Philo Of Alexandria

[maklelan]

I will refrain from any more posts until Zhavric has responded to all my questions and concerns. Zhavric, show me that you have some inkling of what you're talking about.

P.S. If you're at all worth your salt you've already read Shlomo Pines' An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications. If you have not then you need to immediately stop talking and go read it. I await your response.

[SolarPowered]

I will refrain from any more posts until Zhavric has responded to all my questions and concerns. Zhavric, show me that you have some inkling of what you're talking about.

It looks like the other debate team has left the building, and only the choir remains...

[Uncle Dale]

Zhavric, show me that you have some inkling of what you're talking about.

I would at least appreciate reading his (her?) comments on which historical figures generally

associated with very early Christianity we CAN be assured really lived.

Was there ever a John the Baptist?

Was there ever a James the Just?

Was there ever a Saul of Taursus?

Was there ever a Clement of Rome?

Was there ever a Eusebius?

Was there ever a Constantine?

Or, in other words, looking backward into this history of 1700-1900 years ago, WHO is the

first Christian we can know for certain really lived on planet earth?

UD

[selek]

It looks like the other debate team has left the building, and only the choir remains...

That was a debate team?

Silly me, I thought someone forgot to feed Paris' little purse-dog and it got understandably cranky!

[TAK]

Could you name the "nearly dozen" Jewish and Roman writers and historians that neglect to mention Jesus, as well as an indication why they would have had he really existed?

Actually close to two dozen..

First Century historians both Roman and Jewish .. Arrian, Pliny the Elder, Martial, Petronius, Appian, Plutarch, Senecca, Juvenal, Apollonius, Dion Prueseus, Theon of Smyrna, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Damis, Ptolemy, Florus Lucius, Silius Italicus, Dio Chrysostom, Quintilian, Aulus Gellius, Hermogeones, Favorinus, Statius, Lysias, Lucanus, Columella and Valerius Maximus.

Why mention him? To put him down, raise him up, deny his claims, teachings, miracles, ministry... A number of reasons really... Can you imagine two thousand years from now there would be no evidence of Martin Luther King?

Edit :

Agapius was a Christian Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis.

[Paul Ray]

Can you imagine two thousand years from now there would be no evidence of Martin Luther King?

What does that have to do with this issue? There IS evidence the Jesus Christ lived 2000 years ago.

[maklelan]

Actually close to two dozen..

First Century historians both Roman and Jewish .. Arrian, Pliny the Elder, Martial, Petronius, Appian, Plutarch, Senecca, Juvenal, Apollonius, Dion Prueseus, Theon of Smyrna, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Damis, Ptolemy, Florus Lucius, Silius Italicus, Dio Chrysostom, Quintilian, Aulus Gellius, Hermogeones, Favorinus, Statius, Lysias, Lucanus, Columella and Valerius Maximus.

That's a great list of writers, but you forgot the part about why they would have any reason to mention Jesus. Lysias, for example, was an orator. He wrote speeches to be used in trials in Greece. He has absolutely nothing to do with Christ. Senecca [sic] was a Roman, a Stoic philosopher, politician and dramatist. He has absolutely no reason to be talking about Jesus Christ. So, again, please tell me how these individuals are so related to Jerusalem that their neglecting to mention Christ's existence is at all important. All it looks like you've done is listed all the people who wrote anything around the time period that Christ lived, and that is a far cry from showing me writers and historians who should be making mention of Jesus Christ but do not.

[Uncle Dale]

What does that have to do with this issue? There IS evidence the Jesus Christ lived 2000 years ago.

Yes -- compelling evidence, I believe --- but not conclusive proof.

If Philo had mentioned him, and IF we had on original Josephus manuscript that mentions him,

the nay-sayers could still argue that such early observers were talking about somebody else

than the actual founder of Christianity --- or, that the Jesus they mentioned was some sort of

an impostor (as the talmudic texts assert).

At the very least we have early evidence of a messianic Judaism that was beginning to be adopted

by non-Jews well before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

Take away Jesus from the picture, and that still leaves the content and message of THAT religion

to be explained.

UD

[Paul Ray]

Yes -- compelling evidence, I believe --- but not conclusive proof.

I'm glad we agree on this point.

If Philo had mentioned him, and IF we had on original Josephus manuscript that mentions him,

the nay-sayers could still argue that such early observers were talking about somebody else

than the actual founder of Christianity --- or, that the Jesus they mentioned was some sort of

an impostor (as the talmudic texts assert).

... or they would find writings from someone else that didn't mention Jesus, since Philo would then be among the many witnesses.

The nay-sayers can always find something to disagree on.

