Soul Invictus

I've been trying to familiarize myself with any and all accounts of Jesus. I am familiar with Josephus's very minor mention of him in the Antiquities. I have also read that this is an unreliable source because it is a forgery. I am looking for source data on that claim.

I am wondering about the quality of the accounts of other contemporary historians.

1) What is/are the discussions/positions that support the veracity of any of the accounts?
2) What discussions/positions provide for the criticism of the inferiority of any of the accounts?

I submit the following persons, and I would be interested in reading about more people if I am forgetting someone.

Celsus
Origen
Tacitus
Josephus
Philo

DCHindley

Aren't you forgetting Suetonius?

I would think a Google search should produce a nice cross section of opinions.

Celsus accepted Jesus as historical, but also thought his followers had "gilded the lilly" in what they attributed to him. Of course, his Jesus was no lilly white flower, but a ruffian bandit.

Origen accepted the church's teachings, with the added twist of rationalizing them (when they seemed self contradictory) into a coherent system he could sign off on.

Tacitus and Suetonius both referred to Christians and in passing mention who/what they, good Romans of the elite classes, understood the founder of the group to have been.

Josephus, IMHO, knew nothing of Jesus. While a lot of effort has been devoted to discerning a historical core in the "testimonium" I think is was all a pious gloss. As for the account about James, the "Jesus" who was his brother was the former High Priest killed by the revolutionary party during the Jewish rebellion. If you check closely, you will find that Josephus said of this Jesus (the HP) that it was on account of his death that God doomed the city of Jerusalem.

I'm not sure why Philo was on this list. He flourished roughly in Jesus' time and a little later, and says nothing about him, but why should he? Unless something affected Alexandrian Jews, he couldn't have cared less I don't think.

Dave

Toto

Search the archives here for discussions of Tacitus.

For Josephus, read Peter Kirby's exhaustive commenet on the Testimonium

Neither of these sources is "contemporary" - just closer than the others.

Roger Pearse

I'm not sure that classical scholars disregard all the testimony of Tacitus and Suetonius on the reign of Tiberius on this ground.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Vorkosigan

Soul, there are some good resources collected at Peter Kirby's Early Christian Writings, which I am sure you know of.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

neilgodfrey

There are three works discussing the different sources in neat packages. One is F.F.Bruce's Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (1974). It was recommended to me as essential reading some years ago by an academic so I went out of my way to get a hold of it, and lost some respect for that academic's recommendations as a result. I have posted warnings and complaints about the shoddiness and apologetic nature of this popular and "scholarly recommendation" here.

Another more recent work is Robert E. Van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament (2000). It does place a more accomplished spin on the same material and cites a more interesting array of related discussions and views.

But The Historical Jesus (1996) by Theissen and Merz is one of the most thorough and easy to read set of notes on Christian (chapter 2) and non-Christian (chapter 3) sources. Each chapter lists the main questions and arguments, with citations, that have been presented on each of the sources.

Theissen and Merz list among the non-Christian sources:

Josephus (including Slavonic)
Rabbinic sources
Mara bar Sarapion
Pliny the Younger
Tacitus
Suetonius
Thallus

Voorst discusses in additon to these:

Lucian of Samosata
Celsus
The Toledot Yeshu

As for the Christian sources they look at not only some of the Fathers but noncanonical gospels and possible sources of the canonical gospels.


Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

pavlos

hope these help

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

Yes,
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 Origin 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 refer to Jesis, son of Damneus.

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.)


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) 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.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred 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.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), 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.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html


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 is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html


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 referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false 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 evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


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 actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


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.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html


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.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html


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, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for 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 highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak...es/intalmud.htm


MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

A fragment which includes -
"... 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 WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.



Miracles?
The early Christians knew of NO miracles -

Paul - no miracles mentioned
Peter - no miracles mentioned
Hebrews - no miracles mentioned
John - no miracles mentioned
Jude - no miracles mentioned
James - no miracles mentioned
Clement - no miracles mentioned
Pastorals - no miracles mentioned

The first mention of any "miracles" is over a CENTURY after they allegedly occured.

Jesus is not mentioned in history.

Jesus' miracles are not mentioned in history.

Jesus' miracles are not even mentioned in CHRISTIAN writings until mid 2nd century.
http://qdj.50megs.com/Table.html


The Gospels

are dated by scholars to 65-120 or so - and none of them were written by the person whose name they bear - they were originally ANONYMOUS and only named in the 1800s.

But no CHRISTIAN writer mentions the Gospels or their contents until early-mid 2nd century.

NOT ONE of the NT books was written by anyone who met any historical Jesus

* Celsus calling the Gospels FICTION based on MYTH.
* Porphyry calling the evangelists INVENTORS.
* Julian saying the Gospels were FABRICATED.



Clear evidence it's all myth.

thanks pavlos

Chili

For sure, but nicely woven by those crestos workers in Rome." Myth is real in both truth and in beauty but not in history and that is precisely where Christians are trying to built their faith on.

The early Christians were those who walked away from the first transubstantiation in John 6:66 and they now serve Christians to show that they have Apostolic Tradition on the anathema side of the Church. Yet the transubstantiation is real and that makes Christians today as wrong as they ever were.

andrewcriddle

AFAIK there is no reference to Jesus or Christianity whatsoever in Philo.
(Who was based in Egypt and who probably died sometime in the 40s CE.)

Andrew Criddle

Minimalist

Philo wrote a complaint (the Embassy to Gaius (Caligula)) in which he devoted an entire paragraph to complaining about Pontius Pilate's behavior in Jerusalem. He lists his crimes and arrogance but never makes reference to crucifying someone who "multitudes" hailed as the messiah.

Surely, if these stories were current around 40 AD Philo would have mentioned them as the very act of having someone who Pilate killed be "resurrected" would have been the surest form of divine disapproval of Pilate's action.

Alas....nary a word is written.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...lo/book40.html