davidstarlingm

Considering that the reported miracles are some of the most significant aspects of the Jesus described by the gospels, we should expect reports of miracles before we would expect any other reports on Jesus's existence. There were doubtless a lot of rabbis that taught people on hills; nothing terribly notable about that.

This assumes that Christians had sufficient access to such sources, as well as enough leisure to preserve them. Persecution of Christians was not ended until the fourth century; the Christians would have been much more concerned about preserving the writings of the apostles than a few scraps of secular histories that they may not have even known about.

Precisely. However, it's disingenuous (and it hurts one's credibility) to start with an argument that is entirely subjective, especially if the silence being argued from isn't objectively significant.

This, I think, is a good example of why basing the argument on authors is a bad idea. Who "could have" and "should have" and "would have" is moot; we should be looking at the specific sources that we do have extant that mention events in Judea from 20-40.

Toto

Part of the problem is defining the historical Jesus. We just had someone argue here that obviously Paul didn't mention miracles because those were a later legendary addition to the basic story.. :huh:

I think that if we had all the documentary evidence that existed in the fourth century, we could know a lot more about whether there was a historical Jesus.

Roger Pearse

It's worth bearing in mind that the facilities to know what existed -- handbooks and the like -- do not seem to have existed. There is an argument that only one copy of Pausanias Description of Greece existed at any one point in antiquity.

Likewise we might consider that St. Augustine is one of the major fathers, and copying his works has always been important. Yet some of his works have still been lost.

One other thought: the compiler of the legal code, the Codex Theodosianus, complains in 450 AD that he cannot find copies of earlier legal texts from the 2nd century by Ulpian and Papinian and the like. They have already been lost, as far as this (official) editor is concerned.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

davidstarlingm

Challenging (or, alternately, defending) the New Testament account of the miracles can be quite useful for establishing the relationship between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the New Testament. A lot of theories hinge on whether the miracles largely arose around the historical figure (regardless of whether this was the result of reputation or the result of actual miracles) or were mostly the result of gradual attribution over time.

It is very possible that the documentary evidence available in the fourth century (and by this I assume you mean all the evidence extant in the fourth century, not all the evidence that had been centrally collected) could give us a much greater deal of certainty as to whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not. However, I don't know that it would be able to give us a view that is necessarily more detailed or accurate.

It could definitely be argued that we have access to a greater range of sources than any single individual or group did in the fouth century.

mountainman

I agree. However it is certainly quite possible to attempt to ask and answer the question .... "What documents were available in the early 4th century?". The list that is generated as a result of this question is quite surprising, since I have examined this question.

At the top of the list you have the Gospel and the Apostolic Letters and the Life of Mani, a Persian sage who was crucified c.278 CE in the capital city of the Persian empire, after a very successful three decades of religious ministry, many conversions, many apostles and the establishment of many monasteries (Mani seems to have been some kind of Buddhist) in the Roman Empire - Egypt and Rome.

Steven Carr

Similarly there was a seven volume history of Hannibal, written by a named contemporary of his that is now lost.

Tim O'Neill explains why the loss of this seven volume history of Hannibal means that the contemporary evidence for the existence of Hannibal is so comparable to that of the contemporary writings about Jesus, that if you were to follow the logic, you would have to doubt that Hannibal existed.

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2...that-show.html

'Yet, despite his fame then and now, we have precisely zero contemporary references to Hannibal. If we have no contemporary mentions of the man who almost destroyed the Roman Republic at the height of its power, the idea that we should expect any for an obscure peasant preacher in the backblocks of Galilee is patently absurd.'

Jesus , of course, was obscure. That was what led to him being crucified.

That is the trouble with obscurity. It brings you to the attention of the state as somebody who has to be dealt with.


But we should not expect mainstream historians to address the obscurity of Jesus and the threat Pilate perceived him posing in the same article.

And we should never doubt the ability of historians to prove that obscure people of 2000 years ago actually existed. Forensic science might not be able to identify unknown soldiers, but historians can pluck figures from obscurity and tell us what they said and did.

There is such an abundance of evidence for this totally obscure figure that it is lunacy to deny that this totally obscure figure existed.

