Contemporary writers who failed to mention Jesus
Iasion
The historicity of Jesus has come up again,
including the various alleged historical references.
I thought users might like to recap my list of early writers :
[b]How Likely was a mention of Jesus?[/b]
The issue is really HOW LIKELY they would be to mention Jesus.
Factors which increase the expectation that Jesus would be mentioned in
a work include :
* a large work (i.e. one which has large index of names)
* a work on an issue somehow related to Jesus or the Gospel events,
* a work whose genre tends to frequently mention or allude to many
subjects and people,
I have thus classified these writers into broad categories -
* writers who surely SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (5),
* writers who PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (4,3),
* writers who COULD have mentioned Jesus (2,1, or even 0.5),
* writers who WOULDN'T have mentioned Jesus (0)
I have given each writer a WEIGHT out of 5 as indicated.
As well as -
* writers CLAIMED to mention Jesus.
Of course, one writer who didn't mention Jesus means nothing.
But,
when DOZENS of writers from the period in question fail to mention
anything about Jesus (or the the Gospel events or actors), this argues
against historicity.
The argument is sometimes made that these writers could not possibly
have mentioned Jesus - because he was a minor figure and unrelated to
the issues at hand.
This assumes that no such writer ever mentions a minor figure in
passing, that they never make an aside about other events or figures
who are not specially related to the subject.
Of course, this is not true, as the evidence below shows that many of
the writers mentioned make many references to many other minor figures
and often make excurses about other subjects and events and people.
I have included astronomers on the list who might have mentioned the
Star of Bethlehem and/or the darkness at the crucifixion - if they had
heard of them. This is a lesser issue then the existence of Jesus, and
I have rated such writers as 0.5.
[b]Summary of Results
The results of my current classifications is:
1 writer who surely SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Philo.)
3 writers who PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Seneca, Plutarch,
Justus.)
31 writers who COULD have mentioned Jesus.
(20 writers who could not be expected to.
6 writers claimed to mention Jesus, but disputed or suspect.)
[/b]
You can see the results presented chronologically with colour and font
size here:
[url]http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/EarlyWriters.html[/url]
Iasion
13th February 2005
[b]WRITERS WHO SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS[/b]
[b]PHILO[/b]
Philo Judaeus wrote very many books about Jewish religion and history,
in the 30s and 40s, living in Alexandria, and visiting Jerusalem.
Philo was contemporary with Jesus and Paul,
Philo visited Jerusalem and had family there,
he developed the concept of the Logos and the holy spirit,
he was considered a Christian by some later Christians,
he wrote a great deal about related times and peoples and issues.
If Jesus had existed, Philo would almost certainly have written about
him and his teachings.
Rating: SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 5
[b]WRITERS WHO PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS[/b]
[b]SENECA[/b]
Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical
books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.
Seneca wrote a great deal on many subjects and mentioned many people.
He was a Stoic, a school of thought considered sympathetic to Christian
teachings.
In fact,
early Christians seemed to have expected him to discuss Christianity -
they FORGED letters between him and Paul.
How else to explain these forgeries, except as Christian responses to a
surprising VOID in Seneca's writings?
Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did
not.
Weight: 4
[b]PLUTARCH[/b]
Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in
Rome and Boetia in about 90-120 CE.
Plutarch wrote about influential Roman figures, including some
contemporary to Jesus,
Plutarch wrote on Oracles (prophesies),
Plutarch wrote on moral issues,
Plutarch wrote on spiritual and religious issues.
Plutarch's writings also include a fascinating piece known as the
"Vision of Aridaeus", a spiritual journey, or out of body experience,
or religious fantasy -
[url]http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/PlutarchVision.html[/url]
If Plutarch knew of Jesus or the Gospel events, it is highly likely he
would have mentioned them.
Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did
not.
Weight: 4
[b]JUSTUS[/b]
Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of Jewish Kings in Galilee in late
1st century.
Photius read Justus in the 8th century and noted that he did not
mention anything: [i]"He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of
Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he
did."[/i]
It is surprising that a contemporary writer from the very region of
Jesus' alleged acts did not mention him.
Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 3
[b]WRITERS WHO COULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS[/b]
[b]DAMIS[/b]
Damis wrote most of what we know about Apollonius of Tyana. He was a
philospher and mystic exactly contemporary with Jesus and who was
rather similar to Jesus - enough for some authors to argue they were
one and the same person.
If Damis/Apollonius had known of Jesus, he could have easily have been
mentioned as a competitor. A story in which Apollonius bested Jesus in
debate would not be un-expected.
Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2
[b]APOLLONIUS[/b]
See Damis.
[b]PLINY THE ELDER[/b]
Gaius Plinius Secundus wrote a large Natural History in Rome c.80CE
Pliny wrote a great deal - his Natural History mentions HUNDREDS of
people, major & minor - writers, leaders, poets, artists - often with
as much reason as mentioning Jesus. (Of course like many other writers
he talks about astronomy too, but never mentions the Star of Bethlehem
or the darkness.)
It is not at all un-reasoble for this prolific writer to have mentioned
Jesus or the Gospels events.
Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2
[b]JUVENAL[/b]
Decimus Junius Juvenalis wrote sixteen satires in Rome in early 2nd
century.
Lucian the Roman satirist DID ridicule Christians (as gullible, easily
lead fools) in mid 2nd century. By the later time of Lucian,
Christianity obviously was known to the wider Roman community. Whereas
Juvenal wrote at a time when Christianity had only just started to rate
a few tiny mentions (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus.)
Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2
[b]MARTIAL[/b]
Marcus Valerius Martialus wrote satires in Rome in late 1st century.
Martial wrote a large body of poems about all sorts of things. He
mentions many people, places, stories and issues - major and minor,
within and without Rome, such as :
* Stoic suffering of discomfort and death,
* virgin's blood,
* Roman funerary practices,
* the way accused men look in court,
* Roman soldiers mocking their leaders,
* anointing the body with oil,
* Molorchus the good shepherd,
* Tutilius a minor rhetorician, Nestor the wise,
* the (ugly) Temple of Jupiter,
This shows Martial mentions or alludes to many and varied people and
issues.
He could easily have mentioned Jesus (or the Gospel events).
Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2
[b]PETRONIUS[/b]
Petronius Arbiter wrote a large novel (a bawdy drama) the "Satyricon"
c.60CE.
Petronius mentions all sorts of people and events in this large work,
including :
** [b]a CRUCIFIXION ! [/b]
** a scene where guards are posted to stop a corpse being stolen,
** a tomb scene of someone mistaking a person for a supernatural
vision,
* gods such as Bacchus and Ceres,
* writers such as Sophocles and Euripides and Epicurus,
* books such as the Iliad,
* Romans such as Cato and Pompey,
* people such as Hannibal, and the Governor of Ephesus,
* female charioteers, slaves, merchants, Arabs, lawyers
* baths, shipwrecks, meals...
This large work, cover MANY topics, including a CRUCIFIXION, and it was
written just as Peter and Paul had come to Rome, allegedly. It could
easily have mentioned Jesus.
Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2
[b]PAUSANIAS[/b]
Pausanias wrote the massive Guide to Greece in mid 2nd century.
Pausanias' work is vast and the index covers over 70 pages of small
print, I estimate a couple of THOUSAND names are mentioned. He mentions
a large number of minor figues from within and without Greece.
He even mentions a Jewish prophetess - a figure so minor she is
essentially unknown: [i]"Then later than Demo there was a prophetic
woman reared among the Jews beyond Palestine; her name was Sabbe."[/i]
Phokis, Book X, 12, [5]
Pausanias also mentions the Jewish rebellion under Hadrian.
Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2
[b]EPICTETUS[/b]
Epictetus is known for several books of Stoic religious and philosophic
discourses in the early 2nd century. One of his disciples was Arrian,
and thanks to him much of Epictetus' works are extant.
Epictetus DID apparently mention "the Galileans", which could be a
reference to :
* the early Christians,
or
* the revolt under Judas the Galilean in early 1st century.
Either way, this shows quite clearly that Epictetus could refer to a
figure such as Jesus.
Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2
[b]AELIUS ARISTIDES[/b]
Aelius Aristides the Greek Orator spoke and wrote a History of Rome
and other subjects - he seems to refer to the Christians as [i]"impious
men from Palestine"[/i] (Orations 46.2)
If he could mention people from Palestine, he could easily have
mentioned Jesus.
Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2
[b]FRONTO[/b]
Marcus Cornelius Fronto of Rome wrote several letters in mid 2nd
century.
According to Minucius Felix, he scandalised rites practiced by Roman
Christians - so he could easily have mentioned Jesus.
Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2
[b]PERSIUS[/b]
Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote six fairly long satires in Rome in the mid
1st century, of a rather philosophic nature.
The argument that no Roman satirist could be expected to mention Jesus,
is proven wrong by the case of a Roman satirist who DID mention Jesus
(but only as echoes of later Christian beliefs.)
Persius wrote a reasonably large body of work that mentions many people
and issues.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1
[b]DIO CHRYSOSTOM[/b]
Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) wrote many works and gave many speeches
in various Roman and Greek centres in late 1st century, of which 80
survive e.g. the Euboicus.
Dio wrote a large number of works in the late 1st century - he
certainly could have mentioned Jesus, if he knew of him.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1
[b]AULUS GELLIUS[/b]
Aulus Gellius wrote Attic Nights (Nights in Athens), a large compendium
of many topics and which mentioned many people.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1
[b]LUCIUS APULEIUS[/b]
Lucius Apuleius wrote the Metamorphoses (the Golden Ass or
Transformations of Lucius) and many other spiritual, historical, and
philosophic works - several survive.
Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1
[b]MARCUS AURELIUS[/b]
Marcus Aelius Aurelius Antoninus wrote the Stoic Meditations in mid 2nd
century - he (apparently) refers once to the Christians in XI, 3.
Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1
[b]MUSONIUS RUFUS[/b]
C. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome in mid 1st century.
Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1
[b]HIEROCLES[/b]
Hierocles of Alexandria wrote on Stoic philosophy in late 1st century.
Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1
[b]MAXIMUS of TYRE[/b]
Cassius Maximus Tyrius, a Greek NeoPlatonic philosopher, wrote many
works in mid 2nd century.
Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1
[b]ARRIAN[/b]
Arrian wrote a History of Alexander c.120CE.
The subject is not related, but Arrian wrote a very large work which
mentioned HUNDREDS of people, some not from Alexander's time.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
[b]APPIAN[/b]
Appian wrote a large Roman History (from the Gracchi to Caesar) in mid
2nd century.
It's not particularly likely that this specific writer would mention
Jesus.
But,
he wrote a LARGE work which mentions HUNDREDS of people.
Appian does mention some issues of HIS day (mid 2nd century), e.g. a
decision by Hadrian.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
[b]THEON of SMYRNA[/b]
Theon of Smyrna wrote on astronomy/philosophy in early 2nd century.
Theon wrote about philosophy. If Jesus and his teachings were known, it
is entirely plausible for to mention them.
Theon also wrote about astronomy.
If he had heard about the Star of Bethlehem or the Darkness (as an
event, or from the Gospels) he could easily have mentioned it.
Apologists frequently cite Phlegon and Thallus, astronomers who
mentioned eclipses (but NOT Jesus or the Gospel events, that is merely
later Christian wishful thinking) as evidence for Jesus.
An astronomer could easily be expected to mention those incidents,
especially when apologists claim other astronomers of the period did
exactly that.
The silence of early astronomers about the Star of Bethlehem or the
crucifixion darkness argues these "events" were unknown until later.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
[b]QUINTILIAN[/b]
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the "Education of an Orator" in Rome
in late 1st century.
One of the things Jesus was allegedly noted for was his PUBLIC SPEECHES
- e.g. the Sermon on the Mount, which supposedly drew and influenced
large crowds.
If Quintilian had heard of Jesus or the Gospels events, he could have
mentioned the allegedly famous speeches of Jesus.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
[b]LUCIUS ANNAEUS FLORUS[/b]
Lucius Annaeus Florus wrote an Epitome of Roman History.
Although not directly on subject, Florus wrote a large work which
mentions many names. He could have mentioned Jesus if he had known of
him.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
[b]LUCAN[/b]
Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome in mid
1st century.
In his large poem, the Pharsalia, he mentions some events from later
times, and he covers many different issues and people in passing.
He:
* mentions an event from 56CE,
* refers to places as far afield as Sicily and Kent,
* refered to Stoic religious beliefs about the end of the world,
* refers to many books and myths and persons and events not part of the
main story.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
[b]STATIUS[/b]
Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous minor and epic poems (e.g. Ode
to Sleep and the Thebaid) in Rome in late 1st century.
Statius wrote many works on several subjects, he could have mentioned
Jesus.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
[b]HERO of ALEXANDRIA[/b]
Hero(n) of Alexandria wrote many technical works, including astronomy.
If he had known of the Gospel stories about Jesus, he could have
mentioned them.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
[b]GEMINUS[/b]
Geminus wrote on mathematics astronomy in Greece.
If he had known of the Gospel stories about Jesus, he could have
mentioned them.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
[b]ALBINUS[/b]
Albinus taught on (neo-)Platonism in early 2nd century, a little
survives.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
[b]ARISTOCLES[/b]
Aristocles of Messene wrote On Philosophy, early 2nd century.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
[b]APOLLODORUS[/b]
Apollodorus compiled a large Mythology in mid 2nd century.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
[b]HEPHAESTION[/b]
Hephaestion of Alexandria wrote many works in mid 2nd century.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
[b]SEXTUS EMPIRICUS[/b]
Sextus Empiricus wrote Outlines of Scepticism in mid 2nd century.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
[b]WRITERS CLAIMED TO MENTION JESUS[/b]
[b]JOSEPHUS[/b]
Much has been said about Josephus, but not here.
Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but may not have.
[b]TACITUS[/b]
Cornelius Tacitus wrote a celebrated passage about Jesus roughly 80
years or so after the alleged events - but he seems to be reporting
Christian beliefs of his later times, not using earlier documents: he
uses the incorrect title 'procurator' - the term used in Tacitus' time,
not Pilate's; he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could
not possibly have called him 'Christ '); and he accepts the recent
advent of the Christians, when Rome was known to allow only ancient
cults and religions.
Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.
[b]NUMENIUS[/b]
In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative
regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name"
Numenius does not mention Jesus, just a story that was later attributed
to him.
Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.
[b]SUETONIUS[/b]
Gaius SUETONIUS Tranquillus wrote a histories/biographies of Roman
Caesars c.120CE.
He mentions a "Chrestus" (a common slave name meaning "Useful") who
caused disturbance in Rome in 49CE.
Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.
[b]PHLEGON[/b]
Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen,
Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by much later George
Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an
eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon said anything about Gospel events
- just evidence for later Christians believing his statements about an
eclipse (there WAS an eclipse in this period) was really about the
Gospel darkness.
Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.
[b]THALLUS[/b]
Thallus perhaps wrote in early 2nd century 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: [i]"Thallus calls this darkness an
eclipse"[/i]. 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.
Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.
[b]WRITERS WHO COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO HAVE MENTIONED JESUS[/b]
Dion Prusaeus
Paterculus
Ptolemy
Valerius Maximus
Pomponius Mela
Quintus Curtus Rufus
Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella
Favorinus
Phaedrus
Babrius
Silius Italicus
Marcus Manilius
Cleomedes
Dioscorides
Sextus Julius Frontinus
Nicomachus of Gerasa
Menelaus of Alexandria
Menodotus of Nicomedia
Tiberius Claudius Herodes Atticus
Valerius Flaccus
Matt Giwer
> Greetings all,
Another great contribution.
May I ask this.
Lets go back to your previous list of the gospel mentions. How many of those people ever had
external mention? Not saying they were forged/created rather that towards the end of the 2nd c.
these people who in the early 3rd were to be declared the official religion certainly could not have
gone without mention.
The Constantine deal appears more like the Tzar declaring Rasputin the head of the new Russian
religion than anything else. I have found few actual accounts of the committee meeting and they may
be apocryphal but they read like a convention of people we would have on strong medication before
releasing to halfway houses. We can disagree on apocrypha but I have not found one report of it that
I would credit to anything but a meeting of court jesters.
As I see it we have an unexplained cause for and result of this committee meeting. It is sort of
amazing that people who can't get their act together in the late 2nd are the official religion in
the early 3rd. But the only reason we have not questioned it is because we were raised with it being
the true religion and what else could happen?
I agree most all of everything is lost but this vital change must have left some record some place.
--
On September 11, 2002 America gained two new things. It gained the World
Trade Center as the symbol of America, a totally new concept not heard
outside of New York City before this. For the first time it gained a
Homeland something Americans never heard before. What a country!
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3512
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10
Roger Pearse
> Greetings all,
>
> The historicity of Jesus has come up again,
> including the various alleged historical references.
>
> I thought users might like to recap my list of early writers :
Not really. It's been shown to be unreasonable, mistaken or misleading
many, many times already online.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Quentin David Jones
"Roger Pearse" <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1128194554.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Iasion wrote:
> Not really. It's been shown to be unreasonable, mistaken or misleading
> many, many times already online.
Really?
So YOU say.
Why is this list of writers "unreasonable"?
How COULD a list of writers be "unreasonable"?
Where is there a "mistake" in this list?
You have shown none.
What is "misleading" about it?
You have shown nothing such.
Quentin
Roger Pearse
> "Roger Pearse" <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1128194554.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Iasion wrote:
> > Not really. It's been shown to be unreasonable, mistaken or misleading
> > many, many times already online.
>
> Really?
> So YOU say.
Indeed I do. Not least because I wrote a good percentage of those
refutations -- to none of which you responded, I note.
> Why is this list of writers "unreasonable"?
> How COULD a list of writers be "unreasonable"?
In the same manner as you can describe a list of names with comments
against each as "a list of writers," of course.
> Where is there a "mistake" in this list?
> You have shown none.
> What is "misleading" about it?
> You have shown nothing such.
You know different. I have demolished your post almost as many times
as you have posted this stuff verbatim. You never replied to any of
them, until now. This time you complain that I don't write an essay?
How curious.
Do you want me to do a google search for you, for some of my previous
comments on this very same post of yours?
Matt Giwer
> Greetings all,
>
> The historicity of Jesus has come up again,
> including the various alleged historical references.
>
> I thought users might like to recap my list of early writers :
Let me restate my previous. Are there contemporary mentions of those who were involved in
condemning the upstart gospels?
If there are none then it was a small group having in internal dispute. If there are external
mentions then we would have an idea of how they were viewed outside. "The panderer Origen also
participated in a religious sect of ..." would be of interest. Of course Stoic instead of panderer
would be even more interesting. Centurian from the Persain campaign much more interesting.
--
Denying the holocaust is to hating Jews as denying Jesus is to hating
(a) The New York Yankees.
(b) Alien space invaders.
(c) Christians.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3498
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/willing-executioners.phtml a7
Matt Giwer
It's a free newsgroup. When do you post your research?
--
Iraqis love us because we are fighting them over there
so we don't have to fight them over here.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3510
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6
Iasion
Sorry,
I just haven't found your apologetics on this subject that credible.
If you think you have "demolished" my list, feel free to post your work
- if it truly does, then I am sure all the readers here will let me
know :-)
If you think you have found mistakes of fact,
then show it.
If you want to differ from my opinion on how likely a given writer was
to mention Jesus, fine - but I don't consider that demolishes my point
at all.
And let's remember, this list is just ONE part of the argument that
Jesus was a myth, a small part that I found interesting enough to
investigate thoroughly for myself.
Some other parts of the argument involve:
* The way G.Mark is crafted from the Tanakh :
http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_index.html
* the Gospels being late and not by eye-witnesses :
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=117382
* the early Christ being a spiritual being :
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp08.htm
* early Christians knew almost nothing of the historical Jesus:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Table.html
Iasion
Martin Edwards
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
Iasion
Thanks for your comments,
Indeed,
it seems many of the figures from the early period have little
historical support.
I haven't looked into these later figures in detail.
(But I tend to the view that Ignatius e.g. is a complete forgery.)
