Javaman

Iasion's list is a good compliment to Pearse's from this thread:
The Remsberg list of early writers who failed to mention Jesus - improved

freigeister

Well, yes, they were. The whole history of the Christian religion is wrapped up with the marginalization of Jewish outlooks on Jesus. The Ebionites were an embarrassing remnant of authentic early Christianity that people like Irenaeus wanted to wipe out.

My main point, though, is that the idea of a purely human Jesus was not an invention of the Enlightenment, but is of ancient standing. By mentioning it, even if only to criticize it, Irenaeus provides us with evidence of the early existence of the idea of a purely human Jesus.

Wallener

Gotcha. Sorry, I completely mistook the intent of your post.

fta

Christian apologists assure us that the "Ebionites" were johnny-come-lately heretics: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnazonly.html

Iasion

Greetings Javaman,

Thank you :-)

The original is here :

The list of early writers who failed to mention Jesus

Iasion

Iasion

Greetings,

Readers may be interested in my analysis of the usual list of suspects -


JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)

An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm


In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)


But,
its COULD be actual evidence for Jesus. late, corrupt, but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.

Such is the weakness of the evidence that this suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.



TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millenium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)


Thus, even if the Tacitus passage is not a later interpolation,
it is not evidence of a historical Jesus based on earlier Roman records,
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)



PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny refered to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.


So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "good") and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was,
* Jesus was never said to have lead the Jews in Rome into trouble during Claudius' time.

So, this passage is unlikely to refer to Jesus of Nazareth at all - I am surprised that this obviously un-related passage is cited so often.



CLEMENT (late 1st)

Clement was a prominant early church father, but :
* he does NOT mention a historical Jesus,
* NOR any mention of the Gospels or their events,
* merely a couple of SAYINGS attributed to Jesus
(along with many specific references to OT scripture and Paul.)

So,
Clement is no evidence for a historical Jesus, indeed seems to know nothing about Jesus or the Gospel events.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon said anything about Gospel events.

So,
Phlegon is NO evidence for Jesus at all - merely Christian wishful thinking.


THALLUS date unknown

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote,
there are NONE of Thallus works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely refered to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a mis-reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html

So,
Thallus is NO evidence for Jesus at all - merely Christian wishful thinking.



IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.

So,
Ignatius MAY be a 2nd century reference to a few details about Jesus, but the date is not certain (130s or 170s are possiblities.)



QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted centuries later.

So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.



VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.

So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.


JUSTIN MARTYR (c.150CE)


Justin wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he quotes "memoirs of the apostles" ("called Gospels")
* these memoirs are NOT yet named for the evangelists,
* these memoirs are DIFFERENT to our modern Gospels,

So,
Justin quotes un-named proto-Gospels,
but
provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.

So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but
provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.



LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.

So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus.



TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are variant and quite different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)

So,
the Talmud contains later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories,
but
the Talmud contains NO evidence for a historical Jesus.



MARA BAR SERAPION 3rd century? later?

A fragment which says -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.

It is NOT at all clear who this is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.



GALEN

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.

This is far too late to be evidence.



NUMENIUS

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name"

This not any evidnce for Jesus, its 3rd century wishful thinking.



SUMMARY

So, whilst that list of alleged citations to a historical Jesus may have looked impressive to those who didn't know the details, in fact they turned out to be very weak indeed - to summarise :

* an interpolated or forged passage (JOSEPHUS)

* a first century Christian father who mentions NOTHING about a historical Jesus or the Gospel events, merely some sayings (CLEMENT)

* a 2nd century passage, at best a late reference to Christian beliefs (TACITUS)

* a 2nd century reference to Christians beliefs, not Jesus (PLINY)

* a reference to someone else entirely (SUETONIUS)

* a made-up reference (THALLUS)

* a few tiny details in a suspect, probably forged, 2nd century corpus from (at least) 75 years after the alleged events (IGNATIUS)

* a writer of uncertain date from whom we have a SINGLE SENTENCE cited centuries later (QUADRATUS)

* a mid 2nd century Gnostic view about an esoteric Jesus (VALENTINUS)

* a mid 2nd century work which quotes un-named proto-Gospels called "memoirs of the apostles" (JUSTIN)

* a mid 2nd century writer who merely knew some sayings of Jesus (POLYCARP)

* a late 2nd century reference to Christians, not Jesus (LUCIAN)

* some 3rd century Jewish polemic (TALMUD)



None of these references are contemporary, most of them contain no reference to a historical Jesus anyway - and the few that do are all suspect or far too late.

Such is the "evidence" for Jesus.


Iasion

ecco

I know it's probably been posted in these forums many times but I'll ask anyway. What are the probable dates for the writings of the gospels?

Tybalt

I have yet to find any actual evidence of a man called Jesus of Nazerith, however, if such a man did exist, he would of been king of the Jews or so I am told. My sources however, arn't that knowledgable on the subject.

Diogenes the Cynic

The generally accepted ballparks are as follows:

Mark: c. 70 CE
Matthew: sometime in the 80's
Luke: mid to late 90's (or possibly early 100s)
John: c. 100-120 CE

Some will argue for much later dates and traditionalists still try to argue (against all evidence and scholarly consensus) that all the Gospels were written before 70 CE, but the above is pretty much the range of dates which most NT scholars currently work with.

freigeister

Thanks for the link: very informative.

To be absolutely meticulous about our terminology, we should call the common people with whom Christ associated am haaretz.