Extrabiblical Evidence about Jesus in the First 2 Centuries
- Thread starter Mystic
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Contemporary scholarship, rather than condemning the whole Testimonium as a forgery, thinks that there was a grain of truth in it. The truth being that James the Just was a fairly famous Jew in Jerusalem, who appears to have had a brother named Jesus.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
The probable fact that it was tampered with at all, throws the whole thing into question. Either Christians got selfish and couldn't leave well enough alone, or they forged the whole thing because the book did not contain what they wanted it to contain. Those are the two most likely scenarios.
Avarice is like that ... the pride to control all as in mac-un-auma-tata ... a potato--like underground organization (partisans) out of the sight of people like Trump and the Red Queen? Head down in the mire ... asking: "what's that on the other side ...? Tis a glassy imagery ...
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
chansen, the same reliability issues affect all old texts. Problem is, we have these paradigms of intellectual property and plagiarism that simply weren't an issue then. You can dismiss it all as bulls**t, then you're left with nothing. Scholars spend a lot of time, words and theory trying to tease the kernels of truth from the surrounding crap.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/jesus-childhood-home-nazareth-archaeologist_n_6809482.html
Biblical Archaeological Review is one of the most respected journals in the field. The church already identified this house as Jesus' Nazareth home in 600 AD, but this is the first time it has been thoroughly studied by professional archaeologists and it has been dated to the time of Jesus! So maybe this is one of the ancient church traditions that is accurate!
My former lay leader, Ken, joyfully told me today that he has been invited by a top Israeli archaeologist to investigate sonar indications of hidden caves associated with the house! For the past 2 years Ken (a retired architect) has been digging at Bethsaida, where 3, perhaps 5, of Jesus' disciples once called home. He helped excavate an escape tunnel for the leadership of this site and issued a report on this to the leading archaeologists working in Israel . Ken and I surmise that, if these hidden caves are exposed, they might prove to be hiding places for the proto-Zealots who joined rebel leader, Judas the Galilean in a failed revolt against Rome (6 AD) in protest of the census of Quirinius. Jesus was probably 12 at the time, his age in the story in Lk 2:41-52. That story is the last time Joseph is clearly alive in the Gospels! Joseph is long dead before Jesus' crucifixion. But how did he die? Well, Judas the Galilean recruited Jews from the Sepphoris region for his army, a region that includes nearby Nazareth. After the rebel defeat many of them were crucified or sold into slavery. Was this Joseph's fate? The Magnificat in Luke reads like a Jewish rebel hymn. Obviously, though, Jesus did not turn out to be the expected political Messiah. Was his pacifism part of the reason for His families early rejection of his claims about his mission? Very intriguing question!
Biblical Archaeological Review is one of the most respected journals in the field. The church already identified this house as Jesus' Nazareth home in 600 AD, but this is the first time it has been thoroughly studied by professional archaeologists and it has been dated to the time of Jesus! So maybe this is one of the ancient church traditions that is accurate!
My former lay leader, Ken, joyfully told me today that he has been invited by a top Israeli archaeologist to investigate sonar indications of hidden caves associated with the house! For the past 2 years Ken (a retired architect) has been digging at Bethsaida, where 3, perhaps 5, of Jesus' disciples once called home. He helped excavate an escape tunnel for the leadership of this site and issued a report on this to the leading archaeologists working in Israel . Ken and I surmise that, if these hidden caves are exposed, they might prove to be hiding places for the proto-Zealots who joined rebel leader, Judas the Galilean in a failed revolt against Rome (6 AD) in protest of the census of Quirinius. Jesus was probably 12 at the time, his age in the story in Lk 2:41-52. That story is the last time Joseph is clearly alive in the Gospels! Joseph is long dead before Jesus' crucifixion. But how did he die? Well, Judas the Galilean recruited Jews from the Sepphoris region for his army, a region that includes nearby Nazareth. After the rebel defeat many of them were crucified or sold into slavery. Was this Joseph's fate? The Magnificat in Luke reads like a Jewish rebel hymn. Obviously, though, Jesus did not turn out to be the expected political Messiah. Was his pacifism part of the reason for His families early rejection of his claims about his mission? Very intriguing question!
Last edited:
Why is it some people convert dreams into physical reality and ruin them ... isn't it best to leave all such fears in the abstract side of the mind and thus the Shadow can be eliminated with a small bolted thoughts ... a attribute of the dialectic brain? These appear as blue shafts that split the darkness into night and the other non existential thing called emotive fears ... these can be conjured up like frightened souls ... preserved things as in God preserve us ... as if we weren't already by our rejection of thought about anything beyond physical reality!
One has to construct an imagination and then one is out of here and now ... subliminally ... for no other can see it ...
Did you know if it isn't seen few will believe anything ... even a thinking daemon ... root word of dae mon o'graphic ... a social construct?
Avarice keeps such things down ... inside space!
One has to construct an imagination and then one is out of here and now ... subliminally ... for no other can see it ...
Did you know if it isn't seen few will believe anything ... even a thinking daemon ... root word of dae mon o'graphic ... a social construct?
Avarice keeps such things down ... inside space!
The Nazareth inscription is a tablet from the emperor, warning that the penalty for grave robbing is death. Most scholars date it to the time of Claudius (c. 41 AD). In 1878 it was initially brought to Nazareth, Jesus' home town. If Claudius is indeed the inscription's source. and if it was found near Nazareth, then it would likely be prompted by a Roman belief in the same charge that Jews made against Jesus' disciples: that the disciples stole Jesus' body. If so, these charges likely mean that neither the Jews nor the Romans know why Jesus' body was missing from the tomb. There is scant evidence that the Romans executed ordinary grave robbers. So the death penalty here probably reflects a Roman belief in Christianity as a troublesome cult focused on someone who committed a crime against Rome (e. g. sedition).