Iasion
Iasion
Roger's attempt to "demolish" my list can be seen here :
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread118797/pg1
Form your own views.
Iasion
Matt Giwer
> Greetings Matt,
> Thanks for your comments,
Which is interesting.
I presume you have done a ton of reading and was suggesting another way to put it together which
might add to getting a picture of what happened.
The RC Church candidly says it does not know. But rejecting negative explanations could not lead to
understanding.
--
Israelis say the holocaust was no worse than uprooting jews
from Gaza. Who am I to argue?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3502
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1
Roger Pearse
Curiously none of the extended comments I have written at one time or
another on this seem to remain online. I'll refute it (again) at the
weekend.
Roger Pearse
the tendency to argue from their own expectations. This is invariably
pure subjectivism, even when applied to contemporary politics. But
when applied to ancient history, it is very hard indeed to see how such
a thing can be a valid guide.
Worse still is when an event attested in ancient literature is debunked
on these grounds simply because it happens to be mentioned in only a
handful of sources. Since the majority of ancient people and events
are known from a single or small number of sources, such an approach
(if valid) would dispose of the majority of what we know about
antiquity.
It is sometimes asserted that, because he is not mentioned in various
writers of the first century, he could not have existed. It is merely
necessary to point out the vast numbers of people and places to whom
the same argument would give the coup-de-grace! Do we ignore all those
people attested by archaeology? Of course we would not -- yet such
people are mostly unknown to literature.
As such, I cannot feel very much confidence in an argument of this
nature. What else might be said about this example?
Iasion wrote:
> [b]How Likely was a mention of Jesus?[/b]
>
> The issue is really HOW LIKELY they would be to mention Jesus.
This immediately begins with subjectivism. All of know that authors
write for their own purposes. To us, looking back 2000 years, it may
be obvious that Jesus of Nazareth was the most important person of the
1st century AD. To us it may be obvious that the Napoleonic wars were
the critical event ca. 1800. Yet it is merely necessary to read
literature of the latter period to find how unimportant these great
events are to contemporaries. No picture of these events can easily be
formed from the novels of Jane Austen, in which even the name of
Napoleon does not appear, unless I mistake.
Another example may be offered from my own studies. It can be shown
that the editors of the 1545 edition of the works of Tertullian held in
their hands the 9th century Codex Agobardinus of Tertullian, since they
left pagination in its margin. Yet they do not print one of the works
in it, the "Ad Nationes"; and there is no mention of the existence of
the work until the publication in 1628. Yet a new work was worth money
to the publisher! No-one now can say why they did not print it.
Again, we see the poison of subjectivism being substituted for evidence
and reason.
> Factors which increase the expectation that Jesus would be mentioned in
> a work include :
> * a large work (i.e. one which has large index of names)
> * a work on an issue somehow related to Jesus or the Gospel events,
> * a work whose genre tends to frequently mention or allude to many
> subjects and people,
Unless we knew the circumstances of composition, the intentions and
prejudices of the author, and the information available to him, all
these could have no weight. After all, we can presume something of the
kind for our contemporaries. But on which ancient author can we be so
positive?
> I have thus classified these writers into broad categories -
> * writers who surely SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (5),
> * writers who PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (4,3),
> * writers who COULD have mentioned Jesus (2,1, or even 0.5),
> * writers who WOULDN'T have mentioned Jesus (0)
>
> I have given each writer a WEIGHT out of 5 as indicated.
Note that such merely measures the expectation of the author, not the
probability of his case.
> As well as -
> * writers CLAIMED to mention Jesus.
>
> Of course, one writer who didn't mention Jesus means nothing.
> But, when DOZENS of writers from the period in question fail to mention
> anything about Jesus (or the the Gospel events or actors), this argues
> against historicity.
The failure of logic needs no further comment.
> The argument is sometimes made that these writers could not possibly
> have mentioned Jesus - because he was a minor figure and unrelated to
> the issues at hand.
It's certainly possible.
> This assumes that no such writer ever mentions a minor figure in
> passing, that they never make an aside about other events or figures
> who are not specially related to the subject.
It is unnecessary to presume this. It only assumes that no writer
mentions anyone unless he feels like it.
> I have included astronomers on the list who might have mentioned the
> Star of Bethlehem and/or the darkness at the crucifixion - if they had
> heard of them. This is a lesser issue then the existence of Jesus, and
> I have rated such writers as 0.5.
>
> [b]Summary of Results
>
> The results of my current classifications is:
>
> 1 writer who surely SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Philo.)
>
> 3 writers who PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Seneca, Plutarch,
> Justus.)
>
> 31 writers who COULD have mentioned Jesus.
>
> (20 writers who could not be expected to.
> 6 writers claimed to mention Jesus, but disputed or suspect.)
> [/b]
>
>
> [b]WRITERS WHO SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS[/b]
>
> [b]PHILO[/b]
>
> Philo Judaeus wrote very many books about Jewish religion and history,
> in the 30s and 40s, living in Alexandria, and visiting Jerusalem.
>
> Philo was contemporary with Jesus and Paul,
> Philo visited Jerusalem and had family there,
> he developed the concept of the Logos and the holy spirit,
> he was considered a Christian by some later Christians,
> he wrote a great deal about related times and peoples and issues.
>
> If Jesus had existed, Philo would almost certainly have written about
> him and his teachings.
>
> Rating: SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
> Weight: 5
In which work where, specifically, is this the case? And why?
> [b]WRITERS WHO PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS[/b]
>
> [b]SENECA[/b]
>
> Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical
> books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.
>
> Seneca wrote a great deal on many subjects and mentioned many people.
> He was a Stoic, a school of thought considered sympathetic to Christian
> teachings.
>
> In fact,
> early Christians seemed to have expected him to discuss Christianity -
> they FORGED letters between him and Paul.
>
> How else to explain these forgeries, except as Christian responses to a
> surprising VOID in Seneca's writings?
>
> Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did
> not.
> Weight: 4
The Letters of Paul and Seneca do not belong to early Christianity, but
to the 4th century or later when aristocratic pagans were turning to
Christianity. They are a literary production of that period, and have
nothing to do with this issue.
One may again ask in which of his writings this Roman aristocrat should
have mentioned this Jewish cult, and why. Since Seneca was Spanish,
and lived in Rome, it may reasonably be questioned whether he had ever
heard of Christ. However I suspect he had, since he was involved in
government. But again, where is there factual evidence? Why does the
demand of a 20th century atheist require Annaeus Seneca to write a
disquisition on a Galilean peasant?
> [b]PLUTARCH[/b]
>
> Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in
> Rome and Boetia in about 90-120 CE.
>
> Plutarch wrote about influential Roman figures, including some
> contemporary to Jesus,
> Plutarch wrote on Oracles (prophesies),
> Plutarch wrote on moral issues,
> Plutarch wrote on spiritual and religious issues.
>
> Plutarch's writings also include a fascinating piece known as the
> "Vision of Aridaeus", a spiritual journey, or out of body experience,
> or religious fantasy -
> [url]http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/PlutarchVision.html[/url]
>
> If Plutarch knew of Jesus or the Gospel events, it is highly likely he
> would have mentioned them.
>
> Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did
> not.
> Weight: 4
Since no-one seems to question that Christians were around in
Plutarch's day, yet he does not mention them either, need one say more?
> [b]JUSTUS[/b]
>
> Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of Jewish Kings in Galilee in late
> 1st century.
>
> Photius read Justus in the 8th century and noted that he did not
> mention anything: [i]"He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of
> Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he
> did."[/i]
>
> It is surprising that a contemporary writer from the very region of
> Jesus' alleged acts did not mention him.
>
> Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
> Weight: 3
In fact Photius says nothing of the kind. What is worse is that this
point has been repeatedly addressed online, yet the author persists in
repeating it. Likewise no reference is offered.
What does Photius, who was a 9th century author, actually say?
"XXIII. Read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias, entitled A Chronicle
of the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy, by Justus of
Tiberias. He came from Tiberias in Galilee, from which he took his
name. He begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the
death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod and the last of the
Kings of the Jews. His kingdom, which was bestowed upon him by
Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian. He died
in the third year of Trajan, when the history ends. Justus' style is
very concise and he omits a great deal that is of utmost importance.
Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged,
he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of his life,
or the miracles performed by Him. His father was a Jew named Pistus;
Justus himself, according to Josephus, was one of the most abandoned of
men, a slave to vice and greed. He was a political opponent of
Josephus, against whom he is said to have concocted several plots; but
Josephus, although on several occasions he had his enemy in his power,
only chastised him with words and let him go free. It is said that
the history which he wrote is in great part fictitious, especially
where he describes the Judaeo-Roman war and the capture of Jerusalem."
(Bibliotheca, Codex 23. Tr. J.H.Freese, SPCK).
Photius' comments -- all that is left of Justus -- explain why he did
not mention Jesus; and probably wouldn't have anyway.
Thus we have disposed without difficulty of the three main 'witnesses'
-- witnesses who have no evidence.
Expectation can never be a valid way to do history.
> [b]WRITERS WHO COULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS[/b]
>
> [b]DAMIS[/b]
>
> Damis wrote most of what we know about Apollonius of Tyana. He was a
> philospher and mystic exactly contemporary with Jesus and who was
> rather similar to Jesus - enough for some authors to argue they were
> one and the same person.
>
> If Damis/Apollonius had known of Jesus, he could have easily have been
> mentioned as a competitor. A story in which Apollonius bested Jesus in
> debate would not be un-expected.
>
> Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
> Weight: 2
This entry is fraudulent, as the lack of reference would suggest to the
wary. No writer named Damis ever existed. The reference is to a
supposed 'Damis of Nineveh' whom Philostratus, the 3rd century
fiction-writer, ascribed as the source for his imaginary story about
the otherwise unknown Apollonius. It need merely be remarked how easy
it was for 3rd century pagan authors to invent rivals to Jesus, and
such activity is recorded by Hierocles, the 4th century governor of
Bithynia by Eusebius in his Church History.
> [b]APOLLONIUS[/b]
>
> See Damis.
Interesting to quote a reference twice!
