gnosis92

That we would expect to talk about Jesus and whose authorship and factual accuracy reasonable scholars would agree?

Some contenders and problems:
1- Josephus, wrote after the Second Temple

2- Philo, lived in Alexandria, Egypt. I have not read Philo, but I understand he mentions Pilate, though I do not know if they are first hand or second hand accounts. LIkely second if he lived in Alexandria.

3- the Dead Sea Scrolls, unknown authors, mostly Old Testament documents except Ester. Unknown if Essene, Sadducees, Pharisees, or "other". I have not read the Dead Sea scrolls but do they mention Pontious Pilate, Caiphus or John the Baptist?

From what I've read in wiki, we have no documents from any Pharisee or Saducee or Essene (which is beyond dispute) in this period (the Talmud being written down much later).

We know John the Baptist and Caiphas the high priest existed, and Pontius Pilate, and we have no documents produced by them, nor contemporary to them either both in location and time, unless you can give some counterexamples.

I ask since it seems unreasonable to me to for Christ-mythicists to demand for evidence for which the historical era has produced very little extant documents. (And the documents it has produced clearly stated Jesus was a person of history).

Malachi151

There is also Justus of Tiberius, who was from Galilee and lived about the same time that Josephus did, i.e. right after Jesus. He wrote a history that covered the 2nd temple period and up to about 100 CE.

Philo's knowledge of Judea under Pilate is pretty detailed, plus he was the grandson of Herod the Great and personally knew all the Kings of Judea, Agrippa and Antipas, etc. He was also a donor to the Temple, had other relatives in government, and personally traveled to Jerusalem and Rome at least once each.

A summary here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar..._history.htm#8

gnosis92

I'll wiki Justus of Tiberia. Maybe even email Ehrman

He presumably did not write of Jesus.

Does he write about other NT characters we know existed like Pilate, John the Baptist, James, Paul, Caiphus, etc? How well does his account match up with Josephus and secular history (and vice versa). For example, there are significant discrepancies between Josephus account of Massada and modern archaelogy of the site. (Though there is no doubt over the basic story of a Roman siege of Jewish position there).

As for Philo, ok so he wrote about Pilate. Is there a reason for him to write about Jesus? I've not read Philo, but did he write about John the Baptist or other itnernate preachers?

Toto

I just posted this about Justus in another thread: check these links.

Justus did not mention Jesus; that is probably why his history was not preserved by Christian scribes. Justus and Josephus were opponents in Jewish politics, and wrote from opposing points of view, but were clearly talking about the same events.

aa5874

Flavius Josephus was born c. 37CE, and his writings which were as late as c. 94 CE, include 'Antiquities of the Jews', 'Wars of the Jews' and 'The life of Flavius Josephus'. Josephus' writings are important because he lived during the period when events written in the book of Acts were supposed to have occured.

Josephus did not mention any thousands of followers who were converted to the doctrine of the Christ, he did not write about any person or persons carrying out miracles in the middle of the streets or of any mass conversion of Pharisees and Jews to a new religion that shunned circumcision and obediance to Mosaic Laws.

Josephus did not write about any prosecution or persecution of followers of the Christ, or any house to house campaign, as recorded in Acts, to eradictate these followers, nor did he write about the notorius Saul, the Pharisee.

In effect, Josephus, a Pharisee did not corroborate the book of Acts.

Philo Judaeus, c.20 BCE-50CE, is important because he lived during the so-called life of the Christ.
Philo did not write anything about the Christ or his thousands of followers. He did not write about any conflict of the Pharisees and Saducess with any one bearing the name of the Christ or followers of the Christ. Philo did not record that the Christ was carrying out miracles anywhere, and even raising the dead.

Philo did not write about the prosecution or persecution of the followers of the Christ or the crucifixtion of the Christ.

Philo does not corroboate the NT.

The writings of Josephus and Philo confirm or mention the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes, but it is extremely odd ,and should be investaged, that the entire NT does not mention a single word about the Essenes, nothing at all.

The NT wrote about conversions and conflicts with numerous sects with respesct to the teachings of the Christ, and wrote about healing of all manner of diseases from preists to the demon possesed, yet no Essenes was ever recorded as being healed, converted or being in conflict with the teachings of the Christ.

The Essenes was an admired sect due to its devotion to God and simple communal way of life, and this is written by Philo Judaeus in 'Apology of the Jews' :

Even Pliny the Elder c. 23CE-79CE, the Roman, did make note of the Essenes and even gave a geographical location of the abode of the Essenes, however he too, did not account for anyone known as the Christ, nor of any prosecution, persecution, house to house erradication, nor matyrdom of His followers.


What documents show that Jesus the Christ was a person of history in the 1st century CE? I have been on the IIDB board for almost 1 year now, and I have not seen a single document from any 1st century writer or historian that clearly shows that Jesus the Christ existed. Gnosis92 show me those documents.

mountainman

Besides the question already stated (ie: What documents are these?)
you will find that the only series of documents relating to the "history"
of christianity are those referred to by Eusebius, in the fourth century.

Ben C Smith

Whew! Good thing those scribes interpolated Josephus twice, so we would at least have him!

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

:banghead:

Notsri

Josephan scholar Steve Mason has argued vigorously against this commonly held view that Josephus was himself a Pharisee. You can find his views laid out online here, if you're interested.

S.C.Carlson

Thanks for mentioning that. I got too busy to follow up on that point earlier.

Stephen