Unfortunately, the original locale of the tablet is unknown, but it is brought to officials in Nazareth. So it is probably discovered near there. Still, it seems unlikely Claudius would bother authorizing such a tablet to be written and sent to Palestine, unless a charge of notorious grave robbing had been leveled. Based on the style of lettering, the Decapolis has been proposed as an alternative place of origin. But the Decapolis is a hotbed of early Christianity. So whether it comes from Nazareth or the Decapolis, the tablet indirectly seems to attest the mystery of Jesus' empty tomb.
Of course, the earliest Gospel tradition about Jesus' burial (Mark) identifies a member of the 'Sanhedrin, Joseph of Arimathea, as sympathetic to Jesus (though not a disciple!) of Jesus and as gaining permission to bury a prematurely dead Jesus so as not to profane the Sabbath. In short, apologists are overreaching to claim this as proof of the resurrection, but the tablet looms as a relevant artifact possibly alluding to the witness to Jesus' bodily resurrection.
For a scholarly discussion, see:
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/pos...tion-Proof-of-the-Resurrection-of-Christ.aspx
I
Unfortunately, the original locale of the tablet is unknown, but it is brought to officials in Nazareth. So it is probably discovered near there. Still, it seems unlikely Claudius would bother authorizing such a tablet to be written and sent to Palestine, unless a charge of notorious grave robbing had been leveled. Based on the style of lettering, the Decapolis has been proposed as an alternative place of origin. But the Decapolis is a hotbed of early Christianity. So whether it comes from Nazareth or the Decapolis, the tablet indirectly seems to attest the mystery of Jesus' empty tomb.
Of course, the earliest Gospel tradition about Jesus' burial (Mark) identifies a member of the 'Sanhedrin, Joseph of Arimathea, as sympathetic to Jesus (though not a disciple!) of Jesus and as gaining permission to bury a prematurely dead Jesus so as not to profane the Sabbath. In short, apologists are overreaching to claim this as proof of the resurrection, but the tablet looms as a relevant artifact possibly alluding to the witness to Jesus' bodily resurrection.
For a scholarly discussion, see:
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/pos...tion-Proof-of-the-Resurrection-of-Christ.aspx
I
Last edited:
When it boils right down what do humans really know in isolation (sects) ?
Thus after the Romans burnt all the books 2000 years ago we became almost purely naïve ... thus the spatial theme of the bible ... or the ideal of not knowing! Ordinary people accept there fate as faith and don't quest ions ... particles of light?
Thus after the Romans burnt all the books 2000 years ago we became almost purely naïve ... thus the spatial theme of the bible ... or the ideal of not knowing! Ordinary people accept there fate as faith and don't quest ions ... particles of light?
The Church of the Nativity is built over the grotto which ancient tradition reports as the birthplace of Jesus. The church father Origen (born 185 AD) attests the widespread ancient tradition that Jesus was born in a cave near Bethlehem: "In Bethlehem the cave is pointed out where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling clothes. And the rumor is in those places, and among foreigners of the Faith, that indeed Jesus was born in this cave who is worshipped and reverenced by the Christians Origen, Against Celsus 1:51)." This tradition seems traceable to the time of the Gospels and is attested by Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) who grew up in nearby Samaria (Dialogue with Trypho 78). This cave was apparently used as manger for livestock and would help explain how the shepherds and the magi were able to find Jesus. This cave may have been adjacent to the house in which Joseph and Mary spent some time.
Extra biblical ...
Is that beyond the light stories jammed down our throats by those that like to control God (everything) ... check out that string on economic ERR ... it is 'ere on WC2 ... but a host has ignored its adept vision ...
All in all this agrees with the last verse on the Gospel of John about escape from that directive in the last verses of Revelations about stifled change ... frozen growth of the metaphysical powers ... they are occluded to the physical as dark bodies absorb ergs and energy ... to be radiated later when in the dark ... thus you can feel a warm body while in a heavenly state ... a mental order that may be partly irrational ...
Does that sound Isis ... or phonetically Icy? Kohl and dark ... redundant as we don't recall "well" ... eL dor a do NGs! Where ID was primally done and stirred ... just to form an image of nothing ... or when you lost IT!
Is that beyond the light stories jammed down our throats by those that like to control God (everything) ... check out that string on economic ERR ... it is 'ere on WC2 ... but a host has ignored its adept vision ...
All in all this agrees with the last verse on the Gospel of John about escape from that directive in the last verses of Revelations about stifled change ... frozen growth of the metaphysical powers ... they are occluded to the physical as dark bodies absorb ergs and energy ... to be radiated later when in the dark ... thus you can feel a warm body while in a heavenly state ... a mental order that may be partly irrational ...
Does that sound Isis ... or phonetically Icy? Kohl and dark ... redundant as we don't recall "well" ... eL dor a do NGs! Where ID was primally done and stirred ... just to form an image of nothing ... or when you lost IT!
This is Lucid in the metaphysical heaven ... alas people don't know about ID ... educationally scro' wops (scrow'ops? in escrow ?) are stifled ... so the mistakes can be redone by ye gods in delusion ... or denying intelligence ... with some sense of equity of balance ... that's Sophistic ... some say sadistic if they have no path of intelligence into dark Zoans! One must have a chit of levity ... a bit of Light (c)? Indi goes blue is passable ... yet often shocking in the dark parts ... babe with the blue jinn son?
A green over worked Mire? Well rounded earth to hide the whoa man in the corners? Tis an internal joke Eire ... some say Jack's appearance out of the well ... devious cognizance of volutes? Volup you an essenes ... set the stage ...
