Iasion

Greetings folks,

Mention has been made of contemporary historians and the lack of references to Jesus and the Gospel events.

I have a page detailing the first 150 years or so here : <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/No-History.html" target="_blank">Contemporary Writers</a>

There are 2 contemporary writers whose silence on Jesus and the Gospel events is most surprising as they wrote books which covered these very times and places and subjects :

• Justus of Tiberias
• Philo of Judaeus
  

There is another arguable contemporary -
Apollonius of TyanaIf he was real (another murky case, in some ways similar to Jesus - we know of him only through his disciple Damis as recorded by Philostratus c.220) then it is odd there is no mention of the two meeting - they are so similar and both allegedly travelled teaching and debating religious/spiritual issues. It seems likely that they cannot BOTH have been historical.

There are several more 1st century authors who could, or even should have mentioned Jesus or the alleged Gospel events and characters :
mid 1st century -

• Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.
• C. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome.

• Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome.
• Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote several satires in Rome.
• Petronius Arbiter wrote the Satyricon in Rome.
• Hero(n) of Alexandria wrote many technical works, including astronomy.
• Geminus wrote on astronomy in Greece.

late 1st century -

• Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia.
• Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) was the dominant Roman Orator of the times
• Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus) wrote a large Natural History in Rome.

• Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the Education of an Orator in Rome - his many speeches are lost.
• Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous minor and epic poems (e.g. Ode to Sleep and the Thebaid) in Rome

Josephus' very suspect reference occurs late 1st century.

Several early 2nd century authors made no mention :

• Theon of Smyrna wrote on astronomy/philosophy.
• Decimus Junius Juvenalis wrote sixteen satires in Rome.
• Nicomachus of Gerasa wrote on mathematics.
• Lucius Annaeus Florus wrote an Epitome of Roman History.
• Hierocles wrote some Stoic works

The first reliable early and vague references to Christianity or Christ occur in early 2nd century :

• Pliny
• Tacitus (probably)
• Epictetus (maybe)
• Suetonius (maybe)
• Aelius Aristides (maybe)

None of these authors have any solid evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.

Two other early authors (possibly early 2nd century) often mentioned, are in fact highly suspect :

• Thallus perhaps wrote about this time or somewhat earlier (his works are lost, there is no evidence he wrote in the 1st century, in fact there is some evidence he wrote around 109 BCE, and some authors refer to him for events before the Trojan War!) - 9th century George Syncellus quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion: Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse. There is no evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events, as there was an eclipse in 29, the subject in question. Furthermore the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is likely a mis-reading.
• Phlegon probably wrote during this period - 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 said anything about Gospel events, if he did it is too late to prove anything about Jesus.

So, these times were actually rather well recorded, with multiple writers from each decade of the era, totalling over 60 writers for the 1st century and a half.

Yet NOT ONE of these early writers shows any real evidence for Jesus of Nazareth or the Gospel events or characters.
What evidence that is usually cited is all suspect, late, or merely vague reports of later Christianity.

The evidence best supports the conclusion that there was NO historical Jesus of Nazareth, but a spiritual being, whose founding myths (Gospels) were later mis-understood as biographies.

Quentin David Jones

Ted Hoffman

Quentin,
Thanks a lot for your links.
It seems our pious brothers have fled the scene and only me and you are left.
Is there a verse in the bible that instructs our brothers to flee a discussion scene with their tails between their legs when the arguments they raise are refuted thoroughly?

I will watch out next time not to bother entering a discussion with them. M#@#(#^&@^(*!

CX

[quote]Originally posted by IntenSity:
That's not what I said. The earliest complete text of the NT dates to around the 4th century. The earliest complete text of the Tanakh dates prior to the Xian era. My point was that by the time we have text evidence for the Tanakh Judaism is an established state religion. This is much later than when the original texts were supposed to have been written. We see exactly the same thing with the Xian text legacy.


Who knows? Probably folk stories, legends and remembered history.

In my text that is QS 14 (The Lost Gospel, Burton Mack, P.85). That being said the text of Q contains no infancy accounts at all and no reference is made to the manner or place of Jesus' birth. Unless you can provide a citation in Q the rest of your argument about Mithras being born in a cave etc. is irrelevant and does not pertain in anyway to the passage cited above except insofar as both contain the word "rock".

In my text this is QS 20 (The Lost Gospel, Burton Mack, P. 87), but I fail to see how your argument about the Mithraic symbolism of the bull is even remotely relevant. I see absolutely no connection. The rest of your argument is likewise a non-sequitur as it has nothing to do with the Q text. Perhaps you'd care to clarify this.