... otherwise they wouldn't be called nay-sayers.

At the very least we have early evidence of a messianic Judaism that was beginning to be adopted by non-Jews well before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

Take away Jesus from the picture, and that still leaves the content and message of THAT religion to be explained.

Good point.

[TAK]

That's a great list of writers, but you forgot the part about why they would have any reason to mention Jesus. Lysias, for example, was an orator. He wrote speeches to be used in trials in Greece. He has absolutely nothing to do with Christ. Senecca [sic] was a Roman, a Stoic philosopher, politician and dramatist. He has absolutely no reason to be talking about Jesus Christ. So, again, please tell me how these individuals are so related to Jerusalem that their neglecting to mention Christ's existence is at all important. All it looks like you've done is listed all the people who wrote anything around the time period that Christ lived, and that is a far cry from showing me writers and historians who should be making mention of Jesus Christ but do not.

I suppose drawing on the LGT model, you also need to have a Christ that left no footprint worthy of comment.

[maklelan]

I suppose drawing on the LGT model, you also need to have a Christ that left no footprint worthy of comment.

That doesn't really answer my question.

[Bill Hamblin]

Actually close to two dozen..

First Century historians both Roman and Jewish .. Arrian, Pliny the Elder, Martial, Petronius, Appian, Plutarch, Senecca, Juvenal, Apollonius, Dion Prueseus, Theon of Smyrna, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Damis, Ptolemy, Florus Lucius, Silius Italicus, Dio Chrysostom, Quintilian, Aulus Gellius, Hermogeones, Favorinus, Statius, Lysias, Lucanus, Columella and Valerius Maximus.

Maklelan and others have done an excellent job of debunking the nonsense about Jesus not existing. I'd like to add one tidbit.

The oldest extant biography of Alexander the Great dates to nearly three centuries after his death (Diodorus, book 17, c. mid-1st century BC). The others are even later (Arrian, early 2nd C AD; Curtius, late 1st century AD; Plutarch, early 2nd C AD). Using the hyper-critical standards of the critics here, one would have to conclude that Alexander never existed.

People who make such claims have no understanding of the historiographical issues relating to the sources for ancient history; by the standards of ancient history, Jesus' life and teachings are quite well documented.

[maklelan]

On the whole there are nearly dozen Jewish and Roman writers and historians of that period that are silent on the subject of Christ as a person.

But of course you know that from your research and scholarshipâ?¦ .

Unless you said this for no reason whatsoever you're trying to make the point that we have "dozen" texts that we would expect to mention Christ but do not. Such texts would be historical or religious in nature and would mention Jerusalem, Judea, or the land in between. Such texts would mention religious or social movements from the mid first century AD. The names you provided (except for one exception that I can see), do no such thing. Now, is the above statement just an exaggeration or are you aware of some secret texts that fit the above description and are unknown to the rest of modern scholarship?

[maklelan]

Wow. Four pages in one day and then nothing.

Ah. I just saw Zhavric was suspended. I eagerly await his return and his responses to my concerns.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Suspended, aye? Well, he can contact me thru my blog anytime. As I said on another thread, but meant to say here:

When the great "deception" of the invention of the person of Jesus was first brought about and taught as 'truth,' don't you figure some authority or historian or person would have pointed out that it was a fraud at the time? Yet we have accounts saying Jesus was just a man, or that he was a fraud, etc. but we don't find anyone or any source from the time the "invention" of Jesus ocurred telling us that it was a large fraud. I wonder where that evidence is, speaking of the neccessity of evidence.

[Uncle Dale]

Wow. Four pages in one day and then nothing.

Ah. I just saw Zhavric was suspended. I eagerly await his return and his responses to my concerns.

Oh! the humanity of it all!!!

UD

[TAK]

Unless you said this for no reason whatsoever you're trying to make the point that we have "dozen" texts that we would expect to mention Christ but do not. Such texts would be historical or religious in nature and would mention Jerusalem, Judea, or the land in between. Such texts would mention religious or social movements from the mid first century AD. The names you provided (except for one exception that I can see), do no such thing. Now, is the above statement just an exaggeration or are you aware of some secret texts that fit the above description and are unknown to the rest of modern scholarship?

Texts? Where did I say "texts". I said "Jewish and Roman writers and historians of that period". And I just listed only a couple of dozen of them, and while there are others too, their works we have today would fill a library and yet none mention Christ. Nor I doubt can you point to any that do.

[SolarPowered]

I don't think that my high school American History text mentioned Joseph Smith.

Clearly, Joseph Smith never existed.

[TAK]

Maklelan and others have done an excellent job of debunking the nonsense about Jesus not existing. I'd like to add one tidbit.