A green over worked Mire? Well rounded earth to hide the whoa man in the corners? Tis an internal joke Eire ... some say Jack's appearance out of the well ... devious cognizance of volutes? Volup you an essenes ... set the stage ...
The ancient Roman catacombs have many inscriptions on the tombs that refer to Jesus.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/669-lessons-from-the-catacombs-of-rome
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/669-lessons-from-the-catacombs-of-rome
Contrary to Roman Laws about imposed naïveté ... the common people were taught in the cisterns and tombs of the land ... a sort of subtle learning movement ... the Gauls called it the sewers of Paris and thus the Somme in myth ... total abstinence of learning ... the citii of passion in the springing up? Makes as good a myth as any out there ... thus it is dog Eire 'd as a favoured axiom!
Always give that gutte a wide swath to move ... the Nordic called this belief Goth ... sort of dark Tue Q? The kohl cover-up for the head man ... thus the freedom of Duffus an Oleanders with money ... the God westerners trust to bring the wholly thing down ...
Always give that gutte a wide swath to move ... the Nordic called this belief Goth ... sort of dark Tue Q? The kohl cover-up for the head man ... thus the freedom of Duffus an Oleanders with money ... the God westerners trust to bring the wholly thing down ...
Pavlos Maros
Well-Known Member
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
This is a wall of text, however worth the read. written by bertatbertshouse, some time ago. it is the best compilation of information regarding, a possible Jesus
"There is no contemporaneous evidence for a biblical Jesus.
There may have been a man called Jesus, just the same as there may have been a man called Fred.
it by no means makes him divine!
Much of the "evidence" cited is false, or suspect, or very late.
Josephus is considered some of the best evidence - even though is is generally considered to be tampered with, if not an outright forgery (of course, the word used is "interpolated" - scholars avoid the word "forgery" even though that's exactly what it is.)
JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)
The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/rameus_on_testimonium_flavianum/
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/josephus.html
In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
Such is the weakness of this evidence, This suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Biblical Jesus, go figure.
TACITUS (c.112CE)
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)
This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but it is merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So this passage is NOT evidence for a biblical Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about a christ.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html
PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)
About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical biblical Jesus or Gospel events.
So Pliny is not evidence for a historical biblical Jesus,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html
SUETONIUS (c.115CE)
Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So this passage is not evidence for a biblical Jesus,
it's has nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html
IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)
The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So Ignatius is no evidence for a biblical Jesus, at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html
QUADRATUS (c.125CE)
Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html
THALLUS (date unknown)
We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)
Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html
So Thallus is no evidence for a biblical Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.
PHLEGON (c.140)
Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So Phlegon is no evidence for a biblical Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.
VALENTINUS (c.140CE)
In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about a biblical Jesus.
So Valentinus is no evidence for a historical biblical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html
POLYCARP (c.155CE)
Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical biblical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html
LUCIAN (c.170CE)
Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So Lucian is no evidence for a historical biblical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.
GALEN (late 2nd C.)
Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for biblical Jesus.
NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)
In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for biblical Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.
TALMUD (3rd C. and later)
The Talmud was written over the third, fourth, and fifth centuries.
In the tractiate Sanhedrin, page 43a it mentions a Yeshua(Jehoshua), who was hung for forty days before his execution. it also states he was born a hundred years pre-christ and that he had five disciples Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah who were executed along side him.
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and are very different to the Gospel stories
So the Talmud contains NO evidence for a biblical Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak...es/intalmud.htm
This Yeshua is not the same jesus now is he
A list of other writers of the time
christianity is simply a mishmash of much older religions, and below is a list of other writers (apart from the ones in the above links) around at the time of this alleged christ, that wrote nothing whatsoever about him.
Some even walked the same paths, but heard and wrote nothing.
Philo Judaeus lived in Alexandria, he spent time in Jerusalem and had family there during the times of Jesus. He wrote many books about the Jews and their religion and history. He developed the themes of the Logos and the Holy Spirit.
No mention of a biblical Jesus or the Gospel events.
Valerius Maximus wrote historical anecdotes c.30CE
No mention of a biblical Jesus or the Gospel events.
Marcus Manilius wrote on astrology/astronomy in Rome early 1st century.
No mention of a biblical Jesus or the Gospel events.
Writers from shortly after Jesus time
Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.
Petronius Arbiter wrote the Satyricon in Rome.
C. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome.
Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote several satires in Rome.
Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome.
Hero
of Alexandria wrote many technical works, including astronomy.
Geminus wrote on astronomy in Greece.
Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia.
Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of the Kings of the Jews shortly after the time of Jesus, and from the same region - his works are now lost, but Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople wrote in the 8th Century: ''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 ... "
Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus) wrote a large Natural History in Rome.
Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) was the dominant Roman Orator of the times (his works show Stoic and Cynic ideas), and wrote many works and gave many speeches in various Roman and Greek centres, of which 80 survive e.g. the Euboicus.
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the Education of an Orator in Rome - his many speeches are lost.
Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous poems (e.g. Ode to Sleep and the Thebaid) in Rome.
NONE of these early writers even MENTIONED a biblical Jesus or the Gospel events.
Only AFTER the Gospels became known in mid 2nd century (LONG long after the alleged events) did anyone mention a biblical jesus.
There are about 50 writers from the 1st century - NONE of them mention a biblical Jesus.
But,they DO mention many HUNDREDS, maybe even THOUSANDS of characters in their books - including minor nobodies like servants and family, un-important names mentioned once in passing.
But NOTHING about a biblical Jesus - who must have been LESS important, LESS known, LESS notable than the most minor nobody.
Heres a few others you may want to look up.