In any case the point is not that Judeo-Xian mythology incorporates other religious elements. It clearly does. Judaism did not spring up in a vacuum nor did Xianity. While I think too much is made of the Mithras/Jesus connection there is certianly evidence of Zoroastrian influence on early Judaism during the Babylonian captivity. But that is neither here nor there with respect to the claim that "Q" could derive from Mithraism or the Homeric epics. So far you have done nothing to demonstrate that.

Once again you have not given me anything to refute. You've pointed out 2 verses from "Q" and then said a bunch of unrelated stuff about Mithraic or Pagan influence on Xianity. What I want to know is specifically what text in Q could have derived from Mithraism or more especially the Homeric Epics.

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

CX

Saying it don't make it so kiddo. If you're going to resort to that go back to your sandbox until you're ready to sit at the big table with the grown ups. I imagine everyone disappeared solely out of boredom.

Vinnie

So we have established that you will only accept primary and contemporary source material from people who don't embrace a certian ideology on the issue as is evidenced by:

""""Hearsay my dear. Hearsay testimony is not reliable. Thats why it is not allowed in court.""""

"""For people who have bias (believers) I need eyewitnesses.""""

Yeah, and non believers are without bias? Looking at things like the uneasy theological apologetics concerning Jesus' baptism is only more historically ground when this is done by believers who obviously felt the account was embarrassing.

""""""" Multiple attestation also applies in the absence of plagiarism and embellishment."""""""

The only thing you can claim here is embellishment but not plagiarism (with the possible exception of John working off the synoptics). I also am wondering about your statement that "multiple attestation applies in the absence of embellishment." Can you cite an introductory history textbook or something teaching this? Is there a consensus on this issue? John Crossan of the Jesus Seminar looks for multiple attestation in the earliest possible stratum as the third part of his triangulation methodology. He incorporated multiple independent attestation despite his clear belief that there are embellishments in the Jesus history. E.P. Sanders highlighted the problems of our primary sources on Jesus (the Gospels) but commented that the situation has some hope given that Paul and the Gospels were authored independently. Again, he seems to embrace multiple attestation here despite clear embellishments in the text.

Also, given that there are movable pericopes in the Gospels why would a verse in Luke, from Q, rise or fall on the basis of the virgin birth? As far as I am concerned the Lukan infancy narrative actually argues for the historicity of Jesus. Given that Luke is primarily concerned with presenting Jesus as superior to JBap in there with his parallelism and the theological apologetics performed by others concerning JBap baptizing Jesus we see Christians were clearly uneasy about this concept. They didn't like the fact that JBap baptized Jesus. The reason for it being included is that he was in fact baptized by John. This fact is as historically certain as anything about Jesus can be. But that doesn't say much to you as this is all drawn from hearsay.

From another thread on the Lukan Infancy Narrative:

There is a parallelism in the Lukan infancy narrative. The message is clear: Jesus is superior to JBap.

1. The angelic pronouncement:

a. John is born as a miracle to aged parents beyond the years of birth.

a. Jesus is born of a virgin!

b. The angel Gabriel says John will be great before the Lord.

b. The angel says Jesus will be great and called Son of the most high.

In the words of Crossan, "The point of the parallelism is already clearr. It is intended to exalt Jesus, born of a virgin mother, transcendentally above John, born of infertile and aged parents." p7 Jesus: Rev Bio

2. publicised birth of each child:

a. John is told first but rather succintly. Compare 1:57-58 with 2:7-14

b. When JBap is born "neighbors and relatives rejoice" but when Jesus is born there is "a multitude of the heavenly host, paraiseing God"

3. Circumcison

a. The only aspect of 3 that might emphasize primacy is Jesus being named by an angel before birth but John being chosen after by his father. Thats iffy though. But the parallelism is here. It relays the circumcision of both children.

4. Public presentation and prophecy of destiny for each child

a. John occurs in his home and the reports go out through neighbors to the surrounding hill country. The prophecy is actually more abot Jesus than John (1:65-17)

a. The public presentation of Jesus is in the temple! The report goes out to all who "were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem". Jesus' prophecy was also ggiven by both Simeon and Anna and focuses exclusively on Jesus (2:21-38).

5. Description of the childs growth.

a. John grew and became strong in spirit and was in the wilderness until he appeared publically to Israel.

a. Jesus grew and became strong, was filled with wisdom and the favor of God was on him. At age 12 Jesus was found in the temple amazing all those who heard his answers. John is hidden in the wilderness but Jesus is already astounding people at twelve years of age.