> [b]PLINY THE ELDER[/b]
>
> Gaius Plinius Secundus wrote a large Natural History in Rome c.80CE
>
> Pliny wrote a great deal - his Natural History mentions HUNDREDS of
> people, major & minor - writers, leaders, poets, artists - often with
> as much reason as mentioning Jesus. (Of course like many other writers
> he talks about astronomy too, but never mentions the Star of Bethlehem
> or the darkness.)
>
> It is not at all un-reasoble for this prolific writer to have mentioned
> Jesus or the Gospels events.
>
> Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
> Weight: 2
Those who have read the Natural History know that it is primary about
herbs and drugs. Again, where precisely in this work would it fit?
How many people living in Judaea at that time are mentioned by Pliny
the Elder?
It is curious that the star and the darkness are considered significant
-- Pliny was no witness of these events.
> [b]JUVENAL[/b]
>
> Decimus Junius Juvenalis wrote sixteen satires in Rome in early 2nd
> century.
>
> Lucian the Roman satirist DID ridicule Christians (as gullible, easily
> lead fools) in mid 2nd century. By the later time of Lucian,
> Christianity obviously was known to the wider Roman community. Whereas
> Juvenal wrote at a time when Christianity had only just started to rate
> a few tiny mentions (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus.)
>
> Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
> Weight: 2
No reason is offered for why Juvenal 'must' mention Christians. His
works satirise Roman society, in which Christians did not take part
(satire XVI attacks Egyptians).
> [b]MARTIAL[/b]
>
> Marcus Valerius Martialus wrote satires in Rome in late 1st century.
>
> Martial wrote a large body of poems about all sorts of things. He
> mentions many people, places, stories and issues - major and minor,
> within and without Rome, such as :
> * Stoic suffering of discomfort and death,
> * virgin's blood,
> * Roman funerary practices,
> * the way accused men look in court,
> * Roman soldiers mocking their leaders,
> * anointing the body with oil,
> * Molorchus the good shepherd,
> * Tutilius a minor rhetorician, Nestor the wise,
> * the (ugly) Temple of Jupiter,
>
> This shows Martial mentions or alludes to many and varied people and
> issues.
>
> He could easily have mentioned Jesus (or the Gospel events).
>
> Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
> Weight: 2
Again, for the argument to work Martial 'must' mention Jesus. Had he
ever heard the name?
We are now beginning to reach the bottom. Any work, however unrelated,
however tenuous, is raised in evidence. This, frankly, seems like an
attempt to impress by heaping up names.
> [b]PETRONIUS[/b]
>
> Petronius Arbiter wrote a large novel (a bawdy drama) the "Satyricon"
> c.60CE.
>
> Petronius mentions all sorts of people and events in this large work,...
> including :
> ** [b]a CRUCIFIXION ! [/b]
> ** a scene where guards are posted to stop a corpse being stolen,
> ** a tomb scene of someone mistaking a person for a supernatural
> vision,
> * gods such as Bacchus and Ceres,
> * writers such as Sophocles and Euripides and Epicurus,
> * books such as the Iliad,
> * Romans such as Cato and Pompey,
> * people such as Hannibal, and the Governor of Ephesus,
> * female charioteers, slaves, merchants, Arabs, lawyers
> * baths, shipwrecks, meals...
>
> This large work, cover MANY topics, including a CRUCIFIXION, and it was
> written just as Peter and Paul had come to Rome, allegedly. It could
> easily have mentioned Jesus.
>
> Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
> Weight: 2
Again, why on earth would he be mentioned in a pornographic novel? The
emphasis on crucifixion is amusing -- was Jesus the only person ever
crucified, one wonders?
> [b]PAUSANIAS[/b]
>
> Pausanias wrote the massive Guide to Greece in mid 2nd century. [etc]
> Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
> Weight: 2
Getting really desperate here...
> [b]EPICTETUS[/b]
>
> Epictetus is known for several books of Stoic religious and philosophic
> discourses in the early 2nd century. One of his disciples was Arrian,
> and thanks to him much of Epictetus' works are extant.
>
> Epictetus DID apparently mention "the Galileans", which could be a
> reference to :
> * the early Christians,
> or
> * the revolt under Judas the Galilean in early 1st century.
>
> Either way, this shows quite clearly that Epictetus could refer to a
> figure such as Jesus.
>
> Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
> Weight: 2
Why is this evidence?
> [b]AELIUS ARISTIDES[/b]
>
> Aelius Aristides the Greek Orator spoke and wrote a History of Rome
> and other subjects - he seems to refer to the Christians as [i]"impious
> men from Palestine"[/i] (Orations 46.2)
>
> If he could mention people from Palestine, he could easily have
> mentioned Jesus.
>
> Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
> Weight: 2
I wonder in what context he mentions Christians? No information
here...
> [b]FRONTO[/b]
>
> Marcus Cornelius Fronto of Rome wrote several letters in mid 2nd
> century.
>
> According to Minucius Felix, he scandalised rites practiced by Roman
> Christians - so he could easily have mentioned Jesus.
>
> Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
> Weight: 2
Again, why should he?
> [b]PERSIUS[/b]
>
> Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote six fairly long satires in Rome in the mid
> 1st century, of a rather philosophic nature.
>
> The argument that no Roman satirist could be expected to mention Jesus,
> is proven wrong by the case of a Roman satirist who DID mention Jesus
> (but only as echoes of later Christian beliefs.)
>
> Persius wrote a reasonably large body of work that mentions many people
> and issues.
>
> Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
> Weight: 1
In which part of his satires on Roman society must he have mentioned
Christ?
> [b]DIO CHRYSOSTOM[/b]
>
> Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) wrote many works and gave many speeches
> in various Roman and Greek centres in late 1st century, of which 80
> survive e.g. the Euboicus.
>
> Dio wrote a large number of works in the late 1st century - he
> certainly could have mentioned Jesus, if he knew of him.
>
> Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
> Weight: 1
This is turning into a list of all surviving Greek and Latin
literature, such is the desperation of the author. But in no case is
it even attempted to show that the silence is significant.
I will reduce the list to names, since the same comment applies to
each.
> [b]AULUS GELLIUS[/b]
2nd century
> [b]LUCIUS APULEIUS[/b]
Almost 3rd century.
> [b]MARCUS AURELIUS[/b]
>
> Marcus Aelius Aurelius Antoninus wrote the Stoic Meditations in mid 2nd
> century - he (apparently) refers once to the Christians in XI, 3.
One senses the author never checked whether this emperor did. The
context calls for no mention of Christ.
> [b]MUSONIUS RUFUS[/b]
> [b]HIEROCLES[/b]
> [b]MAXIMUS of TYRE[/b]
> [b]ARRIAN[/b]
>
> Arrian wrote a History of Alexander c.120CE.
>
> The subject is not related...
A statement true of every work mentioned.
> [b]APPIAN[/b]
> [b]THEON of SMYRNA[/b]
> [b]QUINTILIAN[/b]
It is difficult not to laugh at the idea that Quintillian's rhetorical
handbook must have mentioned Jesus. Clearly the author has never read
Q.
> [b]LUCIUS ANNAEUS FLORUS[/b]
> [b]LUCAN[/b]
>
> Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome in mid
> 1st century.
In which, no doubt, events unrelated to the Roman civil war of 40 BC
would naturally fit?
> [b]STATIUS[/b]
> [b]HERO of ALEXANDRIA[/b]
> [b]GEMINUS[/b]
> [b]ALBINUS[/b]
> [b]ARISTOCLES[/b]
> [b]APOLLODORUS[/b]
> [b]HEPHAESTION[/b]
> [b]SEXTUS EMPIRICUS[/b]
There seems no reason for the author not to paste lists of names
indefinitely. Yet to what end? None of these have been shown to have
any reason to mention Jesus -- indeed the effort has not been
attempted.
> [b]WRITERS CLAIMED TO MENTION JESUS[/b]
>
> [b]JOSEPHUS[/b]
>
> Much has been said about Josephus, but not here.
> Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but may not have.
Curious how the first writer whose text certainly contains the name is
dismissed!
> [b]TACITUS[/b]
>
> Cornelius Tacitus wrote a celebrated passage about Jesus roughly 80
> years or so after the alleged events - but he seems to be reporting
> Christian beliefs of his later times, not using earlier documents: he
> uses the incorrect title 'procurator' - the term used in Tacitus' time,
> not Pilate's; he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could
> not possibly have called him 'Christ '); and he accepts the recent
> advent of the Christians, when Rome was known to allow only ancient
> cults and religions.
>
> Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.
The author seems to be unaware that speculating about an author's
sources in order to ignore his testimony is purely for polemicists.
A.N.Sherwin-White, in his study of governorial titulature, does not
discuss this argument but merely presumes that Tacitus gave the current
title for that current at the time. Nor is it certain that Pilate did
not hold both titles. The author seems unaware that Jesus is always
called Christ in Roman texts.
> [b]NUMENIUS[/b]
>
> In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative
> regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name"
>
> Numenius does not mention Jesus, just a story that was later attributed
> to him.
>
> Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.
Quite why we should ignore the testimony of Origen, and prefer the
assertion of this author who has never read the (lost) work of Numenius
is not explained.
> [b]SUETONIUS[/b]
>
> Gaius SUETONIUS Tranquillus wrote a histories/biographies of Roman
> Caesars c.120CE.
>
> He mentions a "Chrestus" (a common slave name meaning "Useful") who
> caused disturbance in Rome in 49CE.
>
> Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.
The certainty with which this disputed passage is dismissed is curious.
There is no need to invent an otherwise unknown Christus; only one
person of that name was causing ructions among the Jews at that period!
But the reference is indeed vague, and so cannot be certainly claimed
as a reference to Jesus of Nazareth.
> [b]PHLEGON[/b]
>
> Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen,
> Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by much later George
> Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an
> eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon said anything about Gospel events
> - just evidence for later Christians believing his statements about an
> eclipse (there WAS an eclipse in this period) was really about the
> Gospel darkness.
>
> Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.
Phlegon is the author of two surviving small works, "On Marvels" and
"On long-lived persons." He was the author of an olympiad chronicle in
16 books, finishing in AD.137. Portions are preserved in Photius and
the Suda.