Aulus Perseus (60 AD)
Columella (1 st. cent. AD)
Dio Chrysostom (c. 40-c. 112 AD)
Justus of Tiberious (c. 80 AD)
Livy (59 BC-17 AD)
Lucanus (fl. 63 AD)
Lucius Flours (1st-2nd -cent. AD)
Petronius (d. 66 AD)
Phaedrus (c. 15 BC-c. 50 AD)
Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD)
Phlegon (1st cent. AD)
Pliny the Elder (23?-69 AD)
Plutarch (c.46-c. 119 AD)
Pomponius Mela (40 AD)
Rufus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
Quintilian (c. 35-c. 100 AD)
Quintus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
Seneca (4 BC?-65 AD)
Silius Italicus (.25-101 AD)
Statius Caelicius (1st cent. AD)
Theon of Smyrna (c. 70-c.135 AD)
Valerius Flaccus (1st cent AD)
Valerius Maximus (fl. c. 20 AD).
There is no historicity for a biblical jesus.
Now to the gospels
G.Mark
It is consensus among modern scholars that the first Gospel to be written was G.Mark - but it clearly was NOT by an eye-witness, for several reasons :
* G.Mark shows ignorance of Palestine geography,
* G.Mark shows dependence on oral tradition,
* G.Mark was most likely written for a Roman audience,
* Ireneus says G.Mark was written in Rome.
* G.Mark was largely crafted from the whole cloth of the OT.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html
For more detail, I suggest Michael Turton's great work on G.Mark:
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html
It is sometimes argued that Mark was the secretary of Peter, but this seems unlikely for several other reasons -
* there is no evidence in the NT stories to support Mark being Peter's secretary,
* G.Mark shows the structure of literature crafted from the Jewish scriptures, not recorded conversations,
* G.Mark includes many scenes in Peter was NOT present, which can only mean they are fiction.
* Peter is a cowardly dullard in G.Mark which ends with Peter un-redeemed after having betrayed Jesus (G.Mark ended 16:8 with the empty tomb - G.Mark 16:9-20 is merely the most popular of one of a number of later endings which were attached to the abrupt end 16:8.). A secretary recording the words of a hallowed elder would hardly portray him like that.
It is also sometimes noted that Papias gives early evidence of G.Mark (and is the source of the Peter connection) - but Papias refers to G.Mark being the recollections of Peter but "adapted as needed" ... "but not in order". This just does not match at all well with G.Mark, which is in chronological order, and shows no sign of being the adapted words of Peter.
G.Matthew
It is the firm consensus of scholars that G.Matthew was NOT written by a disciple, because :
* it depends largely on G.Mark, copied word for word, while making changes based on theology, not history
* it conflicts with statements by Papias and Ireneus,
* it shows signs of being a 2nd or 3rd generation work
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html
It is also sometimes noted that Papias gives early evidence of G.Matthew - but Papias refers to G.Mark being written in Hebrew - this just does not match at all well with G.Matthew, which was written in Greek.
1,2 Peter
Scholars agree that the letters attributed to Peter were forged by 2 different people, neither of whom had ever met Jesus - 1 Peter probably writen in Rome c.90, 2 Peter in early-mid 2nd century.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html
G.John
Scholars agree that the Gospel of John could NOT be by an eye-witness - because :
* the issue regarding expulsion from the synagogues - such a glaring anachronism could not be by an eye-witness,
* at one stage this Gospel was believed to be written by Cerinthus (and thus rejected),
* it tells such a different, and fantastic, story.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html
False NT attributions
With the exception of some of the letters of Paul, we do NOT KNOW for sure who wrote ANY of the remaining books of the Bible - all we know is what we find IN the books. (Bear in mind there is no external evidence of any kind about Paul either, but some person wrote most of those letters and we call him Paul mostly for convenience.)
The Gospels were originally anonymous documents of unknown origin - the earliest mentions of Gospels are as UN-NAMED works, the current titles were not attached to the four Gospels until late 2nd century by Iraneus based on a few earlier scraps and speculations. Before then we see various references to Gospels without authors - by Aristides, Justin, Ignatius, Polycarp, Theodotus, Hegesippus, Melito, Polycrates, Autolycus - all make reference to anonymous Gospel(s).
all the NT documents (apart from Paul1 but again do bear in mind there is no external evidence of any kind about Paul either, but some person wrote most of those letters and we call him Paul mostly for convenience.)are not eye-witness accounts, all are later FORGED by unknown authors who never met Jesus
* James (FORGED in c.80s)
* 1 John (FORGED in c.80s)
* 2 Thessalonians (FORGED in c.80s)
* Ephesians (FORGED in c.90s)
* 1 Peter (FORGED in c.90s)
* Jude (FORGED in c.100s)
* 1 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* Titus (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 John (FORGED in c.120s)
* 3 John (FORGED in 120s)
* 2 Peter (FORGED in c.130s)
The arguments for these can be all be found at Peter Kirby's or in Brown NT Commentary.
No NT author ever met Jesus
So,of the NT authors we find -
* Paul? only met Jesus in a VISION????
* several of "Paul's" letters were forged by unknown authors,
* G.Mark was written in Rome by someone who never met Jesus,
* G.Matthew was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness,
* G.Luke was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness (A.Luke does NOT claim to be an eye-witness, A.Luke does NOT claim he spoke to eye-witnesses, he merely refers to eye-witnesses as distant sources),
* G.John was written long afterwards by someone who never met Jesus,
* Jude - forged by an unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2 Peter - forged by 2 unknown authors who never met Jesus,
* James - forged by unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2,3 John - forged by unknown authors in early-mid 2nd century who never met Jesus.
In other words - the general consensus of modern NT scholars is that NOT ONE SINGLE NT document was written by anyone who ever met Jesus. You can check this is any modern commentary - try Brown's or the New Jerome or see Peter Kirby's.
also
* Initially paul? describes Iesous Christos as a purely spiritual being who exists on a higher plane, but who acts inside every human, perhaps somewhat like what we might now call a "soul" (Christ in you, the hope of Glory.) Paul mentions no earthly Jesus of Nazareth, no miracles, no empty tomb, no dates, names places, events - merely a few spiritual references.