I drew and adapted that from Crossan's Jesus A Revolutionary Biography. In conclusion, Crossan says, "Luke, in that double infancy story sends two powerful messages to hearer or reader: John is the condensation and consumation of his people's past, but Jesus is far, far greater than John.

There is also another funky incident like this in the gospels. If we accept Jesus was baptized by JBap and at the start of his ministry what do we make of John's words? John says that Jesus should baptize him and that he is not fit to untie Jesus sandals or something. Later on John sends a message from jail (IIRC) asking if Jesus reallly was the Messiah. Kind of like, if jesus was actually born in the manner in which a harmonized Matt and Luke would tell us, why does his family later on thing he is beside himself.

Going back to the birth narrative:

Vinnie

Vinnie

""""""The evidence best supports the conclusion that there was NO historical Jesus of Nazareth, but a spiritual being, whose founding myths (Gospels) were later mis-understood as biographies.""""""

How do you know the Gospels are the founding myths? They were based upon earlier sources and Mark is simply the earliest preserved full narrative. I do not doubt their subsequent importance but since when have they been determined to be the founding myths?

"""Yet NOT ONE of these early writers shows any real evidence for Jesus of Nazareth or the Gospel events or characters.
What evidence that is usually cited is all suspect, late, or merely vague reports of later Christianity."""""

Why would any of these writers have mentioned Jesus? By your own admission you claim there are only three who really should have mentioned Jesus. Of course, you have not demonstrated why but leave us to guess aside from a few sentences. Being a contemporary does not require making mention of Jesus. Despite this, since the rest are not "required" to have made mention of Jesus can we dismiss most of the 60 as not saying much? Also, of your three most probable you say this: "although we do not have any words directly from Justus or Apollonius."

What does that mean? If we don't have their work how can we say they didn't mention Jesus? Aren't you really saying, there is no surviving ouside work that mentions Jesus? Not, there is no first century work that mentions Jesus. There might be but we don't have it. If we don't have their words how can you cite them as not mentioning a historical Jesus? You claim at the end "no historical Christ is known in the first century or so" but that doesn't mesh with what you said unless bvy "first century" you just mean the literature we have.

Also, do you realize that in saying Jesus should have been mentioned you have to assume a certain type of Jesus? Are you saying the super Jesus of the harmonized Gospels is not mentioned? How would that account to anything more than a criticism of fundamentalism? Can you explain why E.P. Sanders reconstruction of Jesus in The Historical Figure of Jesus should have been given recognition? Sander's himself says concerning Jesus (his Jesus I presmue):

Which version of Jesus are you endorsing when you say that we should see outside references by a small elite class of historians? Jesus the Cynic? Jesus the Son of God?

On your site you say: "Authors who could reasonably be expected to at least mention Jesus or Christianity"

Why, in the works you cited should we expect to see reference to Jesus? You largely leave us guessing on your site aside from a sentence here or there. If you can establish the connection your site would be much better. You also claim : """and spiritual works, and even astronomy, which is often (erroneously""""

So if a writer wrote on Astronomy he can be "reasonably expected" to write about the darkness around the crucifixion or the star of the birth narrative (I am assuming these two instances as you didn ot explicitly state what you had in mind)? This means we have to accept (reductio ad absurdom) that there was a darkness or a star. You put it in the class of "reasonably expect". How can anyone be "reasonably expected" to accept this??? How does this amount to anything more than a criticism of fundamentalism or as evidence against the fundamentalist picture of Jesus?

Also, Peter Kirby regarding the shorter reference to Jesus has said:

</a>

So what does the shorter reference tell us? Is Kirby accurate here? Oh wait, you called that an interpolation as well.

The only real claim I found is: "Philo Judaeus spent time in Jerusalem during the times of Jesus, he wrote many books about the Jews and their religion and history - but not a word about Jesus or his followers or his teachings."

But alas, I have to get ready for work now and will come back later.

Vinnie

edited some typos and opaque statments....

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: ilgwamh ]</p>

Vinnie

Iason, from another thread in response to Alexis Commenus you said this:

"""""""So you posit a Jesus for whom there is NO evidence at all? and one who is nothing like the Gospels, the ONLY real source there is? a Jesus who is based purely on speculation - if he is nothing like the Gospel Jesus, and has no basis in history - why bother to call him Jesus?"""""