Julius Africanus reports that his chronicle referred to an eclipse at
the time of the death of Jesus, in order to disagree with it.
Africanus' comments make it clear that the idea that there was a
darkness at that time was well-known; and that pagan authors referred
to it, and dismissed it as an eclipse. However we also have a comment
by Phlegon preserved in Jerome; if this is the same passage -- and it
ought to be -- then Africanus may have misunderstood his source.
The data being contradictory, a wise man will pass no judgement.
> [b]THALLUS[/b]
>
> Thallus perhaps wrote in early 2nd century 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: [i]"Thallus calls this darkness an
> eclipse"[/i]. 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.
>
> Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.
Speculation is not an adequate reason to ignore the testimony of those
around at the time.
> [b]WRITERS WHO COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO HAVE MENTIONED JESUS[/b]
>
> Dion Prusaeus
> Paterculus
> Ptolemy
> Valerius Maximus
> Pomponius Mela
> Quintus Curtus Rufus
> Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella
> Favorinus
> Phaedrus
> Babrius
> Silius Italicus
> Marcus Manilius
> Cleomedes
> Dioscorides
> Sextus Julius Frontinus
> Nicomachus of Gerasa
> Menelaus of Alexandria
> Menodotus of Nicomedia
> Tiberius Claudius Herodes Atticus
> Valerius Flaccus
It is hard to distinguish many of these from those listed above,
however. Indeed all formed part of John Remsburg's now discredited
list.
Where does this leave us? Very much where we started: with an attempt
to argue from speculation.
Most people will prefer reason and evidence.
Iasion
Roger Pearse wrote : "It is sometimes asserted that, because he is not
mentioned in various writers of the first century, he could not have
existed."
Really?
Who asserted that?
I certainly didn't - in fact, I clearly pointed out in my last post
that this issue is merely one of a number of arguments against the
historicity of Jesus.
Sadly, apologists like Roger are all to keen to attack strawmen of
their own making.
Roger Pearse wrote : " Do we ignore all those people attested by
archaeology? "
What nonsense is this?
No-one attested to by archeology is "ignored"
Is Roger trying to pretend that archeology attests to the Gospels?
Because it most certainly does not.
Neither history, nor archeology, supports the Gospel events.
Roger Pearse wrote : " No picture of these events can easily be formed
from the novels of Jane Austen, in which even the name of Napoleon does
not appear, unless I mistake. "
Another strawman.
Napoleon missing from ONE book means nothing.
But if there was NO contemporary evidence ANYWHERE of Napoleon until
the late 1800s or so - that would be another matter.
Such is the situation for Jesus.
Iasion:
> But, when DOZENS of writers from the period in question fail to
mention
> anything about Jesus (or the the Gospel events or actors), this argues
> against historicity.
Roger Pearse wrote : " The failure of logic needs no further comment. "
Pardon?
Mention in history argues FOR historicity.
Total LACK of mention argues AGAINST historicity (but of course does
not prove it.)
Perhaps Roger can explain why he thinks it doesn't?
(Philo)
Roger Pearse wrote : " In which work where, specifically, is this the
case? And why? "
He could just as easily written a book On the Teachings of Jesus.
Or, in the many books where he mentions the Logos, he could have
mentioned Jesus, who was considered the Logos by some Christians.
Some commentators think the Christian Logos was developed partly from
the Logos of Philo.
Philo also developed the concept of the Holy Spirit.
Both these concepts were important to Christians.
(Ans Philo's and Christian's ideas were rooted in the Tanakh.)
Thus, IF Philo had been aware of Jesus and his teachings, it would have
been entirely natural to have mentioned them in works which covered
these subjects.
Roger Pearse wrote : " The Letters of Paul and Seneca do not belong to
early Christianity, but to the 4th century or later when aristocratic
pagans were turning to Christianity. They are a literary production of
that period, and have nothing to do with this issue. "
You missed the point.
Seneca's and (some) Christian's ideas were so similar that a forged
correspondance sprung up later.
This shows that even CHRISTIANS expected Seneca to have been aware of
Christianity (or why did it get forged and accepted for a while?)
But he wasn't
Seneca says nothing about Paul, or Jesus, or the Christians.
Not proof - just more evidence against historicity of Jesus
Roger Pearse wrote : " Since no-one seems to question that Christians
were around in Plutarch's day, yet he does not mention them either,
need one say more? "
IF Christians were a tiny new sect who believed in some mythical new
god-man,
not particularly likely Plutarch would know or mention them.
But,
IF Jesus had existed and taught and healed and founded a new religion
and inspired spiritual experiences,
it is much more likely Plutarch would have heard of Jesus.
Plutarch DOES write about religions (e.g. Greek, Egyptian, Jewish, even
Roman AFAIR) and their practices, and about spiritual experiences, and
about leaders and teachers from various countries. Plutarch's writings
cover VOLUMES, his index of names covers DOZENS of pages.
Plutarch's failure to mention Jesus or the Christians at all, argues :
* FOR it being a minor new cult
* AGAINST the existence of Jesus.
Iasion:
> Photius read Justus in the 8th century and noted that he did not
> mention anything: [i]"He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of
> Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he
> did."[/i]
Roger Pearse wrote : " In fact Photius says nothing of the kind. "
Well,
Here is the nub of what Roger goes on to quote Photius as REALLY saying
:
"... he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of his
life, or the miracles performed by Him. "
So,
lets have that again :
My quote of Photius:
"He makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the
wonderful works that he did."
Roger's version:
"... he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of his
life, or the miracles performed by Him. "
Now, each of those quotes has 3 clauses :
1. does not mention the coming of Christ
2. nor the events of his life (what happened to him)
3. nor the miracles performed by him (wonderful works that he did)
It is clear to anyone who can comprehend English that these 2 snippets
say EXACTLY the same thing (baring minor translation differences.)
Yet Roger makes the astonishing claim :
" In fact Photius says nothing of the kind. "
This is outright nonsense.
Photius said EXACTLY that.
But of course Roger could never admit it.
Sure,
Photius gives some apologetics (which I snipped)
and of course Roger goes along with the apology.
Which is why I haven't bothered with much response to Roger on this
issue.
It's apologetics, not debate.
Iasion
Roger Pearse
> Roger Pearse wrote : "It is sometimes asserted that, because he is not
> mentioned in various writers of the first century, he could not have
> existed."
>
> Really? Who asserted that? I certainly didn't - in fact, I
> clearly pointed out in my last post that this issue is merely
> one of a number of arguments against the historicity of Jesus.
> Sadly, apologists like Roger are all to keen to attack strawmen of
> their own making.
This, of course, is a distinction without a difference.
However my comment contained a typing error, and should have read "It
is sometimes asserted that, because someone is not mentioned in various
writers of the first century, he could not have existed."
> Roger Pearse wrote : " Do we ignore all those people attested by
> archaeology? "
>
> What nonsense is this?
> No-one attested to by archeology is "ignored"
> Is Roger trying to pretend that archeology attests to the Gospels?
> Because it most certainly does not.
> Neither history, nor archeology, supports the Gospel events.
It is sad to see that disagreement with my remarks preceded
comprehension of them.
Very many people are known to us only through archaeology. If someone
could not have existed, because they are not mentioned in the surviving
literary texts, what becomes of these people? Do only people lucky
enough to leave archaeological AND literary remains exist?
> Roger Pearse wrote : " No picture of these events can easily be formed
> from the novels of Jane Austen, in which even the name of Napoleon does
> not appear, unless I mistake. "
>
> Another strawman.
> Napoleon missing from ONE book means nothing.
> But if there was NO contemporary evidence ANYWHERE of Napoleon until
> the late 1800s or so - that would be another matter.
> Such is the situation for Jesus.
Failure to follow the argument noted; as is the basic unfamiliarity
with Austen.
> Iasion:
> > But, when DOZENS of writers from the period in question fail to
> > mention anything about Jesus (or the the Gospel events or actors),
> > this argues against historicity.
>
> Roger Pearse wrote : " The failure of logic needs no further comment. "
>
> Pardon?
> Mention in history argues FOR historicity.
> Total LACK of mention argues AGAINST historicity
You are welcome to prove this. I look forward to you trying to teach
archaeologists their discipline. Absence of evidence is evidence of
nothing, certainly not evidence of absence. Only in modern times, when
we have overwhelming data, can absence be significant.
> (Philo)
> Roger Pearse wrote : " In which work where, specifically, is this the
> case? And why? "
>
> He could just as easily ...
It is depressing to see that the author has no knowledge of the works
which he claims 'must' contain mention of Jesus.
> Roger Pearse wrote : " The Letters of Paul and Seneca do not belong to
> early Christianity, but to the 4th century or later when aristocratic
> pagans were turning to Christianity. They are a literary production of
> that period, and have nothing to do with this issue. "
>
> You missed the point.
> Seneca's and (some) Christian's ideas were so similar that a forged
> correspondance sprung up later.
> This shows that even CHRISTIANS expected Seneca to have been aware of
> Christianity (or why did it get forged and accepted for a while?)
It seems that the author is unable to grasp the concept of fiction in
literature; of the novel, of the literary dialogue.
> Roger Pearse wrote : " Since no-one seems to question that Christians
> were around in Plutarch's day, yet he does not mention them either,
> need one say more? "
>
> IF Christians were a tiny new sect who believed in some mythical new
> god-man, not particularly likely Plutarch would know or mention them.
This, of course, avoids the issue.
> Plutarch's failure to mention Jesus or the Christians at all, argues :
> * FOR it being a minor new cult
> * AGAINST the existence of Jesus.
Such a statement of faith requires no comment from me.
> Iasion:
> > Photius read Justus in the 8th century and noted that he did not
> > mention anything: [i]"He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of
> > Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he
> > did."[/i]
>
> Roger Pearse wrote : " In fact Photius says nothing of the kind. "
>
> Well,
> Here is the nub of what Roger goes on to quote Photius as REALLY saying
> "... he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of his
> life, or the miracles performed by Him. "
Once an author is reduced to editing out context, the argument is over.