Paul is religious allegory - our soul (the Christos) is pinned (crucified) to the body (the cross) by the passions of the flesh, and raised back to heaven after we die (we live Christ's death, Christ lives our death.)
* The other letters follow after Paul's (but before the Gospels arise) - anonymous (Hebrews), forged in Paul's name, or forged in the name of characters from Paul's letters.
Notably, Paul, like all the 1st century writings, show NO mention of a historical Jesus of Nazareth as found in the Gospels - there is no 1st century mention of any of these major elements of the Gospel story - the early Christians just did not know anything about the following -
* Joseph and Mary and Bethlehem and Nazareth
* the birth stories, the Magi, the Star, the flight to Egypt
* Herod and the massacre of the infants
* John the Baptist or the baptism in the Jordan
* the trial before Pilate (and Herod?)
* the raising of Lazarus or any miracles of Jesus
* the cleansing of the temple, the triumphal entry
* the Sermon on the Mount or any teachings by Jesus
* the passion of Jesus, or the transfiguration
* the twelve disciples or Peter and "the keys"
* the denial by Peter, or betrayal by Judas
* the empty tomb !!
So you can say that there is no external evidence of any kind about Paul either, but we know some person wrote most of these letters, so we call him Paul mostly for convenience.
"This article is only about the historicity of a biblical Jesus - whether he existed as a real person. That is the only point that historians regard as effectively proven; that he existed, not that the claims made about him are true."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus.
nowhere in any Roman records does it state that a jesus person, was executed by Pilate, this is only written in the NT. And the Romans kept meticulous records.
Claiming that the bible is a historical document
In other words - a very old document which appears to tell a history of ancient times. There are many such documents, of varying quality - but no such ancient book is true just because some believer, then or now, BELIEVES it to be true.
All old writings must be evaluated by all the methods at our disposal. Christians sometimes try to argue that ancient documents can be presumed to be true, unless proven otherwise - sometimes even invoking the irrelevant phrase "innocent until proven guilty" or even invoking a supposed law of Aristotle.
Well, this is nonsense - no historian assumes an ancient book to be true, and certainly not religious works, and nor did Aristotle say so. Rather all ancient writings are criticised and compared and analysed carefully to see what can be considered reliable, and what is myths and legends or lies or exaggeration or just plain error.
Consider some other ancient works
The Golden Ass of Apuleius - this "historical document" tells the story of how Apuleius turned into an Ass and met the gods face to face. It dates to the very same period as the Gospels, is set in historical places and includes historical figures and events. It has speeches and stories and miracles and divine events, including an EMPTY TOMB scene!. In short it is very similar to the Gospels.
http://eserver.org/books/apuleius/
The Iliad - this "historical document" is famous and very well attested indeed. This work was seminal in Greek culture and includes real places and realistic people, it has Gods and miracles and speeches and heroes - to the Greeks, Homer was like the Bible.
http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.html
Both of these writings are similar to the Gospels and are similarly true - i.e. not particularly true at all. In other words being a "historical document" means nothing about a books truthfulness.
So getting back to the point, yes there could have been a jesus, but not the one written in the bible, thats all, so whether the Muslims have a jesus who was a prophet, or the Jews a Yeshua, who was executed along with his five disciples, a hundred years earlier, does not mean your jesus actually existed.
And NT Authorship
The New Testament alone consists of twenty-seven books written by at least eight different authors. Furthermore, of those eight, only three (Matthew, Peter, and John) were a part of the original twelve disciples. Of the remaining five, two were originally skeptical concerning Jesus' identity. One was a great persecutor of Christians and even consented to the execution of the first New Testament martyr. One was a gentile, and one was a young boy when Jesus lived and taught. Additionally, these New Testament authors came from a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences. One was a tax collector, another a physician. Another was a highly educated Pharisee. At least two were fishermen while two others grew up as the children of a carpenter and most likely learned that trade."
The NT must be judged on its merits like any ancient writing - and it HAS been so judged and evaluated, it is one of the most studied works in Western culture
With the exception of some of the letters of Paul, we do NOT KNOW for sure who wrote ANY of the remaining books of the Bible - all we know is what we find IN the books. (Bear in mind there is no external evidence of any kind about Paul either, but some person wrote most of those letters and we call him Paul mostly for convenience.)
The Gospels were originally anonymous documents of unknown origin - the earliest mentions of Gospels are as UN-NAMED works, the current titles were not attached to the four Gospels until late 2nd century by Iraneus based on a few earlier scraps and speculations. Before then we see various references to Gospels without authors - by Aristides, Justin, Ignatius, Polycarp, Theodotus, Hegesippus, Melito, Polycrates, Autolycus - all make reference to anonymous Gospel(s).
Papias does make some unclear comments possibly in about 130CE which refer to writings by Mark, and writings by Matthew - however his comments do NOT match our modern Gospels, and he does NOT use the word "Gospel", and he makes it clear he holds such writings in LOW regard.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html
Justin in about 150CE is the first to make lengthy quotes of Gospels almost like the modern ones - but he calls them "memoirs of the apostles" as well as "Gospels" but gives NO authors' names.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html
Aristides, possibly just before Justin, described a singular, un-named Gospel that had "been preached for a short time". This is an important clue - a church father who mentions "the Gospel, as it is called" - showing that is what it is called "the Gospel", no name, just one. Furthermore he explicitly says it had only been preached for a "short time", perhaps a few years - evidence for when the Gospel became known in Christian circles.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tides-kay.html
Tatian possibly wrote an important work called the "diaTessaron" (literally "from four", implying a harmony of four, meaning a harmony of four Gospels) about 172 (after he split from the early Christian. This numbering of the Gospels as four seems to occur slightly before they are actually named, and may have come about because Tatian inherited the "memoirs of the Apostles" from Justin, and there were four of them, but they had not yet been named.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diatessaron.html
It was not until about 185CE that the Gospels received their current names with Irenaeus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html
So there you have it."
