Flaming Moe

I'm interested in the claim that 1st century historians make no mention of the NT characters; is this something that most Christians accept or is it a case that it is not necessary, because of regional limitations, to be concerned about?

Roger Pearse

A couple of obvious queries: Which first century historians are we discussing? And what precisely is the claim here that we are analysing?

(Always good to be clear).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

Again, you claim may not be true.

The assumed writings of the Hebrew Bible, commonly called the OT, is believed to have been preserved, probably hundreds of years, before any assumed writings of the NT.

Flaming Moe

Hi Roger, sorry for not clarifying.
I'm interested in the second post in this thread which is by 'Mountainman'. As someone who is not nearly as familiar with ancient historians and their works as most people here (though I'm an enthusiastic student!) I'm wondering if the claim that presumably refers to 'accepted' figures is something I can safely believe to be true; the claim being that no first century historians refer to the NT or its cast of characters.

spamandham

I wouldn't expect them to mention any of the NT characters (other than Pilate, Herod, etc.). Josephus does mention Jesus and also James, but one of those mentions of Jesus is an obvious later fraud, and the mention of James may be as well.

The emperor Julian, in Against the Galilaeans, wrote (in regard to Jesus and Paul):

But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.

Roger Pearse

No hassle. Appreciate the reply. But I have that poster on ignore, and have no interest in commenting on his posts.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

Shakespeare's plays were meant for performing more than reading. The printed texts are often dodgy. See Folios_and_Quartos_(Shakespeare) (The text of Shakespeare's poems is much better)

Andrew Criddle

storytime

Back in the days of my Christianity, the bible was the only authentic and accurate historical recording from history. After all, it was written with the finger of God. Inerrant, without contradictions, and never to be questioned. The Egyptians were the bad guys, the Assyrians were evil, and the Canaanites deserved to be slaughtered because God had decided who should live and who should die. Not much has changed, if anything at all. And as generational sin excuses God in all his murderous actions, we all deserve to die. "Should the clay say to the potter, why have you made me so?" Some people are damned, some are not. And Jesus saves all. :jump:

mountainman

As far as I am able to determine this claim is true, since most ancient historians (nb: I am not talking about "Biblical Historians" here) are able to cite a large number of silent witnesses (ie: historians and other writers in the first century who did not mention anything), and in general, the references in Josephus are considered to be interpolations from a subsequent century by a christian hand. The first century is silent. What people have not yet realised is that the second and third centuries are just as mute, with respect to the evidence, and with respect to the two extant NT related carbon dating citations.

A good introduction to this (C14 aside) is Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus by Arthur Drews (1912).

Best wishes,


Pete

Doug Shaver

That much is almost true. The first-century secular record, with the debateable exception of Josephus, shows no evidence that anybody at the time was aware of any religion like Christianity or of any of its principle people.

I think that because Josephus is suspect, he should not be counted as evidence for anything related to Christianity, but many respectable historians think otherwise.

Mountainman's take on evidence from the second and subsequent centuries is definitely not a generally "accepted" position.