Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-10-2010, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Excuse me: initially, neither Bacht nor show_no_mercy were addressing whether or not any of the Christian texts were contemporary or not (they are not, clearly). They were saying that the only texts of any kind are Christian texts. ...

What exactly did they say? There are all sorts of nuances and qualifications that can make a statement strictly true or not.

For most NT scholars concerned about the historical Jesus, the only texts that they analyse are the gospels. They might refer to Tacitus or Josephus, but the amount of information in the non-Christian texts is vanishingly small, approaching zero.

bacht · 06-11-2010, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't have time right now to track down the original statement that set you off, but it sounds like we can all agree that there are no contemporary non-Christian or Christian texts that mention Jesus, and that there are later non-Christian texts that refer to Jesus, although none of them are overwhelmingly convincing to a critical historian.

Excuse me: initially, neither Bacht nor show_no_mercy were addressing whether or not any of the Christian texts were contemporary or not (they are not, clearly). They were saying that the only texts of any kind are Christian texts. Now, that is just plain wrong and a little reflection on their parts would remind tham of the non-Christian ones.

There are both Christian and non-Christian texts of roughly the same (later) generation. To say there are only Christian texts in such a context is plainly misleading, and it is pure sophistry to suggest otherwise, and it is clear evasion not to address that sole point. Not a single response here has.

Chaucer

You seem to be arguing a pretty fine point here. Yes there are the Roman references you gave, and no one disputes that they have relevance to early Christianity. But I don't see how you can compare, say, Pliny's correspondence to the Gospel of Mark. The latter is obviously a highly developed theological text preserved by Catholics for doctrinal reasons. Pliny doesn't even know who exactly he is dealing with, and what exactly their beliefs are.

There's also the possibility that the pagan texts were altered to remove offensive or confusing references. Wasn't all classical literature filtered through later Christian hands? From the few scraps that were preserved it seems that there were very few pagan notices of early Christianity that could be saved. Of course some critical texts may have been deliberately destroyed.

As you know there are others here with detailed knowledge of the textual history and transmission. I'm only a generalist.

aa5874 · 06-11-2010, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Excuse me: initially, neither Bacht nor show_no_mercy were addressing whether or not any of the Christian texts were contemporary or not (they are not, clearly). They were saying that the only texts of any kind are Christian texts. Now, that is just plain wrong and a little reflection on their parts would remind tham of the non-Christian ones.

There are both Christian and non-Christian texts of roughly the same (later) generation. To say there are only Christian texts in such a context is plainly misleading, and it is pure sophistry to suggest otherwise, and it is clear evasion not to address that sole point. Not a single response here has.

Chaucer

You seem to be arguing a pretty fine point here. Yes there are the Roman references you gave, and no one disputes that they have relevance to early Christianity. But I don't see how you can compare, say, Pliny's correspondence to the Gospel of Mark. The latter is obviously a highly developed theological text preserved by Catholics for doctrinal reasons. Pliny doesn't even know who exactly he is dealing with, and what exactly their beliefs are...

Pliny's letters to Trajan about Christians deals a serious blow to the theory that there were early Jesus believers and that Jesus believers were ALREADY in ROME up to 50 years before Pliny when he himself LIVED, STUDIED and WORKED in ROME.

Pliny had to torture some "Christians" to find out what they believed and yet not one mentioned JESUS.

It is most incredible that the supposed Paul preached in Rome and traveled all over the Roman Empire, supposedly help to spread the Gospel of Jesus with churches and converts and that Pliny was completely UNAWARE of JESUS.

It is clear from the Pliny letters that there were Christians who did NOT BELIEVE in JESUS perhaps similar to Octavius in "Municius Felix" Octavius, Theophilus and Athenagoras.

The Pliny letters tend to destroy the early JESUS story.

The Pliny letters are another piece of evidence that augment the theory that the Jesus story was NOT established in the 1st century but perhaps very early in the 2nd century.

Chaucer · 06-12-2010, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Excuse me: initially, neither Bacht nor show_no_mercy were addressing whether or not any of the Christian texts were contemporary or not (they are not, clearly). They were saying that the only texts of any kind are Christian texts. Now, that is just plain wrong and a little reflection on their parts would remind tham of the non-Christian ones.

There are both Christian and non-Christian texts of roughly the same (later) generation. To say there are only Christian texts in such a context is plainly misleading, and it is pure sophistry to suggest otherwise, and it is clear evasion not to address that sole point. Not a single response here has.

Chaucer

You seem to be arguing a pretty fine point here. Yes there are the Roman references you gave, and no one disputes that they have relevance to early Christianity. But I don't see how you can compare, say, Pliny's correspondence to the Gospel of Mark.

You are discussing quality here. But you were discussing existence before. Nice try at obfuscation, but no cigar. These non-Christian texts do exist, and right before, you said they didn't. Make up your mind.

It's not brain surgery. My objection is not subtle. Either these non-Christian texts -- tainted or not -- exist or they don't. You say here they do. Guess what? You're right. Before, you said they don't. So did show_no_mercy. Guess what? You were both wrong.