"There is no contemporaneous evidence for a biblical Jesus.
There may have been a man called Jesus, just the same as there may have been a man called Fred.
it by no means makes him divine!
Much of the "evidence" cited is false, or suspect, or very late.
Josephus is considered some of the best evidence - even though is is generally considered to be tampered with, if not an outright forgery (of course, the word used is "interpolated" - scholars avoid the word "forgery" even though that's exactly what it is.)
JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)
The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/rameus_on_testimonium_flavianum/
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/josephus.html
In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
Such is the weakness of this evidence, This suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Biblical Jesus, go figure.
TACITUS (c.112CE)
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)
This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but it is merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So this passage is NOT evidence for a biblical Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about a christ.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html
PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)
About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical biblical Jesus or Gospel events.
So Pliny is not evidence for a historical biblical Jesus,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html
SUETONIUS (c.115CE)
Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So this passage is not evidence for a biblical Jesus,
it's has nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html
IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)
The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So Ignatius is no evidence for a biblical Jesus, at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html
QUADRATUS (c.125CE)
Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html
THALLUS (date unknown)
We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)
Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html
So Thallus is no evidence for a biblical Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.
PHLEGON (c.140)
Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So Phlegon is no evidence for a biblical Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.
VALENTINUS (c.140CE)
In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about a biblical Jesus.
So Valentinus is no evidence for a historical biblical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html
POLYCARP (c.155CE)
Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical biblical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html
LUCIAN (c.170CE)
Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So Lucian is no evidence for a historical biblical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.
GALEN (late 2nd C.)
Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for biblical Jesus.
NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)
In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for biblical Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.
TALMUD (3rd C. and later)
The Talmud was written over the third, fourth, and fifth centuries.
In the tractiate Sanhedrin, page 43a it mentions a Yeshua(Jehoshua), who was hung for forty days before his execution. it also states he was born a hundred years pre-christ and that he had five disciples Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah who were executed along side him.
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and are very different to the Gospel stories
So the Talmud contains NO evidence for a biblical Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak...es/intalmud.htm
This Yeshua is not the same jesus now is he
A list of other writers of the time
christianity is simply a mishmash of much older religions, and below is a list of other writers (apart from the ones in the above links) around at the time of this alleged christ, that wrote nothing whatsoever about him.
Some even walked the same paths, but heard and wrote nothing.
Philo Judaeus lived in Alexandria, he spent time in Jerusalem and had family there during the times of Jesus. He wrote many books about the Jews and their religion and history. He developed the themes of the Logos and the Holy Spirit.
No mention of a biblical Jesus or the Gospel events.
Valerius Maximus wrote historical anecdotes c.30CE
No mention of a biblical Jesus or the Gospel events.
Marcus Manilius wrote on astrology/astronomy in Rome early 1st century.
No mention of a biblical Jesus or the Gospel events.
Writers from shortly after Jesus time
Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.
Petronius Arbiter wrote the Satyricon in Rome.
C. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome.
Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote several satires in Rome.
Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome.
Hero
of Alexandria wrote many technical works, including astronomy.Geminus wrote on astronomy in Greece.
Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia.
Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of the Kings of the Jews shortly after the time of Jesus, and from the same region - his works are now lost, but Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople wrote in the 8th Century: ''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 ... "
Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus) wrote a large Natural History in Rome.
Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) was the dominant Roman Orator of the times (his works show Stoic and Cynic ideas), and wrote many works and gave many speeches in various Roman and Greek centres, of which 80 survive e.g. the Euboicus.
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the Education of an Orator in Rome - his many speeches are lost.
Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous poems (e.g. Ode to Sleep and the Thebaid) in Rome.
NONE of these early writers even MENTIONED a biblical Jesus or the Gospel events.
Only AFTER the Gospels became known in mid 2nd century (LONG long after the alleged events) did anyone mention a biblical jesus.
There are about 50 writers from the 1st century - NONE of them mention a biblical Jesus.
But,they DO mention many HUNDREDS, maybe even THOUSANDS of characters in their books - including minor nobodies like servants and family, un-important names mentioned once in passing.
But NOTHING about a biblical Jesus - who must have been LESS important, LESS known, LESS notable than the most minor nobody.
Heres a few others you may want to look up.
Aulus Perseus (60 AD)
Columella (1 st. cent. AD)
Dio Chrysostom (c. 40-c. 112 AD)
Justus of Tiberious (c. 80 AD)
Livy (59 BC-17 AD)
Lucanus (fl. 63 AD)
Lucius Flours (1st-2nd -cent. AD)
Petronius (d. 66 AD)
Phaedrus (c. 15 BC-c. 50 AD)
Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD)
Phlegon (1st cent. AD)
Pliny the Elder (23?-69 AD)
Plutarch (c.46-c. 119 AD)
Pomponius Mela (40 AD)
Rufus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
Quintilian (c. 35-c. 100 AD)
Quintus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
Seneca (4 BC?-65 AD)
Silius Italicus (.25-101 AD)
Statius Caelicius (1st cent. AD)
Theon of Smyrna (c. 70-c.135 AD)
Valerius Flaccus (1st cent AD)
Valerius Maximus (fl. c. 20 AD).
There is no historicity for a biblical jesus.