> Yet Roger makes the astonishing claim :
> " In fact Photius says nothing of the kind. "
>
> This is outright nonsense.
> Photius said EXACTLY that.
> But of course Roger could never admit it.
It is curious to see how inability to read is a consequence of polemic.
> Sure, Photius gives some apologetics (which I snipped)
> and of course Roger goes along with the apology.
Another interesting feature of the hate-writer is that anything that
might be useful can be quoted, anything inconvenient discarded with an
ad hominem.
> It's apologetics, not debate.
A good description of the author's posts indeed.
It is truly depressing to see so much energy wasted in the tireless
repetition of anti-historical and anti-scholarly nonsense. The
reliance on heaping up repetitions to impress the unwary may disgust
some. I merely wish that this writer would get out more.
Martin Edwards
> One of the most curious productions of a certain kind of polemicist is
> the tendency to argue from their own expectations. This is invariably
> pure subjectivism, even when applied to contemporary politics. But
> when applied to ancient history, it is very hard indeed to see how such
> a thing can be a valid guide.
>
> Worse still is when an event attested in ancient literature is debunked
> on these grounds simply because it happens to be mentioned in only a
> handful of sources. Since the majority of ancient people and events
> are known from a single or small number of sources, such an approach
> (if valid) would dispose of the majority of what we know about
> antiquity.
On the other hand there is only one figure of the turn of the era of
whom we are asked to believe that he died and came to life again after
three days. This is so remarkable that one might have expected quite a
lot of mentions of it.
Martin Edwards
> It is truly depressing to see so much energy wasted in the tireless
> repetition of anti-historical and anti-scholarly nonsense.
> All the best,
>
> Roger Pearse
>
Yes it is, rather.
Matt Giwer
> One of the most curious productions of a certain kind of polemicist is
> the tendency to argue from their own expectations. This is invariably
> pure subjectivism, even when applied to contemporary politics. But
> when applied to ancient history, it is very hard indeed to see how such
> a thing can be a valid guide.
> Worse still is when an event attested in ancient literature is debunked
> on these grounds simply because it happens to be mentioned in only a
> handful of sources. Since the majority of ancient people and events
> are known from a single or small number of sources, such an approach
> (if valid) would dispose of the majority of what we know about
> antiquity.
And the rational person suggests, rightly so disposed. There is no point in believing what is
without foundation in fact simply because the pre-evidentiary traditional syllabus for the study of
Rome was created without basis in fact.
It is always better to learn from facts than tradition with no known foundation in fact. As Rome
was rediscovered from surviving material it was discovered the Christian view of it was largely false.
It is better even if it requires us to do some serious work and reconstruct what is known around
the physical evidence. No one minds a bit of work do they?
> It is sometimes asserted that, because he is not mentioned in various
> writers of the first century, he could not have existed. It is merely
> necessary to point out the vast numbers of people and places to whom
> the same argument would give the coup-de-grace! Do we ignore all those
> people attested by archaeology? Of course we would not -- yet such
> people are mostly unknown to literature.
One has to ask if a person such as the one described in the Gospels could have escaped mention. It
is not clear how this is possible if the cures were real. As I keep saying, the wealthy would have
flocked there for the cure and certainly have had it recorded on way or another. Not all of them,
but some of them would have and a fraction of them would have survived. But we have nothing.
You play the game of pretending this Jesus character was an anonymous pedestrian instead of the
greatest thing before sliced bread.
> As such, I cannot feel very much confidence in an argument of this
> nature. What else might be said about this example?
Apollonius of Tyana who was largely a parallel to Jesus in miracles and teachings and such is
mentioned. To you that is a reason not to require contemporary mention because it contradicts your
message.
--
Denying the holocaust is to hating Jews as denying Jesus is to hating
(a) The New York Yankees.
(b) Alien space invaders.
(c) Christians.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3498
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
commentary http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/running.phtml a5
Matt Giwer
> Roger Pearse wrote:
>> It is truly depressing to see so much energy wasted in the tireless
>> repetition of anti-historical and anti-scholarly nonsense. All the best,
>> Roger Pearse
> Yes it is, rather.
Why? What is scholarly? Remember High School National Merit Scholars. The word scholar itself means
nothing. Are they Christian scholars? They have no internal credibility and Lutherans will not
accept all the findings of Vatican scholars.
As to historical, that requires reading only what is written. It prohibits reading into it "what it
really means" at any point. It is absolutely prohibited to search for anything including christian.
That is not studying history.
The researchers with integrity held a debate in the 1990s on whether to make a united front
presentation that there is no serious support for either Judaism or Christianity from any source.
They appear to have let it up to the individual rather than a united front. I cannot blame them. It
would be nearly as harmful to career not to mention life and limb as to question the traditional
version of WWII. I did mean to say nearly as.
--
When reading that a scholar said something or holds an
opinion keep the word scholar in perspective. Think
National Merit Scholar.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3491
Matt Giwer
And the only one with contemporanious mention is Apollonius of Tyana.
How far do you want to run with this?
--
Arrakis is Iraq and the spice is oil.
Iraq is Arrakis and oil is the spice.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3516
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
environmentalism http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a9
Iasion
Roger Pearse wrote : " This entry is fraudulent, as the lack of
reference would suggest to the wary. No writer named Damis ever
existed. "
It is indeed possible that Damis did not exist (he may be a literary
creation)
indeed it is also POSSIBLE that Apollonius didn't either.
But the Life of Apollonius DOES exist.
Is Roger suggesting the Life did not exist?
This document tells the story of a 1st century healer / mystic /
preacher.
It COULD easily have mentioned Jesus - a debate between two teachers is
not uncommon in ancient works.
Roger Pearse wrote : " ascribed as the source for his imaginary story
about the otherwise unknown Apollonius. "
Rubbish,
there is much other evidence for Apollonius :
# Apollonius was considered a magician.
Independent confirmation: it is taken for granted by Cassius Dio,
Lucian (the latter referring to a disciple) and Anastasius Sinaitica
[note 8]. Fourfold attestation: to be found in the Reminiscences of
Moeragenes, in the memoirs of Damis, in the Letters of Apollonius, and
in the Antiochene tradition. Embarrassment: Philostratus clearly felt
uncomfortable with this, and three times offers apologies.
# Apollonius performed healings.
Independent confirmation: taken for granted by Cassius Dio, Lucian
(both referring to Apollonius' disciples) and Anastasius Sinaitica
[note 8]. Fivefold attestation: to be found in the infancy narrative by
Maximus of Aegae, in the Tyanean tradition, the story about the plague
in Ephesus, the story of the rabies patient in Tarsus, and in Damis.
# Apollonius lived in the second half of the first century.
Independent confirmation: Lucian mentions a disciple of Apollonius who
lived in the first half of the second century. Sixfold attestation:
Moeragenes, Letters of Apollonius (especially 58, a consolation of a
Roman governor whose governorship can be dated in 82/83), Damis,
Anastasius Sinaitica [note 8], mentioned by one Domninus [note 9].
Consistency: Apollonius must have been a contemporary of Euphrates of
Tyre (and Domitian).
# Apollonius was a neo-Pythagorean philosopher.
Independent attestation: Lucian, Life of Alexander. Fourfold
attestation: to be found in the Letters of Apollonius, implied in the
title of one Apollonius' publications, to be found in Damis, which
presupposes a conflict with Stoicism and Cynicism. Consistency: the
ideas expressed in the fragment of On sacrifices resemble what is known
of first century Pythagoreanism [note 10].
# Apollonius wrote a book On astrology.
Twofold attestation: On astrology is mentioned by Moeragenes and
Damis.Embarrassment: Philostratus expresses his disbelief about the
existence of On astrology.
>From :
http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollonius/apollonius07.html#Evaluation
Roger Pearse wrote : " It need merely be remarked how easy it was for
3rd century pagan authors to invent rivals to Jesus, and such activity
is recorded by Hierocles, the 4th century governor of Bithynia by
Eusebius in his Church History. "
Are you claiming that Hierocles recorded the invention of Apollonius?
Roger Pearse wrote : " Those who have read the Natural History know
that it is primary[sic] about herbs and drugs. "
Nonsense.
It covers Astronomy, Geography, Zoology, Ethnography, Anthropology,
Botany, Medicine, Mining.
Herbs and Drugs most certainly do not occupy more than 1/2 of the
books.
The index of just my "Selected Works" covers 10 pages with 100s of
names.
He mentions Judea and surrounds - covering e.g. the Jordan, Galilee,
and Jerusalem, mentioning it's now a pile of ashes. He also mentions he
Essenes, and King Herod. He refers to various sects of magicians,
including a Jewish one. He refers to crucifixion, he refers at great
length to the healing arts, including at length on the use of spittle.
He COULD easily have mentioned Jesus or the Gospel events.
Roger Pearse wrote : " No reason is offered for why Juvenal 'must'
mention Christians. His works satirise Roman society, in which
Christians did not take part (satire XVI attacks Egyptians). "
Dear me.
I did NOT say he "must" - just that he COULD have.
Did you think we not notice your slip?
We have examples of two other Roman writers who satirised Christians -
Lucian and Fronto.
This proves my case that a Roman satirist COULD make such a mention .
The point, Roger, is NOT that any of these writers "MUST HAVE"
mentioned Jesus.
My point is that we have a LARGE NUMBER of writers, contemporary, and
shortly afterwards, who could/should have mentioned Jesus - but almost
none of them did.
This strawman is beneath you Roger.
For your argument to succeed, you must show why these writers COULD NOT
POSSIBLY have mentioned Jesus.
You have not done that.
Roger Pearse wrote : " Again, for the argument to work Martial 'must'
mention Jesus. Had he ever heard the name? "
Hmmm.
Roger's favourite strawman rides again!
I did NOT claim he "must".
Just that he COULD have, like all the others (with varying levels of
confidence.)
Roger Pearse wrote : " We are now beginning to reach the bottom. Any
work, however unrelated, however tenuous, is raised in evidence. This,
frankly, seems like an attempt to impress by heaping up names. "
On the contrary,
I have clearly removed those writers who would obviously NOT mention
Jesus (unlike Remsberg.)
