Vinnie

Does Philo mention John the baptist anywhere?

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

The answer is no.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

Thank you. I couldn't find anything and I suspected as much.

Philo doesn't mention Jesus or JBap. I guess they are both mythical

Vinine

Peter Kirby

Philo lived in Alexandria and as a rule didn't talk about riff-raff in lower class Palestine. He was more concerned with applying the latest Hellenistic allegorical methods to Jewish scripture.

Hmmm... looked at that way, the silence of Philo of Alexandria could cast doubt on the existence of a Jewish mystery religion faction (emphasizing allegory and integrating Jewish and Hellenistic traditions) as postulated by Freke & Gandy. That would be the kind of stuff that Philo would lap up, or at least find relevant to his philosophical musings.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

And I was almost a myther!

Only one or two of the names in Iason's list had any potential for creating an argument from silence out of them. Philo just happens to be one of that list. I mention this and asked this question only because he posted it recently.

The silence gets smaller and smaller....

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

From my first post to JesusMysteries...

Obviously, if someone considers the Josephus to have an authentic part about
Jesus, then an argument from the silence of external sources doesn't get off
the ground. So, if someone takes it as established that Josephus does not
refer to Jesus, then an argument from the silence of Josephus could possibly
be made. This person could be consistent in accepting JtB as probable, at
least in that JtB would be recorded by Josephus.

Philo of Alexandria is sometimes offered as a candidate, and he does make a
complaint about some of the cruel practices of Pilate. Yet he is not
writing a history, and he may not have heard of this particular crucified
person, or if he did hear of it, he didn't necessarily consider it to be a
prime example of injustice worth mention. In that Philo would have even
less occasion for mentioning John the Baptist, since JtB wasn't executed by
Pilate, I suppose a rather weak argument from silence can be made from Philo
that wouldn't also apply to JtB. Most of Philo's writing are theological
and exegetical.

Finally, a bit stronger than Philo but still difficult because he is no
longer extant, Josephus describes a certain Justus of Tiberias in his
_Life_. This Justus was operating in Galilee around the same time of
Josephus during the First Jewish War. Josephus tells us that Justus wrote a
history some twenty years after the war, in which he may have disagreed in
some details with Josephus as well given Josephus a less favorable image,
thus drawing the scorn of Josephus. In a somewhat sorry state of affairs,
that most of what is preserved from antiquity is what Christian scribes
wanted to preserve (which is not conspiracy theory but simply that books get
lost and disintegrate if not copied and cared for), I suspect that much of
the reason that we never get to hear Justus' side of the story is the very
fact that Justus never had the apologetic value that Josephus had to
Christian writers since Eusebius.

The ninth century Christian bishop Photius mentions him as follows:

"I have read the chronology of Justus of Tiberias, whose title is this, [The
Chronology of] the Kings of Judah which succeeded one another. This [Justus]
came out of the city of Tiberias in Galilee. He begins his history from
Moses, and ends it not till the death of Agrippa, the seventh [ruler] of the
family of Herod, and the last king of the Jews; who took the government
under Claudius, had it augmented under Nero, and still more augmented by
Vespasian. He died in the third year of Trajan, where also his history ends.
He is very concise in his language, and slightly passes over those affairs
that were most necessary to be insisted on; and being under the Jewish
prejudices, as indeed he was himself also a Jew by birth, he makes not the
least mention of the appearance of Christ, or what things happened to him,
or of the wonderful works that he did. He was the son of a certain Jew,
whose name was Pistus. He was a man, as he is described by Josephus, of a
most profligate character; a slave both to money and to pleasures. In public
affairs he was opposite to Josephus; and it is related, that he laid many
plots against him; but that Josephus, though he had his enemy frequently
under his power, did only reproach him in words, and so let him go without
further punishment. He says also, that the history which this man wrote is,
for the main, fabulous, and chiefly as to those parts where he describes the
Roman war with the Jews, and the taking of Jerusalem." (Bibliothec, Code 33)

While it is not known whether or not Justus referred to John the Baptist,
from this it would seem that we do know that Justus did not refer to Jesus.
Unlike Josephus or Philo, we do not have the writings of Justus to see
whether there was much reason to bear on whether Justus would mention Jesus,
apart from the fact that Justus was concerned with the history of first
century Palestine and should have knowledge of native Galilee.

Such is the extent of the argument from external silences.

[So, the strongest argument from non-Christian silence would be the silence of Josephus--which is "hotly contested."]

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

I find both references to be authentic (one partially of course) but even if both were false, Jo would not mention Christian either. From this I take it that there are no valid arguments from silence on why non-Christians don't mention Jesus or "HJ details" in the first century. In fact, I believe our best candidate (Jo) does mention Jesus! Twice!

The whole Jesus mythicism argument boils down to early xian silence. Demonstrate any HJ material in Paul and/or date GMark (or a proto version) to ca 70 ad. and mythicism is overturned?

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

Well, that is said to be an inaccurate perception of the mythicism argument, which is actually "an argument to the best explanation." Can a mythicist explain that for us? The central datum which seems to be explained by a Jesus Myth theory is the (alleged) silence of the early epistolary literature.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

No, the mythicist theory explains multiple data:

1) silence in the Xtian epistolary literature

2) the creation of the gospel narratives out of the OT prophecy texts. That is difficult to account for on historical grounds

3) the silence in the historical literature of the era (I do not buy either reference to Jesus in Josephus)

4) the attitude of the early Christians toward the texts they had (they texts were treated as flexible, theopolitical documents intended for propaganda against other believers and conversion of non-believers)

5) the fact that Jesus tracks the arc for archetypal heroes

6) the existence of numerous direct references to Jesus-as-spirit in the Xtian writings (Iason will be happy to supply the list)

7) the existence of cults that treat Jesus as a mythical/spiritual savior figure

I think that's a good start. Restricting these discussions to the canonical literature biases the discussion a little strangely. All literature about Jesus is fantasy and myth, and the fact that it has the churches imprimatur does not make it less so. So as far as mining for historicity, all of it at least starts on an even playing field.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Who here has even thought about restricting discussion to the canonical literature? Certainly not me.

I think that you have made a great start on clarifying the structure of the mythicist's abductive argument. I see three themes under which can be subsumed supporting arguments:

A) Earliest strains of xianity held to spiritual-only Jesus.
A) 1) silence in the Xtian epistolary literature
A) 6) the existence of numerous direct references to Jesus-as-spirit in the Xtian writings
A) 7) the existence of cults that treat Jesus as a mythical/spiritual savior figure

B) The Gospels were written as myth-only literature.
B) 2) the creation of the gospel narratives out of the OT prophecy texts.
B) 4) the attitude of the early Christians toward the texts they had
B) 5) the fact that Jesus tracks the arc for archetypal heroes

C) Josephus did not mention Jesus.

I'm sure that there's probably more to be added to this list, so perhaps someone else can chime in, or you (Vork) will think of more later. I consider this still to be in the exploratory or brainstorming stage, so I am not criticizing at the moment; I would like us to consider as much data as possible and we can refine it all later.

best,
Peter Kirby