Roger Pearse

I'm afraid that the demand for 'contemporary' is bogus for ancient history. In modern history there is so much data that an axiom has to be used to trim it down to manageable proportions. Thus the insistence on contemporary sources; it is pretty much certain that we will have all these, and that later sources will only retail material from sources available to us.

But in ancient history 99% of the literature is lost. Thus in fact every source from antiquity is valuable. Some of the relationship between Augustus and Herod is known to us only from a remark preserved in Macrobius, writing 4 centuries later. I have even seen the origins of Christmas, in the mid-4th century discussed, and a 13th century Syriac source brought in as evidence.

The primary sources for all our knowledge of all first century history, and the reign and policies of Tiberius in particular, are Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, and Josephus for Jewish affairs. Thus any discussion of events in that period must start with these writers. A limited amount of other literature does exist but (e.g.) the Fables of Phaedrus do not give us much that is useful for historical purposes.

Thus the limited incidental references in these writers to Christians give very early confirmation of the story otherwise known to us from the Fathers, itself rather normal and prosaic -- that Christianity is a first century movement, which early became illegal, but was not of great social importance until the end of the 2nd century and the collapse of the Antonine era.

Note that it is a mistake to suppose that our confidence in this narrative is based on these sources. They are the product of simple, quick, litmus tests for some of the dafter theories that people invent -- "this is your theory, but what do the ancient sources say." Any theory that relies on rubbishing the main sources for all historical writing of the period can be ruled out of court more or less immediately. Thus the (sensible) appeal to these sources, usually in response to some theory or other.

I hope that helps.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Doug Shaver

I've noticed that.

spin

You for one. When it comes down to it. Though you'll try to pass the buck.


spin

Antipope Innocent II

More likely the original reference to Jesus was added to so as to make it more in line with Christian ideas. But that kinda spoils the whole Jesus Myth party, so I guess you have to adopt the more extreme, less well regarded idea.

I don't see how that follows at all. Why mention one particular Messianic claimant that Josephus did not regard to be the genuine Messiah here?

aa5874

If 99% of ancient history is lost, then the 1% remaining must be examined thoroughly before early confimation of Christianity can be accepted. A detailed study of the writings of Josephus, Philo, Tacitus and Suetonius can put the history of Christianity, as presented by the NT and Church fathers, in doubt, as they have already done.

And even if all of the literature of ancient history was intact, I seriously doubt that any of it would be able to confirm, as the NT and the Church fathers proclaim, that Jesus was the offspring of a Ghost.

Lucretius

I have recently been thinking about Tacitus again and realised something regarding his comments on Christians in his works
Isn't it odd ,that considering ALL the remaining examples of Tacitus work survived due to their preservation and copying in Christian monasteries, the fact that the relevant part of the Histories that would have covered the actual period of the supposed life & ministry of Jesus are in fact the very ones we do not have ?
Surely if these works had made specific mentions of Jesus (or indeed any any other "Messiah Figure" at that time that could by any stretch of the imagination be associated with Jesus ) the Church would have undoubtedly ensured that these books more than any other would have been preserved , copied many times over and widely circulated .

Clouseau

Perhaps the imperial court had influence over what survived and what did not.

mountainman

The same may be said for the works of Ammianus.
Books 1-13 covering 92-351 are "lost".


Notably the major libraries stood relatively intact until the rise
of christianity under Bullneck. By the end of the fourth century,
and under "christian emperors" the great libraries of antiquity
were raided to the ground by fire.

The pagan courts had preserved the literature for millenia, yet
it only took christian courts less than a century to destroy it.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Lucretius

But Tacitus was very much an "insider" who lived under and held official positions during the reigns of despotic rulers and would in no way have written anything that could have been seen to be against the Imperial court,so the idea of some sort of official censorship prior the the rise of Christianity is I think untenable as any such work would never have seen the light of day in the first place

Clouseau

But the imperial policy did not stay unaltered.