The whole point of my list is that it is exhaustive - the strength of
the argument lies in just how MANY writers totally fail to mention
Jesus.
Once again,
you have failed to show why Martial could NOT have mentioned Jesus.
We DO have examples of other such mentions by Roman writers.
Roger Pearse wrote : " Again, why on earth would he be mentioned in a
pornographic novel? The emphasis on crucifixion is amusing -- was
Jesus the only person ever crucified, one wonders? "
This novel DID mention a crucifixion, showing it COULD mention such
subjects.
Roger has faield to show why Petronius COULD NOT have mentioned Jesus.
Roger Pearse wrote : " Getting really desperate here... "
It appears you are,
you have stopped even pretending to argue why he COULD NOT have
mentioned Jesus.
This vast work has an index of great length and covers places and
people in various places, not just Greece.
Roger Pearse wrote : " Why is this evidence? "
Epictetus DID apparently mention the Galileans.
This is prima facie evidence that he COULD HAVE mentioned Jesus.
What are earth are you trying to say?
Roger Pearse wrote : " I wonder in what context he mentions Christians?
No information here... "
Hmmm..
I GAVE the citation - Orations 46.2.
You didn't even bother to look it up, instead falsely charging me with
giving no information.
A reference to men from Palestine is prima facie evidence he COULD HAVE
mentioned Jesus.
Roger Pearse wrote : " Again, why should he? "
I said COULD - he DID ridicule Christians after all.
Once again, you have failed to show why he COULD NOT have mentioned
Jesus.
Roger Pearse wrote : " In which part of his satires on Roman society
must he have mentioned Christ? "
That poor strawman! give it a rest.
I said COULD HAVE.
The examples of other satirists who DID mention Christians, is prima
facie evidnce he COULD HAVE mentioned Jesus (had he known of his
existence.)
Roger Pearse wrote : " This is turning into a list of all surviving
Greek and Latin literature, such is the desperation of the author. But
in no case is it even attempted to show that the silence is
significant. "
Roger - in TOTO, my list is EXACTLY that - a complete and exhaustive
list of every single writer of the period.
I then REMOVED those who obviously could not have mentioned Jesus.
I am increasingly of the view you do not grasp this at all.
You have failed to show why Dio COULD NOT have mentioned Jesus.
And the rest is the same...
A few snide comments, but not the slightest attempt to show why they
COULD NOT have mentioned Jesus.
Iasion
Iasion
Roger Pearse wrote : " It is depressing to see that the author has no
knowledge of the works which he claims 'must' contain mention of Jesus.
"
Sadly,
Roger has attempted to thrash this strawman of his about a DOZEN times
in these posts already !
As if readers won't notice his furphy :-)
I never said "must", Roger is either too incompetent to grasp this
distinction, or is deliberately mis-representing my position.
Either way,
I am sure readers can see why I don't (usually) bother to answer his
sad apologetics.
Iasion
Martin Edwards
> Martin Edwards wrote:
>
>> Roger Pearse wrote:
>
>
>>> It is truly depressing to see so much energy wasted in the tireless
>>> repetition of anti-historical and anti-scholarly nonsense. All the
>>> best,
>
>
>>> Roger Pearse
>
>
>> Yes it is, rather.
>
>
> Why? What is scholarly? Remember High School National Merit
> Scholars. The word scholar itself means nothing. Are they Christian
> scholars? They have no internal credibility and Lutherans will not
> accept all the findings of Vatican scholars.
>
> As to historical, that requires reading only what is written. It
> prohibits reading into it "what it really means" at any point. It is
> absolutely prohibited to search for anything including christian. That
> is not studying history.
>
> The researchers with integrity held a debate in the 1990s on whether
> to make a united front presentation that there is no serious support for
> either Judaism or Christianity from any source. They appear to have let
> it up to the individual rather than a united front. I cannot blame them.
> It would be nearly as harmful to career not to mention life and limb as
> to question the traditional version of WWII. I did mean to say nearly as.
>
Americans". If I have to spell it out for you, you were not the target
here.
Martin Edwards
> Martin Edwards wrote:
>
>> Roger Pearse wrote:
>
>
>>> One of the most curious productions of a certain kind of polemicist is
>>> the tendency to argue from their own expectations. This is invariably
>>> pure subjectivism, even when applied to contemporary politics. But
>>> when applied to ancient history, it is very hard indeed to see how such
>>> a thing can be a valid guide.
>
>
>>> Worse still is when an event attested in ancient literature is debunked
>>> on these grounds simply because it happens to be mentioned in only a
>>> handful of sources. Since the majority of ancient people and events
>>> are known from a single or small number of sources, such an approach
>>> (if valid) would dispose of the majority of what we know about
>>> antiquity.
>
>
>> On the other hand there is only one figure of the turn of the era of
>> whom we are asked to believe that he died and came to life again after
>> three days. This is so remarkable that one might have expected quite
>> a lot of mentions of it.
>
>
> And the only one with contemporanious mention is Apollonius of Tyana.
>
> How far do you want to run with this?
>
notice that other posters are occasionally on your side.
Roger Pearse
> Roger Pearse wrote:
>
> > One of the most curious productions of a certain kind of polemicist is
> > the tendency to argue from their own expectations. This is invariably
> > pure subjectivism, even when applied to contemporary politics. But
> > when applied to ancient history, it is very hard indeed to see how such
> > a thing can be a valid guide.
>
> > Worse still is when an event attested in ancient literature is debunked
> > on these grounds simply because it happens to be mentioned in only a
> > handful of sources. Since the majority of ancient people and events
> > are known from a single or small number of sources, such an approach
> > (if valid) would dispose of the majority of what we know about
> > antiquity.
>
> And the rational person suggests, rightly so disposed. There is no point in believing what is
> without foundation in fact simply because the pre-evidentiary traditional syllabus for the study of
> Rome was created without basis in fact.
It is unnecessary to comment further on a position which debunks
Christian origins on the unstated presumption that all history is bunk.
Roger Pearse
If one were so ignorant as to suppose that the survivals of ancient
literature are sufficiently voluminous that significant events are
always attested, yes.
Roger Pearse
> Quentin David Jones wrote:
> > Greetings Roger,
> >
> > "Roger Pearse" <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1128194554.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>Iasion wrote:
> >>Not really. It's been shown to be unreasonable, mistaken or misleading
> >>many, many times already online.
> >
> >
> > Really?
> > So YOU say.
> >
> > Why is this list of writers "unreasonable"?
> > How COULD a list of writers be "unreasonable"?
> >
> > Where is there a "mistake" in this list?
> > You have shown none.
> >
> > What is "misleading" about it?
> > You have shown nothing such.
> >
> > Quentin
> >
> "Misleading" to a Christian means "counter to what I have been taught".
Second hand sneers about lack of originality seem rather self-defeating
to me.
Roger Pearse
> Roger Pearse wrote : " This entry is fraudulent, as the lack of
> reference would suggest to the wary. No writer named Damis ever
> existed. "
>
> It is indeed possible that Damis did not exist (he may be a literary
> creation)
> indeed it is also POSSIBLE that Apollonius didn't either.
> But the Life of Apollonius DOES exist.
> Is Roger suggesting the Life did not exist?
Well, I am dealing with the comments made in the narrative, not what
they might have been. The 3rd (?) century work by Philostratus
certainly exists; the 4th century comment on it by Eusebius of Caesarea
likewise, in which he affirms his respect for a genuine Apollonius, as
opposed to the creation of Philostratus and others.
> This document tells the story of a 1st century healer / mystic /
> preacher.
> It COULD easily have mentioned Jesus - a debate between two teachers is
> not uncommon in ancient works.
Not least because it was written in the 3rd century. But I hardly
think we would suppose that this is evidence that the church did not
exist, or was not significant, when Philostratus wrote. From this
argument, the life of Apollonius thus becomes evidence that the life of
Jesus can be omitted from a work in which some might expect it to be
mentioned, even though we know that the author must have been aware of
it since the church was subject to empire-wide proscriptions.
> Roger Pearse wrote : "ascribed as the source for his imaginary story
> about the otherwise unknown Apollonius."
>
> Rubbish, there is much other evidence for Apollonius :
My apologies; I should have said 'otherwise little known Apollonius.'
[Long paste from
> http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollonius/apollonius07.html#Evaluation
snipped]
Jona's page is well-researched, but the scraps he has been able to find
merely demonstrate the obscurity of the man behind the story
Philostratus embroidered around him. You might look at the quotation
from Cassius Dio to see what I mean.
I note with interest that the technique -- surely equally valid! --
that is applied to Jesus is not applied to Apollonius. We might wonder
why, were the answer not fairly obvious! Bias is a terrible thing to
see.
> Roger Pearse wrote : " It need merely be remarked how easy it was for
> 3rd century pagan authors to invent rivals to Jesus, and such activity
> is recorded by Hierocles, the 4th century governor of Bithynia by
> Eusebius in his Church History. "
>
> Are you claiming that Hierocles recorded the invention of Apollonius?
Pardon me; I see I was unclear. Hierocles invented similar imaginary
literature himself, such as the "Acts of Pilate"; he also elaborated
the legend of Apollonius rather as Christan-haters sometimes do today.
But the version that has reached us of the Apollonius legend is earlier
than his day.
> Roger Pearse wrote : " Those who have read the Natural History know
> that it is primary[sic] about herbs and drugs. "
>
> Nonsense.
Having read the HN, I am continually astonished at the certitude with
which people seem to have failed to notice the main contents of it. It
does of course deal with quite a number of other natural phenomena.
But, of course, we could always count up, chapter by chapter, what it
contains. I found it dull precisely because it was always talking
about herbs.
> Roger Pearse wrote : " No reason is offered for why Juvenal 'must'
> mention Christians. His works satirise Roman society, in which
> Christians did not take part (satire XVI attacks Egyptians). "
>
> Dear me.
> I did NOT say he "must" - just that he COULD have.
> Did you think we not notice your slip?
It is useless to engage in such evasions. Any ancient writer from 30AD
onwards 'could' mention Jesus. But the argument is that their failure
to do so is significant. If their silence is significant, then they
'must' mention him for this argument to fail.
