Roger Pearse

Photius in the 9th century read the work, and was perhaps the last to do so. He writes:

It is certain, therefore, that Justus did not mention Jesus. Since we don't have his work, it's a little hard to judge whether he should (e.g. by giving a list of messianic claimants), but it sounds as if he wrote a list of rulers.

Arguing from the absence of a mention to non-existence would appear to be the usual fallacy.

I've just looked at Ben's page, which gives a little more data. Josephus has a go at Justus in one of his minor works, which must therefore contain further info.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Elijah

Yea that was the point I was trying to make. It’s hard to evaluate if a text is a good example of silence without the text.
Yea by the title it’s hard to imagine why there would be mention of him.
May I inquire who is high on your list?

Roger Pearse

Toto is right, tho; philosophers notoriously live up their own backsides. Poets even more so, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

No, it is highly absurd and fallacious to argue for the existence of Jesus from the absence of a mention.

It is just illogical to argue that it is likely Jesus existed because NO Jewish writers wrote about him.

Philo philosophised on the "Logos" of God, according to the author of gJohn, Jesus was the "Logos of God". Now, if Jesus was really called the "Logos of God" , if it is assumed Jesus existed, then Philo may have been expected to note that there was a person who was worshipped by thousands of Jews as the "Logos of God" and was believed to be able to pardon of forgive the sins of Jews and Gentiles without obeying Jewish religious rites while the Temple was still standing.

Philo did not mention that there was anyone who was called the "Logos of God".

There is just no corroborative evidence or written statements for Jesus of the NT external of apology.

The existence of Jesus of the NT is just clearly unlikely.

Elijah

Yea looking at what I’ve seen of Philo’s I don’t see why they expect a mention of him but there is the hundred percent certainty that someone here knows something about him that I don’t so I ask and see if there is any text that they think should mention him to justify that idea.
Which text of his do you think should mention Jesus if he was historic?

aa5874

I expected volumes of books about Jesus by well known authors of antiquity, but I cannot even find a single word, except for forgeries in Josephus.

Elijah

So the answer is: you have no examples of text where Jesus should be mentioned by Philo.

aa5874

Why should Philo have mentioned Jesus if he never lived and there were no followers or doctrine of Jesus?

Elijah

You're the one claiming him as evidence for your argument of silence. You tell me why you are using him as an example... I have no idea.

Toto

Elijah: You still don't seem to get this exercise. We have a mass of writing from the first century. Many obscure and unimportant people are mentioned. Perhaps we can't pinpoint exactly which of these writers would have mentioned Jesus if he existed, but the fact that none of them did is not proof that Jesus never existed, but at least an indication in that direction. And, while much of the literature of the era had not survived, any that mentioned Jesus did.

And we do find mentions of Christians in the second century.

Philo wrote philosophy and also political commentary on the situation in Alexandria. He does mention Pilate and Herod, and a community in Egypt that is sometimes considered to be crypto-Christian, but he gives no indication of Jesus or Christianity.