You'll be saying nobody mentioned Ned Ludd next!

jgoodguy

Obscure nobodies get whacked everyday in totalitarian states, but not for being obscure.

Steven Carr

So why was this obscurity whacked?

Paul supplies an answer. The authorities are God's agents who punish wrongdoers, and hold no terror for the innocent.

aa5874

Tim O'Neil's is COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL, CONTRADICTORY or may suffer from AMNESIA.

First of all, it was the Church itself that claimed that the NT CANON was written by CONTEMPORARIES and even SIBLINGS of Jesus Christ.

The Church writers of the Church claimed:

1. gMatthew was written by a disciple of Jesus called Matthew.

2. gMark was written by Mark a disciple of Peter who was one of the 12 apostles of Jesus.

3. gLuke was written by Luke a follower of Paul who MET the apostle Peter in Jerusalem.

4. gJohn was written by John an apostle of Jesus.

5.Acts of the Apostles was written by Luke who wrote gLuke.

6.The Pauline epistles were written by Paul who MET Peter in Jerusalem.

7.The epistle of James was written by the apostle James an apostle of Jesus.

8.The epistles of Peter were written by the apostle Peter.

9.The epistle of Jude was written by Jude a sibling of Jesus.

10.The epistles of John were written by John the apostle of Jesus.

11.REVELATION was written by John the apostle of Jesus.

From the very start there was supposed to be CREDIBLE CONTEMPORARY sources for Jesus in the 1st century but it turned out that the Church writers gave BOGUS information.

Virtually all the information supplied by the Church writers about Christian CONTEMPORARY writers is basically FALSE or ERRONEOUS.

Now, this is FAR different to Hannibal.

In the case of Jesus, we have either DELIBERATE DECEPTION or that the Church writers were themselves incompetent.

It MUST be obvious that the Church writers INVENTED Contemporary writers because there were NONE.

Whatever is missing for Hannibal may be lost forever but the records will SHOW FOREVER that the Church writers did ATTEMPT to claim that there were Contemporary writers for Jesus when there was NONE.

The RECORDS of antiquity reveal FOREVER that there were NEITHER Christian or Non-Christian Contemporary writers of Jesus.

And Examine the words of the Emperor Julian OVER 1500 years ago.

"Against the Galileans"] Whatever is missing for Hannibal may be lost forever but based on the Emperor Julian UP TO the middle of the 4th century he KNEW of NO Contemporary writer who mentioned JESUS or PAUL.

No Contemporary writings of Jesus and Paul are missing from the 1st century. The Contemporary writings of Jesus are FOUND in the 2nd century.

CELSUS and LUCIAN are the non-Christian Contemporaries of the INVENTED Jesus Christ.

yalla

Well Philo may not have mentioned JC but the work of Philo appears to be mentioned in the gospels written about JC.

Viz:
"the Alexandrian populace,.... gave expression to their chagrin at the aggrandizement of a Jewish prince by burlesquing Agrippa’s investiture in a kind of charade, which they improvised in the streets of Alexandria while their unwelcome royal guest was in their midst. To show what they thought of a Jewish kingship of Roman manufacture, the Alexandrians, according to Philo’s story, rounded up a naked beggar named Carabas; chevied him into the public gymnasium; set a papyrus-leaf crown on his head, a rug robe on his shoulders, and a papyrus-stalk sceptre in his hand; paid him mock court [...]; and exhibited him in these burlesque regalia to the crowd, who hailed him with satirical acclamations of “Marin! Marin!” "

Source:
http://davidderrick.wordpress.com/20...s-and-the-mob/


Do the bolded bits seem familiar?

Is there a literary relationship between this event, as described in Philo, and the procession of thorn crowned JC through Jerusalem after [B/C]arrabas had been freed as described in the gospel?
If so who borrowed from whom?
Did Philo borrow directly or indirectly from "Mark's" account in the gospel written, purportedly, some years previous?
Or was "Mark" borrowing from the Alexandrian event possibly by way of Philo who, if we question the traditional dating of "Mark" and assign his gospel to a post 70CE/Post Jewish War era, wrote some time earlier possibly decades so?