From this it seems clear your argument and list is applicable to the fundamentalist picture of Jesus. Do you agree with my assessment here? Personally, I am not interested in defending fundamentlist Christianity.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Yeah, and non believers are without bias? Looking at things like the uneasy theological apologetics concerning Jesus' baptism is only more historically ground when this is done by believers who obviously felt the account was embarrassing.

Yes, later believers found the account embarrassing. There's no reason to think Mark did, however. So it can't be used to establish the historicity of Jesus.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

CX

I imagine everyone disappeared solely out of boredom.
Then you have to explain what has rejuvenated such a strong interest so suddenly before we can proceed with civility. How am I supposed to know that you came here looking for entertainment? Is it possible that you cite boredom when you get a strong rebuttal in response to your claims?
When I spend time to respond to what you say, I expect you to do the same. That is what makes it a discussion. If you find it boring, say so, then exit. But to abandon a thread quietly without nary a word is uncharitable and irresponsible when a poster has taken time to respond to your posts. How come when I mentioned "tail between legs", you responded immediately? Is that what kills your boredom?

What exactly did you find boring?

Ilgwamh
Yeah, and non believers are without bias?
It depends on what kind of non-believers and what kind of bias.

Looking at things like the uneasy theological apologetics concerning Jesus' baptism is only more historically ground when this is done by believers who obviously felt the account was embarrassing.
Your point sir?

The only thing you can claim here is embellishment but not plagiarism (with the possible exception of John working off the synoptics).
So you do admit there is some plagiarism. Thank you/

I also am wondering about your statement that "multiple attestation applies in the absence of embellishment." Can you cite an introductory history textbook or something teaching this? Is there a consensus on this issue?

The Q Gospel is based on this very idea. What Matthew and Luke say was copied from Mark. As such, Matthew and Luke saying those particular phrases does not add any credibility to the claims they make because they are merely repeating what Mark said. So, Matthew and Luke saying them cannot be used to assert their veritability when examining Marks gospel.

Other independent sources will be required. Recapitulating a claim does not add to its truthfulness.
You need someone else to explain this to you? Just refute it if you disagree. Unless you are interested in carrying out a survey about what scholars think concerning this. In which case, you should have told me.

John Crossan of the Jesus Seminar looks for multiple attestation in the earliest possible stratum as the third part of his triangulation methodology. He incorporated multiple independent attestation despite his clear belief that there are embellishments in the Jesus history. E.P. Sanders highlighted the problems of our primary sources on Jesus (the Gospels) but commented that the situation has some hope given that Paul and the Gospels were authored independently. Again, he seems to embrace multiple attestation here despite clear embellishments in the text.
Again, I repeat blanket application of multiple attestation would be unwise and naive.

Also, given that there are movable pericopes in the Gospels why would a verse in Luke, from Q, rise or fall on the basis of the virgin birth?
I dont know what point you are addressing, but in case this is new, my answer would be:

Prophesies like "the messiah will come from the house of David" , mythical underpinnings, naturalistic palusibility, untestability, falsifiability etc.
.....
.....
I have considerable difficulty realising the relevance of the rest of your post. The one about Lukan narrative, Jesus' superiority to JBap and virgin birth.

Are you trying to change the subject?

We were talking about paucity of evidence, remember?

CX

Perhaps boring is the wrong word. Tedious would be better. As to why I didn't respond I simply hadn't checked this thread in awhile. I responded first to your comments related to the discussion and only secondarily to your other snotty remarks. Anyway I've little interest in a flame war, but your continual claims of rebutted arguments etc. when you've done no such thing is irritating. In general I find your arguments to be barely coherent. Rarely do your conclusions follow from your premises. You say much without ever making your case. You are soundly rebutted and then claim victory or else you just "chuckle" and exit the discussion with nary a word. I refer you to our previous discussion regarding the authorial attributions of GMk and GLk. In this thread, at least in your discussions with me, you have asserted that "Q" could derive from Mithraic influences or Homeric epics and have said not one thing to make any such connection whatsoever. All you've managed to show is that Judeo-Xian religious themes incorporate elements of other religions which was not in dispute. I've strong doubts if you even fully understand what "Q" is. If you want to keep up people's interest. Try to be more concise, follow the basic rules of logic and make a case for your position. Cutting and pasting a bunch of quotes from online sources that have little or nothing to do with the argument at hand and mixing them in no clearly organized or coherent manner with poorly thought out statements of yours all the while pretending you have presented an iron clad argument is what gets tedious.