Steven Carr

Gosh, I remember the Chuch Times in England (not exactly a sceptical publication) saying that the Handbook was no more than docetic piety.

lpetrich

Thallus and Phlegon are commonly cited as independent sources on the crucifixion darkening, but Richard Carrier disposes of those two gentlemen as sources. The 9th-century monk Syncellus quoting the 3rd-century chronicler Julius Africanus:However, this "most dreadful darkness" that "fell over the whole world" was not seen by anyone else, including Pliny the Elder, whose Natural History was full of such oddities.

I've seen someone maintain that with a very straight face, while maintaining that the Gospels are accurate history.

Sure. As I'd posted earlier, one ought to check if some historian would have been familiar with the Jerusalem neighborhood ca. 30-35 CE. Philo and Josephus both qualify; are those the only two?

But it seems to me that the crucifixion miracles ought to have been better-known, because they are so spectacular. So we ought to ask who might be interested in oddities like that. Pliny the Elder had certainly been interested; who else?

JPHolding tries to be cute, but to me, at least, he comes off as immature and snickering. Article names like "Julie's River Run" about Richard Carrier on Julius Caesar's Rubicon crossing vs. Jesus Christ's resurrection.

andrewcriddle

At the time Philo wrote about them the Essenes were almost certainly a much larger group than the Christians. however Eusebius did not confuse Philo's account of the Essenes with Early Christianity but his account of the Therapeutae an otherwise unknown group known to Philo because of its Egyptian location.
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...lo/book34.html

Philo does mention thingsh appening in Palestine but not very often. His silence about Jesus and Christianity is quite compatible with some vague knowlege about the subject.

It is unlikely however that Philo had any knowledge of Johannine Christology (ie the application of the Logos concept to Christ) or even of Wisdom type Christology as found in other NT passages.

Andrew Criddle

B_Sharp

This site:
Early Evidence makes the case that Christ was poorly referenced in history. His assumption is incorrect that a strong mention is based solely upon time and place while ignoring bias. Philo Judaeus lived in the same time and place but he fails to mention that religion is competitive, and Philo wrote about his religion. A religion would either ignore or disparage it's competition.

The opposite of his claim is more valid. That is, out of 65 authors at the time, Jesus was referenced 5 times: Pliny, Lucian, Galen, etc per this site. 5 out of 65 historical sources are very good mentions, even though only a couple are around 100 AD.

Historians: can't live with them, can't live without them.

IMO One problem is that historians are incorrectly skilled in the 'Arts' instead of preferable the "Sciences". The many far left historians are proof that their 'Arts' education is a failure at organizing ideas eg like economic principles. They have access to the same data we all do. But they cannot think well. Poor grasp of technology, science, economics and epistimology. Cannot cut the curriculum, switch to Liberal Arts. Poorer math skills, lack of decomposing ideas. It is rare to find a historian who can organize thoughts and ideas. I would love to see JUST ONE well organized book or writings on historical issues like these. Just one. That is my opinion rant. I stand by it. IMAO :wave:

Amaleq13

It is more accurate to call these references to Christians than to Jesus. Pliny never mentions "Jesus" and, based on the passages quoted on that site, neither did Galen. Lucian is described as having "alluded to Jesus" but I don't recall whether the name is actually used.

Considering references to "Christ" to qualify as references to a historical Jesus begs the question entirely.

Peter Kirby

There may be some truth to your rant, but not everyone who is a humanities major couldn't hack engineering or science--some, like me, just chose another path (though I will minor in math since I have so many classes already). I have found that writers with a strong background in historical studies AND with math and science are among the most respectable, in that they are thorough and don't go beyond the evidence (the scientific ethic). Stephen Carlson, for example. This doesn't lend to being the kind of people who popularize and try grand schemes, however.

And I'm also entirely unimpressed with the premise of Remsburg's list. The only significant (non-Christian) silence is that of Josephus (if it is such).

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

The name is not used, but Lucian inarguably refers to a human founder of the Christian sect. I can reproduce the citations from Selected Satires of Lucian (ed. Lionel Casson) if there is interest. But I suggest taking a gander at Lucian yourself ("you" generally)--he is great fun.

best,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13

One might also visit Mr. Kirby's website to read some Lucian here.

I would suggest that Lucian's reference, well as any other late mention, is better described as a reference to the Gospel stories or to Christian beliefs than a reference to Jesus.

Vorkosigan

Agreed; but I'd add Philo to that. Why don't you count Justus of Tiberias?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Hmmm..well, I come out of a history of technology background, so that hasn't been my experience.