The oldest extant biography of Alexander the Great dates to nearly three centuries after his death (Diodorus, book 17, c. mid-1st century BC). The others are even later (Arrian, early 2nd C AD; Curtius, late 1st century AD; Plutarch, early 2nd C AD). Using the hyper-critical standards of the critics here, one would have to conclude that Alexander never existed.

People who make such claims have no understanding of the historiographical issues relating to the sources for ancient history; by the standards of ancient history, Jesus' life and teachings are quite well documented.

Just not in the first century.

I doubt I will ever find myself in a religion that demands faith in Alexander the Great and the requirement of thousands of dollars in tithing, so I don't see it as quite the same thing.

[selek]

Just not in the first century.

I doubt I will ever find myself in a religion that demands faith in Alexander the Great and the requirement of thousands of dollars in tithing, so I don't see it as quite the same thing.

So in other words, you have one evidentiary standard for secular beliefs (with which you agree) and another for religious beliefs (with which you don't).

Why do I doubt that this will come as a shock to anyone who's followed your posts?

[Bill Hamblin]

Texts? Where did I say "texts". I said "Jewish and Roman writers and historians of that period". And I just listed only a couple of dozen of them, and while there are others too, their works we have today would fill a library and yet none mention Christ. Nor I doubt can you point to any that do.

It is not quite clear what the fact that pagan Romans tended to ignore and despise Christians is intended to demonstrate about whether Christ existed or not. As a general rule, are you trying to say that every Roman source must mention every single figure mentioned in any other source for us to accept the historicity of that figure? Generally speaking, it is thought sufficient to believe in the historical existence of an individual if he is mentioned by a single ancient historian. Why is this rule to be suspended uniquely in the case of Jesus?

At any rate, as has already been noted, (and in addition to Josephus) see:

Tacitus, Annals 15.44

Suetonius, Claudius, 25.4

Pliny the Younger, Letter 10.96

Lucian of Samosata, Passing of Peregrinus

(All of these from within about a century of the death of Jesus, closer by two centuries than our earliest surviving biography of Alexander.)

It is not quite clear to me why, if Josephus mentions someone, but that person is not mentioned by Philo, that the existence of that person should be doubted or dismissed entirely. Most people mentioned in Josephus' works are NOT mentioned by Philo. If this new historiographical principle were applied consistently, we would have to dismiss most of what we know of Jewish history.

[Daniel Peterson]

Just in case anybody happens to look into this thread and isn't aware: There isn't, so far as I'm aware, a serious historian of the ancient world or scholar of the New Testament, believer or non-believer, who entertains any serious doubt that Jesus existed. This is crank territory.

Because such cranks are often active on message boards, they can give the impression that the issue is a burning one, dividing historians, actively debated among scholars. It isn't.

[SolarPowered]

To the request for extra-biblical texts that mention Jesus:

The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles

The Apocalypse of Peter

The Apocryphon of James

The Apocryphon of John

The Book of Thomas the Contender

The Gospel of Philip

There are more.

[Bill Hamblin]

Just not in the first century.

Even the most liberal and agnostic scholars place all of the Gospels within the first century AD, and there are good arguments for placing all the Gospels within 30-40 years of the death of Jesus. At any rate, Paul's authentic letters were mainly written in the 50s, within 25 years of the death of Christ; he mentions Jesus frequently. Paul's letters ALONE are sufficient to demonstrate that Jesus existed.

I doubt I will ever find myself in a religion that demands faith in Alexander the Great and the requirement of thousands of dollars in tithing, so I don't see it as quite the same thing.

These are two separate questions: Did Jesus exist is quite different from is Jesus the Messiah. One can believe in the existence of Jesus (for which there is ample historical evidence), while rejecting him as the messiah. The desire to reject him as the Christ does NOT logically necessitate that we reject his existence.

[Paul Ray]

Just in case anybody happens to look into this thread and isn't aware: There isn't, so far as I'm aware, a serious historian of the ancient world or scholar of the New Testament, believer or non-believer, who entertains any serious doubt that Jesus existed. This is crank territory.

Because such cranks are often active on message boards, they can give the impression that the issue is a burning one, dividing historians, actively debated among scholars. It isn't.

Let's just go ahead and take out the overly generous qualifiers, shall we?

Anybody who doesn't know that Jesus Christ actually lived and died on this planet is:

either

mentally immature, as is a baby

or

living a very sheltered life, unexposed to this very basic common knowledge.

... and I am referring to the person commonly referred to by people in general as Jesus Christ.

... not the English translation of his name, necessarily.