Now to the gospels
G.Mark
It is consensus among modern scholars that the first Gospel to be written was G.Mark - but it clearly was NOT by an eye-witness, for several reasons :
* G.Mark shows ignorance of Palestine geography,
* G.Mark shows dependence on oral tradition,
* G.Mark was most likely written for a Roman audience,
* Ireneus says G.Mark was written in Rome.
* G.Mark was largely crafted from the whole cloth of the OT.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html
For more detail, I suggest Michael Turton's great work on G.Mark:
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html
It is sometimes argued that Mark was the secretary of Peter, but this seems unlikely for several other reasons -
* there is no evidence in the NT stories to support Mark being Peter's secretary,
* G.Mark shows the structure of literature crafted from the Jewish scriptures, not recorded conversations,
* G.Mark includes many scenes in Peter was NOT present, which can only mean they are fiction.
* Peter is a cowardly dullard in G.Mark which ends with Peter un-redeemed after having betrayed Jesus (G.Mark ended 16:8 with the empty tomb - G.Mark 16:9-20 is merely the most popular of one of a number of later endings which were attached to the abrupt end 16:8.). A secretary recording the words of a hallowed elder would hardly portray him like that.
It is also sometimes noted that Papias gives early evidence of G.Mark (and is the source of the Peter connection) - but Papias refers to G.Mark being the recollections of Peter but "adapted as needed" ... "but not in order". This just does not match at all well with G.Mark, which is in chronological order, and shows no sign of being the adapted words of Peter.
G.Matthew
It is the firm consensus of scholars that G.Matthew was NOT written by a disciple, because :
* it depends largely on G.Mark, copied word for word, while making changes based on theology, not history
* it conflicts with statements by Papias and Ireneus,
* it shows signs of being a 2nd or 3rd generation work
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html
It is also sometimes noted that Papias gives early evidence of G.Matthew - but Papias refers to G.Mark being written in Hebrew - this just does not match at all well with G.Matthew, which was written in Greek.
1,2 Peter
Scholars agree that the letters attributed to Peter were forged by 2 different people, neither of whom had ever met Jesus - 1 Peter probably writen in Rome c.90, 2 Peter in early-mid 2nd century.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html
G.John
Scholars agree that the Gospel of John could NOT be by an eye-witness - because :
* the issue regarding expulsion from the synagogues - such a glaring anachronism could not be by an eye-witness,
* at one stage this Gospel was believed to be written by Cerinthus (and thus rejected),
* it tells such a different, and fantastic, story.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html
False NT attributions
With the exception of some of the letters of Paul, we do NOT KNOW for sure who wrote ANY of the remaining books of the Bible - all we know is what we find IN the books. (Bear in mind there is no external evidence of any kind about Paul either, but some person wrote most of those letters and we call him Paul mostly for convenience.)
The Gospels were originally anonymous documents of unknown origin - the earliest mentions of Gospels are as UN-NAMED works, the current titles were not attached to the four Gospels until late 2nd century by Iraneus based on a few earlier scraps and speculations. Before then we see various references to Gospels without authors - by Aristides, Justin, Ignatius, Polycarp, Theodotus, Hegesippus, Melito, Polycrates, Autolycus - all make reference to anonymous Gospel(s).
all the NT documents (apart from Paul1 but again do bear in mind there is no external evidence of any kind about Paul either, but some person wrote most of those letters and we call him Paul mostly for convenience.)are not eye-witness accounts, all are later FORGED by unknown authors who never met Jesus
* James (FORGED in c.80s)
* 1 John (FORGED in c.80s)
* 2 Thessalonians (FORGED in c.80s)
* Ephesians (FORGED in c.90s)
* 1 Peter (FORGED in c.90s)
* Jude (FORGED in c.100s)
* 1 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* Titus (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 John (FORGED in c.120s)
* 3 John (FORGED in 120s)
* 2 Peter (FORGED in c.130s)
The arguments for these can be all be found at Peter Kirby's or in Brown NT Commentary.
No NT author ever met Jesus
So,of the NT authors we find -
* Paul? only met Jesus in a VISION????
* several of "Paul's" letters were forged by unknown authors,
* G.Mark was written in Rome by someone who never met Jesus,
* G.Matthew was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness,
* G.Luke was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness (A.Luke does NOT claim to be an eye-witness, A.Luke does NOT claim he spoke to eye-witnesses, he merely refers to eye-witnesses as distant sources),
* G.John was written long afterwards by someone who never met Jesus,
* Jude - forged by an unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2 Peter - forged by 2 unknown authors who never met Jesus,
* James - forged by unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2,3 John - forged by unknown authors in early-mid 2nd century who never met Jesus.
In other words - the general consensus of modern NT scholars is that NOT ONE SINGLE NT document was written by anyone who ever met Jesus. You can check this is any modern commentary - try Brown's or the New Jerome or see Peter Kirby's.
also
* Initially paul? describes Iesous Christos as a purely spiritual being who exists on a higher plane, but who acts inside every human, perhaps somewhat like what we might now call a "soul" (Christ in you, the hope of Glory.) Paul mentions no earthly Jesus of Nazareth, no miracles, no empty tomb, no dates, names places, events - merely a few spiritual references.
Paul is religious allegory - our soul (the Christos) is pinned (crucified) to the body (the cross) by the passions of the flesh, and raised back to heaven after we die (we live Christ's death, Christ lives our death.)
* The other letters follow after Paul's (but before the Gospels arise) - anonymous (Hebrews), forged in Paul's name, or forged in the name of characters from Paul's letters.
Notably, Paul, like all the 1st century writings, show NO mention of a historical Jesus of Nazareth as found in the Gospels - there is no 1st century mention of any of these major elements of the Gospel story - the early Christians just did not know anything about the following -
* Joseph and Mary and Bethlehem and Nazareth
* the birth stories, the Magi, the Star, the flight to Egypt
* Herod and the massacre of the infants
* John the Baptist or the baptism in the Jordan
* the trial before Pilate (and Herod?)
