is a place to expect a mention of the TF. On the other hand, the fact that he gets a bit sidetracked and expresses how "wonderful" it was that Josephus mentioned the righteousness of James leads me to think that he very well might have mentioned the TF had he known of it since it was even more "wonderful". As such, I would lean toward interpreting a silence by Origen as an indication that the TF either didn't exist in his copy, or that if it did exist Josephus didn't say anything "wonderful" in it. Another twist to keep in mind is that Origen's references to Josephus' portrayal of James don't seem to be warranted by the now-existing copies, so it appears that he had a version that was later modified.



Thanks. I think Roger Pearce has saved us some time by coming up with all of the early citings by Church Fathers here I'm glad to have just re-found this reference...

With the possible exception of the reference you provided by Origen, I'm not sure what the case is to be made against the TF on the basis of early citings or the lack thereof by the Church Fathers. Some of the Fathers prior to the TF's first mention by Eusebius around 324AD apparantly had some knowledge of Josephus' works, but can it reasonably assumed or demonstrated that they had both read Josephus and also had a motive for mentioning the TF in ANY of their writings?

ted

jeffevnz

You seem to think that saying the word "wrong" automatically wins the argument. It doesn't.
This is not really a rebuttal. I said "non-Christian works that corroborate the NT", not "documents by early Christian writers and writers whose concepts are compatible with Christianity". The second one's a lot broader.
So you admit that there are thousands of relevant documents that did not survive, right?
Good thing that's not what I said. I said the Church probably didn't anticipate "modern skepticism", ie, skepticism from a point of view millenia after the fact. The point was that early church leaders probably weren't worried about leaving a thorough enough record to convince people in the 21st century. Anyway, you're attacking a straw man.
I agree that documents that corroborate the NT would have a better chance of surviving for these reasons.
This is an extraordinarily strong claim. We're talking about 2000 years of war, plague, social and political upheaval, and changes in Church doctrine. To suggest that every document corroborating the NT would have survived all of that borders on lunacy.

Malachi151

My point is that even if "origionals" of documents that cooroborated the existance of Jesus didn't survive, we should still expect to AT LEAST see references to these documents in Christins writings if they did at some time exist.

For example, if no copies of Josephus' Antiquities survived, we would still have 40+ references to its citing of "Jesus".

Similarly, I think that if there were other documents that cited "Jesus" we would know about them, even if we didn't have copies of the origional texts we woudl either A) have quotes, as in the Origen example, or at leasr a reference to the title of the work and a comment about how that work mentioned Jesus.

The point is that "non-Christian works" were cited by the Christians.

ynquirer

Not by Suetonius, certainly. J.J. Rolfe's translation reads:

• He devised a new form for the buildings of the city and in front of the houses and apartments be erected porches, from the flat roofs of which fires could be fought [This was undoubtedly after the great fire - translator‘s note]; and these he put up at his own cost. He had also planned to extend the walls as far as Ostia and to bring the sea from there to Rome by a canal. During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food, the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city. (My bold type, y.)
  
  Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars - Nero, XVI.

The paragraph lists in good reforms by Nero. The fire of Rome and other abuses attributed to him are listed in in a subsequent paragraph. Thus, the punishment inflicted on the Christians is shown to be good policy against a new and mischievous superstition.

Does anyone know about the history of extant versions of Suetonius?

TedM

You are correct. However, the relevant citings for the argument from silence with regard to the TF's ORIGINAL existance number 13, according to the cite by Roger Pearce that I mentioned in my last post. He concluded that none of them were provided much support for the argument from silence:


It appears to me that he is basing his conclusion on the contexts in question. In addition I would think that ALL other writings by the same author in which a reference to the TF would be helpful should be considered also.

ted

Wads4

I can understand him not mentioning John the Baptist,-- but Jesus, the Light and Saviour of the World, and God Incarnate? I would have thought that anybody able to write would have made a note of it.

Wads4

I have always considered that Jesus was consciously playing a part, maybe Elijah, designed to re-live the OT alleged prophecies,--"in order that the prophecies might be fulfilled". I think this kind of reverse-engineering of prophecy-fulfillment is cheating.

jakejonesiv

“Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.” Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars, The Life of Nero.

This bland statement of “good policy” is a far cry from the astonishing claims made in Tacitus Annals 15:44.

“Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestianos by the populace. …. So an arrest was made of all who confessed (fatebantur);
then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race.
Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames. These served to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus”

This fits with the church’s masochistic obsession with the cult of martyrs
(often pornographic) of a later period; an immense multitude, exquisite tortures, mockery, animal skins, torn to shreds by beasts, nailed to crosses, human torches, exhibited Nero’s garden. All this hyperbole & that the alleged tortures are the result of Christian confession betrays the Christian authorship of the text.

Jake Jones IV