Toto

Lucius mentions unspecified Christians in passing, as part of his satire. This sort of casual mention is usually more likely to be trustworthy evidence, since it is not part of some contrived apologetic text.

Please stop pretending that anyone has ever argued that this evidence has to be taken as absolutely reliable as if it were engraved in stone. If you want to play this game, at least learn the rules.

Duvduv

Well you know that everyone has different rules. Some believe that anything said by the man called Eusebius about Christian history is the gospel truth.
And in this case at hand it's supposed to mean something that it mentions Christians around Palestine so early.

la70119

If you read it carefully, you would realise just how stupid and gullible Lucian considered the Christians of his day. He has a few more zingers agsinst them in de Morte Peregrini, section 13. He also makes a mention of them in another one of his works, Alexander the False Prophet.

la70119

13. “Indeed, people came even from the cities in Asia, sent by the Christians at their common expense, to succour and defend and encourage the hero. They show incredible speed whenever any such public action is taken; for in no time they lavish their all. So it was then in the case of Peregrinus; much money came to him from them by reason of his imprisonment, and he procured not a little revenue from it. The poor wretches have convinced themselves, first and foremost, that they are going to be immortal and live for all time, in consequence of which they despise death and even willingly give themselves into custody; most of them. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once, for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws. Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definite evidence. So if any charlatan and trickster, able to profit by occasions, comes among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing upon simple folk."

la70119

Even more viciously, for "crucified" herein, Lucian uses none other than conjugates of the verb ἀνασκολοπίζω, "impale, fix on a pole [as in heads on pikes]."

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...section=13&i=1

Toto

No one, but no one, in the modern world thinks that Eusebius wrote the gospel truth. Opinions differ on exactly how gullible or incompetent he was.

It is not a good idea to just make stuff up.

Duvduv

Yes and I would agree that writings carrying his name include made up history. But when tracking history more often than not academics fall back on him and the others because usually they want to preserve the idea of some kind of Christianity originating in the second century as helped along by the ancient church writers.

aa5874

Again, it is NOT expected that an Interpolator would NOT even write the name of "the man" that was crucified.

Death of Peregrine Apologetic writers did NOT claim Jesus was a man but the Son of God without a human father so it is unlikely that "Death of Peregrine" was manipulated.

la70119

Indeed, you are completely right. And furthermore it is not expected that an interpolator would use ἀνασκολοπίζω, a verb denoting impalement, to refer to the man's crucifixion. An interpolator would have used conjugates of σταυρόω, which solely means "crucify" when encountered in the NT.

Toto

Eusebius wrote that Christianity originated in the first century.

Please think before you post.