But don't feel bad. You were merely joining the dozens of other mythers who have ignorantly bought the big lie manufactured by some Netters of the past few years that these non-Christian texts don't exist. A big lie is believed if said often enough and loudly enough and ruthlessly enough. It starts out as a ruthless tactic and ends up as a meme. See WMD in Iraq. It's the fault of those who peddle sheer fantasy to people like you already predisposed to accept big lies any way they can get it. Cf. fundamentalist Christianity. And emotional bias.

Chaucer

aa5874 · 06-12-2010, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

You seem to be arguing a pretty fine point here. Yes there are the Roman references you gave, and no one disputes that they have relevance to early Christianity. But I don't see how you can compare, say, Pliny's correspondence to the Gospel of Mark.

You are discussing quality here. But you were discussing existence before. Nice try at obfuscation, but no cigar. These non-Christian texts do exist, and right before, you said they didn't. Make up your mind.

It's not brain surgery. My objection is not subtle. Either these non-Christian texts -- tainted or not -- exist or they don't. You say here they do. Guess what? You're right. Before, you said they don't. So did show_no_mercy. Guess what? You were both wrong.

But don't feel bad. You were merely joining the dozens of other mythers who have ignorantly bought the big lie manufactured by some Netters of the past few years that these non-Christian texts don't exist. A big lie is believed if said often enough and loudly enough and ruthlessly enough. It starts out as a ruthless tactic and ends up as a meme. See WMD in Iraq. It's the fault of those who peddle sheer fantasy to people like you already predisposed to accept big lies any way they can get it. Cf. fundamentalist Christianity. And emotional bias.

Chaucer

But, now can you give the LIST of non-Christian texts that mentioned JESUS?

Please do not include the forgeries in Josephus.

On second thoughts, include the forgeries so that you can get a LIST.

Huon · 06-12-2010, 07:37 AM

Here is the beginning of the list needed by Chaucer. It contains only the names of the authors who, possibly, are of interest to Chaucer :

Josephus (c.96CE)
Tacitus (c.112CE)
Pliny the Younger (c.112CE)
Suetonius (c.115CE)
Ignatius (107CE? 130-170CE?)
Quadratus (c.125CE)
Thallus (date unknown)
Phlegon (c.140)
Valentinus (c.140CE)
Polycarp (c.155CE)
Lucian (c.170CE)
Galen (late 2nd C.)
Numenius (2nd C.?)
Talmud (3rd C. and later)
The Acts of Pilate (3rd, 4th C.)
Mara bar Serapion (date unknown)

If some of them are accepted by Chaucer, we shall be able to begin a discussion.

Toto · 06-12-2010, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

You seem to be arguing a pretty fine point here. Yes there are the Roman references you gave, and no one disputes that they have relevance to early Christianity. But I don't see how you can compare, say, Pliny's correspondence to the Gospel of Mark.

You are discussing quality here. But you were discussing existence before. Nice try at obfuscation, but no cigar. These non-Christian texts do exist, and right before, you said they didn't. Make up your mind.

It's not brain surgery. My objection is not subtle. Either these non-Christian texts -- tainted or not -- exist or they don't. You say here they do. Guess what? You're right. Before, you said they don't. So did show_no_mercy. Guess what? You were both wrong.

<snip emotional drama>

Chaucer

In the interests of accuracy, this is what was said:

bacht wrote (post 87)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I'll make a general point: Jesus was ignored both by contemporary Romans as well as Jews (as you know the Josephus passages are controversial). Only Christian writers recorded any of the alleged events during and after Jesus' earthly career.

Which you misquoted in post 88

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

there's only Christian literature to work with

I'm sorry, Bacht, this is simply incorrect. It's perfectly fine to view the non-Christian texts as problematic or whatever if you wish to. Fine. But it's not correct to say that such texts don't even exist.

just so you could ride your hobby horse about these mythical internet posters who float the idea that no pagan source ever wrote about Jesus - when the original claim is true - no contemporary pagan source wrote about Jesus.

avi · 06-12-2010, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Here is the beginning of the list needed by Chaucer. It contains only the names of the authors who, possibly, are of interest to Chaucer :

Josephus (c.96CE)
Tacitus (c.112CE)
Pliny the Younger (c.112CE)
Suetonius (c.115CE)
Ignatius (107CE? 130-170CE?)
Quadratus (c.125CE)
Thallus (date unknown)
Phlegon (c.140)
Valentinus (c.140CE)
Polycarp (c.155CE)
Lucian (c.170CE)
Galen (late 2nd C.)
Numenius (2nd C.?)
Talmud (3rd C. and later)
The Acts of Pilate (3rd, 4th C.)
Mara bar Serapion (date unknown)

If some of them are accepted by Chaucer, we shall be able to begin a discussion.

1. THANK YOU, very much, Huon, as usual, you have provided an EXCELLENT post, very useful, and very appropriate to the discussion. Great job.

