Tristan Scott

As true as this is, I'm not sure how significant it is. What's the oldest manuscript of the Tanakh? 10th c. CE? I mean there are a few copies of the Septuagint dating before the common era, and other fragments, but these are of writings that we know existed in relative abundance for centuries BCE.

With the Jesus figure, if authentic, it is not really likely that anything would have been written about him during his ministry as it is claimed to have taken place in rural areas of Galilee. Writing in these areas at this time would have been a very expensive rarity. Most information among these people was related solely by word of mouth.

Anyway, IMO it is not significant in the argument for a historic Jesus that there was nothing written contemporary to his ministry, nor that nothing written shortly after this has not survived. OTOH not having anything contemporary written about details, like the baptism story, makes it silly to claim such details as "historic facts".

Juststeve

Avi:

No first century documents but so what. We have no copies of Plato's dialogues dating from his lifetime yet few argue that they weren't written by Plato during his life time. Why is that? Perhaps because the existence of Plato isn't as threatening as the existence of Jesus is to some.

Now why do some find it necessary to argue for the negative proposition relating to the HJ? That'ws an interesting question. I have no difficulty accommodating the existence of the man Jesus within my atheistic world view. It seems some do.

Steve

Toto

The existence of a historical Jesus is not threatening to anyone. Why do you continually disparage others' motives?

Most mythicists have gone back and forth on whether there is a historical core to the Jesus story, but the evidence for such a person is lacking.

avi

I am not sure....
Here is the oldest extant copy of Plato's Republic, (from the second century!!!).

I lack sufficient knowledge of the Greek texts from Qumran to know whether or not Aristotle or Plato are found there. So far as I am aware, all of the NagHammadi manuscripts are written in Coptic, not Greek.

So, Steve, you may have a valid criticism of my opinion about Plato, maybe I do take his existence on faith, rather than strict adherence to the notion that one must have documents authored by the person in question--Socrates???

Yeah, I have a two-faced philosophy, no doubt about it.

With regard to Socrates and Plato and Aristotle, we may not have documents from 300-400 BCE, but, we have commentary from people living then, about those three guys.

I am unaware of any credible source of information about JC by someone living at his time. What is much more damning, in my opinion, than the absence of attestation about him, by contemporaries, colleagues, and associates, aka apostles, is the absence of acknowledgement of JC, by a Jewish writer, who had been a contemporary of Pontius Pilate, living in the area in that epoch, and who was clearly in tune with religious and political events in Jerusalem--Philo of Alexandria.

The manuscript evidence from Tacitus/Suetonius, and Josephus seems, at least to me, to have been falsified. Perhaps I err, and display, again, a double standard, but to me, it is crystal clear that Josephus has been edited/created by one or more Christians, in the third or fourth centuries, or both.

But even if their accounts had not been trampled, those guys didn't live in 30 CE.....They were writing about someone, real or mythical, who had been dead, before their births. Yeah, I could write about Theodore Roosevelt, but, would that make me a contemporary of him?

Can you reconcile the failure of Philo to discuss JC, with an understanding of the significance of his writings? Is there any other, acknowledged historical figure from that era, who had ALSO been ignored by Philo? Perhaps one can impeach Philo's failure to discuss JC, by showing that he similarly failed to cite contributions of other important folks as well, not just JC......

Conversely, are there other, rather less well known, figures from his era, residents of Jerusalem, or Galilee, or Lebanon, but who ARE described, by Philo? If true, this would tend to support the notion that JC is a myth.

avi

aa5874

What you write is NOT really logical.

Anyone familiar with the 1st century writings of Philo and Josephus can show that these writers WROTE about Mad men, false prophets, the PREDICTION of a Messianic ruler, and that Jews did NOT worship men as Gods.

Philo wrote about Carabbas, and Josephus wrote about Jesus the Son of Ananus both appear to be or was believed to be Mad men.

You seem to have forgotten that the Gospels and the Pauline writings are ASSUMED to have been written in the 1st century and that it is because those sources are UNRELIABLE why we are looking for credible sources.

The very claim that books and Epistles in the NT were written in the 1st century SEEKS to destroy your assumption.

So, when did "Paul" write all the Epistles where he mentioned Jesus Christ over 100 times?

When did the author of gMark write his Jesus story?

"Paul" claimed Jesus Christ was the End of the Law and supposedly traveled ALL over the Roman Empire preaching and teaching his doctrine.Such claim about Jesus has serious implications for Jews.

It must have been EXPECTED that people would write about Jesus a Jewish Messiah if he did actually exist and that is EXACTLY why we have a NT Canon and forgeries falsely attempting to show that people of the 1st century wrote about Jesus.

aa5874

Why are you annoyed when people disagree with your position? Don't you even understand that even SCHOLARS and EXPERTS disagree about the nature of Jesus?

People can argue whatever position they want.

Why do you find it necessary to argue that there was an historical Jesus using UNRELIABLE sources?

I have difficulty accommodating Myth fables as sources of history especially when there is ZERO corroboration for HJ of Nazareth.

Being an atheist is NOT evidence for HJ.

Tristan Scott

I'm sorry, I think you may have misunderstood what I posted. I was referring to the fact that there are no writings about Jesus that are contemporary to his ministry. All of the writings you are referring to are subsequent to that time. Also, I was discussing actual 1st centurymanuscripts, and I don't believe that any manuscripts of the first century writings about Jesus exist either, including Paul's epistles.

Anyway, I could be wrong, but if you know of anything that was written about Jesus at the time of his ministry, or of any first century manuscripts referring to Jesus (I think thats where the thread was at) that have been discovered, I'd be interested in knowing about them.

aa5874

Well, you seem to not understand what I wrote.

You claimed that...... "the Jesus figure, if authentic, it is not really likely that anything would have been written about him during his ministry as it is claimed to have taken place in rural areas of Galilee.....

Your claim appears to be erroneous. If Jesus was the expected Jewish Messiah then we would EXPECT the Jews and even Romans to write about him.

The very Church made erroneous claims about the dating and authorship of the Entire NT Canon to fulfill the expectation that people would have written about Jesus if he did exist and was BELIEVED to be a Jewish Messiah.

It is because it was expected that people would have written about Jesus if he did exist as a Jewish Messiah that we have forgeries in the writings of Josephus and false claims about the dating and authorship of the NT.

After the Jewish Temple fell, Josephus did write about an OBSCURE LONER, named Jesus son of Ananus, whom he REMEMBERED predicted the calamities of the Jews.

The writings of Josephus SHOW that even if Jesus of Nazareth was an OBSCURE LONER and Mad Man that Jewish writers could have written about him.

Tristan Scott

Sure. But I'm not claiming that now am I? You do not appear to have a clue as to what I am postulating, and I'm sorry I do not have the patience to try to explain it to you any further. You seem to be hell bent on having some kind of debate, where there is none.

Minimalist

No. he's talking about 1st century documents and insisting that they must have existed.