> We have examples of two other Roman writers who satirised Christians -
> Lucian and Fronto.
> This proves my case that a Roman satirist COULD make such a mention .
In which extant work does Fronto attack the Christians? I was unaware
that his Letters do so, although I have only skimmed these; and what
other work is extant?
We have very many works in which the Christians are not mentioned. Had
Lucian perished, would people now be arguing that the Christians did
not exist either?
I have snipped further examples of gross failure to grasp the point, or
evasions of various sorts. Apparently the author thinks that if he
lists every writer who ever wrote, and most of them don't mention
Jesus, that proves Jesus never existed. A similar argument in modern
literature would disprove the existence of almost everyone.
An invalid method is an invalid method.
> Roger Pearse wrote : " I wonder in what context he mentions Christians?
> No information here... "
>
> Hmmm..
> I GAVE the citation - Orations 46.2.
> You didn't even bother to look it up, instead falsely charging me with
> giving no information.
It is curious to see someone who gives all his information from
websites complaining that someone else doesn't do the job he failed to
do! Not very impressive, tho.
I don't have Epictetus here, of course. That's why I noticed the lack.
The online text does not refer to Orations.
Matt Giwer
>>Roger Pearse wrote:
Nice try but even the casual reader recognizes I only suggested an evidenciary basis for history
not that evidence is bunk. It may be rationaly construed I implied history contrary to evidence is
bunk.
--
Out of touch, def: After support for the Iraq war falls below 50% declare
the "terrorists" will not break the will of the American people.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3517
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4
Matt Giwer
>>Roger Pearse wrote:
Then we would also assume the expositions of Jesus the con artist did not survive would we not?
One does assume as we know from today and from times past where material has survived the more
significant the event the more material is created. Therefore by chance survival we conclude
Apollonius of Tyana was more significant than Jesus.
--
No one expects the Israeli Inquisition!
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3507
Martin Edwards
that misleading statements have been made. Now, my statement is
certainly sincerely meant whether or not it would turn out, after long
and exhaustive research, to be right. It is not second hand, you cannot
tell what expression was on my face at the time, and do not show in what
way I defeat myself by making it. Indeed, I would venture, that to a
Christian, anything that questions his assumptions is a sneer.
Roger Pearse
> Roger Pearse wrote:
> > Martin Edwards wrote:
> >
> >>Quentin David Jones wrote:
> >>
> >>>Greetings Roger,
> >>>
> >>>"Roger Pearse" <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>news:1128194554.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Iasion wrote:
> >>>>Not really. It's been shown to be unreasonable, mistaken or misleading
> >>>>many, many times already online.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Really?
> >>>So YOU say.
> >>>
> >>>Why is this list of writers "unreasonable"?
> >>>How COULD a list of writers be "unreasonable"?
> >>>
> >>>Where is there a "mistake" in this list?
> >>>You have shown none.
> >>>
> >>>What is "misleading" about it?
> >>>You have shown nothing such.
> >>>
> >>>Quentin
> >>>
> >>
> >>"Misleading" to a Christian means "counter to what I have been taught".
> >
> > Second hand sneers about lack of originality seem rather self-defeating
> > to me.
> >
And your comment is not?
> You have made a generic claim that misleading statements have been made.
Your point?
> Now, my statement is certainly sincerely meant whether or not it
> would turn out, after long and exhaustive research, to be right.
> It is not second hand,
A thousand posts by other people to the same effect prove otherwise.
> you cannot tell what expression was on my face at the time,
No doubt there is some relevance to this comment.
> and do not show in what way I defeat myself by making it.
I can certainly break it down into baby-talk, if you wish.
You copied something. That something was a complaint that Christians
repeat the opinions of others. You repeated the opinions of others.
Therefore you refuted yourself.
> Indeed, I would venture, that to a Christian, anything that
> questions his assumptions is a sneer.
Further sneer noted.
Do you have anything to contribute here other than sneering?
Martin Edwards
I have gleaned from scholars, but many others of which have occurred
to me simply from reading the Greek. You may or may not have read them,
but I suspect that I do indeed have nothing to contribute which will
make an impression on your very deep level of indoctrination.
Roger Pearse
> Roger Pearse wrote:
> > Do you have anything to contribute here other than sneering?
> >
> I have gleaned from scholars, but many others of which have occurred
> to me simply from reading the Greek. You may or may not have read them,
> but I suspect that I do indeed have nothing to contribute which will
> make an impression on your very deep level of indoctrination.
A very pompous way of saying 'no', I'm afraid. I suggest you ask
yourself why you are so foolish as to suppose anyone who disagrees with
your ill-educated and narrow-minded comments to be indoctrinated. No
doubt there is some squalid vice you have to explain -- if so, do it
somewhere else. No-one here cares about it.
Martin Edwards
lot of smoke (from burning bodies) over the centuries.
Roger Pearse
> Roger Pearse wrote:
> > Martin Edwards wrote:
> >
> >>Roger Pearse wrote:
> >>
> >>>Do you have anything to contribute here other than sneering?
> >>
> >>I have posted all kinds of points about Biblical passages, many of which
> >> I have gleaned from scholars, but many others of which have occurred
> >>to me simply from reading the Greek. You may or may not have read them,
> >>but I suspect that I do indeed have nothing to contribute which will
> >>make an impression on your very deep level of indoctrination.
> >
> > A very pompous way of saying 'no', I'm afraid. I suggest you ask
> > yourself why you are so foolish as to suppose anyone who disagrees with
> > your ill-educated and narrow-minded comments to be indoctrinated. No
> > doubt there is some squalid vice you have to explain -- if so, do it
> > somewhere else. No-one here cares about it.
> >
> lot of smoke (from burning bodies) over the centuries.
Such an assumption on the part of your co-religionsists has created a
lot of smoke (from burning bodies) over the last few decades. Why are
you and your friends so keen on death-camps?
Unable to discuss your own position? What a surprise.
Martin Edwards
respond. As to the assumption that anyone who disagress with you is a
Nazi, there's another surprise.
Matt Giwer
Do call him a nazi. I want to read his response.
--
10 August 2005: US death rate in Iraq is 4.4 per day.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3499
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12
Roger Pearse
> Roger Pearse wrote:
> > Martin Edwards wrote:
> >
> >>Roger Pearse wrote:
> >>
> >>>Martin Edwards wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Roger Pearse wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Do you have anything to contribute here other than sneering?
> >>>>
> >>>>I have posted all kinds of points about Biblical passages, many of which
> >>>> I have gleaned from scholars, but many others of which have occurred
> >>>>to me simply from reading the Greek. You may or may not have read them,
> >>>>but I suspect that I do indeed have nothing to contribute which will
> >>>>make an impression on your very deep level of indoctrination.
> >>>
> >>>A very pompous way of saying 'no', I'm afraid. I suggest you ask
> >>>yourself why you are so foolish as to suppose anyone who disagrees with
> >>>your ill-educated and narrow-minded comments to be indoctrinated. No
> >>>doubt there is some squalid vice you have to explain -- if so, do it
> >>>somewhere else. No-one here cares about it.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Such an assumption on the part of your co-religionsists has created a
> >>lot of smoke (from burning bodies) over the centuries.
> >
> >
> > Such an assumption on the part of your co-religionsists has created a
> > lot of smoke (from burning bodies) over the last few decades. Why are
> > you and your friends so keen on death-camps?
> >
> > Unable to discuss your own position? What a surprise.
> >
> respond. As to the assumption that anyone who disagress with you is a
> Nazi, there's another surprise.
Projection noted. As for having no religion, if you tell me you have
no principles I must believe you.
Matt Giwer
The christian fantasy that it is the source of proper behavior is based upon the position that
everything christians do that is good is because they are christian and what they do bad is because
they are sinning. This despite the fact christians were on both sides in all european wars.
--
Arrakis is Iraq and the spice is oil.
Iraq is Arrakis and oil is the spice.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3516
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8
Roger Pearse
> Roger Pearse wrote:
> > Projection noted. As for having no religion, if you tell me you have
> > no principles I must believe you.
>
> The christian fantasy that it is the source of proper behavior is based upon the position that
> everything christians do that is good is because they are christian and what they do bad is because
> they are sinning. This despite the fact christians were on both sides in all european wars.
Such comments are routinely made by police in atheist countries when
they raid churches rather than crack houses, and imprison pastors
rather than drug-dealers. I would be ashamed to spout lies used today,
now, to justify human rights abuse. So should you be.
I note, by the way, that my demand for some exposition of why we should
take our principles from society by those who tell lies about
Christians has, as ever, been ignored.
Martin Edwards
pointing out historical fallacies. Perhaps you could explain who you
are talking about, what lies they are telling, and what principles they
are advocating.
Roger Pearse
> I never intended to get into a discussion about principles: I was
> pointing out historical fallacies.
So was I.
> Perhaps you could explain who you are talking about, what lies they are
> telling, and what principles they are advocating.
Refusal to even state reasons for conformity noted.
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>Roger Pearse wrote:
>>>>>Unable to discuss your own position? What a surprise.
>>...
>>>Projection noted. As for having no religion, if you tell me you have
>>>no principles I must believe you.
>> The christian fantasy that it is the source of proper behavior is based upon the position that
>>everything christians do that is good is because they are christian and what they do bad is because
>>they are sinning. This despite the fact christians were on both sides in all european wars.
> Such comments are routinely made by police in atheist countries when
> they raid churches rather than crack houses, and imprison pastors
> rather than drug-dealers. I would be ashamed to spout lies used today,
> now, to justify human rights abuse. So should you be.
There have been many more (right kind of) christian countries raiding (wrong kind of) christian
churches than there have been atheist countries doing so.
> I note, by the way, that my demand for some exposition of why we should
> take our principles from society by those who tell lies about
> Christians has, as ever, been ignored.
Rather principles should be taken from people so bereft of principles that they support both sides
of every war. In fact so bereft of principles they support wars.
--
Israelis say the Krystallnacht was no worse than uprooting jews
from Gaza. Who am I to argue?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3503