2. I do take issue with one point, though. It is not Chaucer who must accept, or not accept, these authors. It is the forum as a whole. This issue is not really about Chaucer, is it? The issue is about credibility.

3. In my view, perhaps eccentrically so, the next step is to winnow this list down to the three-six references which withstand rigorous scrutiny, i.e. documentary evidence of non-tampering, no interpolation, no falsification, no fraud, no forgery. Do we have a method to ELIMINATE from this list of yours, those authors, whose extant works are so contaminated by subsequent generations of "christians" or other redactors, that the copies we possess today appear of an incredible or dubious nature?

Thanks again for your excellent travail. Much appreciated.

avi

aa5874 · 06-12-2010, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Here is the beginning of the list needed by Chaucer. It contains only the names of the authors who, possibly, are of interest to Chaucer :

Josephus (c.96CE)
Tacitus (c.112CE)
Pliny the Younger (c.112CE)
Suetonius (c.115CE)
Ignatius (107CE? 130-170CE?)
Quadratus (c.125CE)
Thallus (date unknown)
Phlegon (c.140)
Valentinus (c.140CE)
Polycarp (c.155CE)
Lucian (c.170CE)
Galen (late 2nd C.)
Numenius (2nd C.?)
Talmud (3rd C. and later)
The Acts of Pilate (3rd, 4th C.)
Mara bar Serapion (date unknown)

If some of them are accepted by Chaucer, we shall be able to begin a discussion.

But, your list contains Christian sources like Ignatius, Polycarp, and Valentinus.

And, except for forgeries in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius did NOT write about JESUS.

Chaucer · 06-13-2010, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

You are discussing quality here. But you were discussing existence before. Nice try at obfuscation, but no cigar. These non-Christian texts do exist, and right before, you said they didn't. Make up your mind.

It's not brain surgery. My objection is not subtle. Either these non-Christian texts -- tainted or not -- exist or they don't. You say here they do. Guess what? You're right. Before, you said they don't. So did show_no_mercy. Guess what? You were both wrong.

<snip emotional drama>

Chaucer

In the interests of accuracy, this is what was said:

bacht wrote (post 87)

Which you misquoted in post 88

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

I'm sorry, Bacht, this is simply incorrect. It's perfectly fine to view the non-Christian texts as problematic or whatever if you wish to. Fine. But it's not correct to say that such texts don't even exist.

No, I did not misquote. That is a calumny -- whether intentional or not -- and I'm calling you on it. Here is the Bacht post that I subsequently quoted from and responded to --

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by sion

My apologies for the earlier emotional outburst. Perhaps I do have some emotional reaction to the subject of HJ Versus MJ after all, or at least my position.

I would like to address the Josephus issue with aa5874. Please note that, as a newcomer to this forum, I may not be familiar with some of the debate or sources you are that make Josephus an illegitimate source in this discussion.

That being so, let me revisit the Josephus references. I have been led to understand that the reference concerning Jesus' (brother of James) resurrection in Josephus was found to have been an altered in copies possessed by Church leaders attempting to use it as historical proof of a supernatural event, but that earlier versions discovered without the alteration still contained the reference to Jesus' execution.

If this is not another fabrication or proven forgery, (constructive instruction concerning this versus attack would be appreciated, please direct me to sources so that I may research this), then the possibility still exists for a historical figure named Jesus who was physically present during the appropriate time frame whose image was idealized or embellished by his subsequent followers.

Some examples for how I find it possible for this phenomenon to occur...

I'm sure aa5874 will engage you on the details, but I'll make a general point: Jesus was ignored both by contemporary Romans as well as Jews (as you know the Josephus passages are controversial). Only Christian writers recorded any of the alleged events during and after Jesus' earthly career.

A general theme on this forum has been the idea that biblical scholars don't follow proper historical procedure as compared to other areas of research. As was just pointed out in another thread, there's only Christian literature to work with, and biblical scholars tend to construct elaborate theories on what are actually shaky foundations (many here would say). Not being an academic I can't really judge, but there seems to be justification for questioning the procedures used in this field.

You can very plainly see the words here --

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

there's only Christian literature to work with

These are the words I cited and specifically responded to. I never did any misquoting at all. I now demand a retraction.

Thank you,

Chaucer

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-12-2010, 07:37 AM	#106
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Here is the beginning of the list needed by Chaucer. It contains only the names of the authors who, possibly, are of interest to Chaucer : Josephus (c.96CE) Tacitus (c.112CE) Pliny the Younger (c.112CE) Suetonius (c.115CE) Ignatius (107CE? 130-170CE?) Quadratus (c.125CE) Thallus (date unknown) Phlegon (c.140) Valentinus (c.140CE) Polycarp (c.155CE) Lucian (c.170CE) Galen (late 2nd C.) Numenius (2nd C.?) Talmud (3rd C. and later) The Acts of Pilate (3rd, 4th C.) Mara bar Serapion (date unknown) If some of them are accepted by Chaucer, we shall be able to begin a discussion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.