* the raising of Lazarus or any miracles of Jesus
* the cleansing of the temple, the triumphal entry
* the Sermon on the Mount or any teachings by Jesus
* the passion of Jesus, or the transfiguration
* the twelve disciples or Peter and "the keys"
* the denial by Peter, or betrayal by Judas
* the empty tomb !!
So you can say that there is no external evidence of any kind about Paul either, but we know some person wrote most of these letters, so we call him Paul mostly for convenience.
"This article is only about the historicity of a biblical Jesus - whether he existed as a real person. That is the only point that historians regard as effectively proven; that he existed, not that the claims made about him are true."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus.
nowhere in any Roman records does it state that a jesus person, was executed by Pilate, this is only written in the NT. And the Romans kept meticulous records.
Claiming that the bible is a historical document
In other words - a very old document which appears to tell a history of ancient times. There are many such documents, of varying quality - but no such ancient book is true just because some believer, then or now, BELIEVES it to be true.
All old writings must be evaluated by all the methods at our disposal. Christians sometimes try to argue that ancient documents can be presumed to be true, unless proven otherwise - sometimes even invoking the irrelevant phrase "innocent until proven guilty" or even invoking a supposed law of Aristotle.
Well, this is nonsense - no historian assumes an ancient book to be true, and certainly not religious works, and nor did Aristotle say so. Rather all ancient writings are criticised and compared and analysed carefully to see what can be considered reliable, and what is myths and legends or lies or exaggeration or just plain error.
Consider some other ancient works
The Golden Ass of Apuleius - this "historical document" tells the story of how Apuleius turned into an Ass and met the gods face to face. It dates to the very same period as the Gospels, is set in historical places and includes historical figures and events. It has speeches and stories and miracles and divine events, including an EMPTY TOMB scene!. In short it is very similar to the Gospels.
http://eserver.org/books/apuleius/
The Iliad - this "historical document" is famous and very well attested indeed. This work was seminal in Greek culture and includes real places and realistic people, it has Gods and miracles and speeches and heroes - to the Greeks, Homer was like the Bible.
http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.html
Both of these writings are similar to the Gospels and are similarly true - i.e. not particularly true at all. In other words being a "historical document" means nothing about a books truthfulness.
So getting back to the point, yes there could have been a jesus, but not the one written in the bible, thats all, so whether the Muslims have a jesus who was a prophet, or the Jews a Yeshua, who was executed along with his five disciples, a hundred years earlier, does not mean your jesus actually existed.
And NT Authorship
The New Testament alone consists of twenty-seven books written by at least eight different authors. Furthermore, of those eight, only three (Matthew, Peter, and John) were a part of the original twelve disciples. Of the remaining five, two were originally skeptical concerning Jesus' identity. One was a great persecutor of Christians and even consented to the execution of the first New Testament martyr. One was a gentile, and one was a young boy when Jesus lived and taught. Additionally, these New Testament authors came from a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences. One was a tax collector, another a physician. Another was a highly educated Pharisee. At least two were fishermen while two others grew up as the children of a carpenter and most likely learned that trade."
The NT must be judged on its merits like any ancient writing - and it HAS been so judged and evaluated, it is one of the most studied works in Western culture
With the exception of some of the letters of Paul, we do NOT KNOW for sure who wrote ANY of the remaining books of the Bible - all we know is what we find IN the books. (Bear in mind there is no external evidence of any kind about Paul either, but some person wrote most of those letters and we call him Paul mostly for convenience.)
The Gospels were originally anonymous documents of unknown origin - the earliest mentions of Gospels are as UN-NAMED works, the current titles were not attached to the four Gospels until late 2nd century by Iraneus based on a few earlier scraps and speculations. Before then we see various references to Gospels without authors - by Aristides, Justin, Ignatius, Polycarp, Theodotus, Hegesippus, Melito, Polycrates, Autolycus - all make reference to anonymous Gospel(s).
Papias does make some unclear comments possibly in about 130CE which refer to writings by Mark, and writings by Matthew - however his comments do NOT match our modern Gospels, and he does NOT use the word "Gospel", and he makes it clear he holds such writings in LOW regard.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html
Justin in about 150CE is the first to make lengthy quotes of Gospels almost like the modern ones - but he calls them "memoirs of the apostles" as well as "Gospels" but gives NO authors' names.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html
Aristides, possibly just before Justin, described a singular, un-named Gospel that had "been preached for a short time". This is an important clue - a church father who mentions "the Gospel, as it is called" - showing that is what it is called "the Gospel", no name, just one. Furthermore he explicitly says it had only been preached for a "short time", perhaps a few years - evidence for when the Gospel became known in Christian circles.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tides-kay.html
Tatian possibly wrote an important work called the "diaTessaron" (literally "from four", implying a harmony of four, meaning a harmony of four Gospels) about 172 (after he split from the early Christian. This numbering of the Gospels as four seems to occur slightly before they are actually named, and may have come about because Tatian inherited the "memoirs of the Apostles" from Justin, and there were four of them, but they had not yet been named.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diatessaron.html
It was not until about 185CE that the Gospels received their current names with Irenaeus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html
So there you have it."
Well done @Pavlos Maros ... a broad-based or wide well of knowledge ... too bad many couldn't do this stretch of the abstract!
Pavlos, your post reveals the standard New Age screed that this thread was designed to address. Goodgling biased materiials does not establish competence. If you want to be taken seriously, actually read the thread carefully and address its arguments. Your author is wrong about the scholarly consensus about Josephus and you clearly are ignorant of the ways Gospel testimony can be connected with the eyewitnesses.
Last edited: