Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians

[Leucius Charinus]

"Celsus' first main point in his desire to attack Christianity is that the Christians secretly make associations with one another contrary to the laws, because 'societies which are public are allowed by the laws, but secret societies are illegal.'"

That is Origen, beginning his book Contra Celsum (page 7 in Henry Chadwick's translation), reporting Celsus, a non-Christian literary witness to the historicity of early Christians,

Yes it is Origen supposedly a Christian quoting Celsus supposedly a non Christian. The whole point of attempting to identify any references to the historicity of Christians in the literature of the non-Christians is that we have a right to ask the question "What did the non Christian literature sources have to say about the early Christians".

Origen is not a non Christian source. When Momigliano writes: “it is indeed impossible to be certain that Celsus is fairly represented by the texts Origen quotes to refute him”, I think he means that we can not be sure Origen is telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is a potential conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.

recuse

verb
NORTH AMERICAN

• challenge (a judge, prosecutor, or juror) as unqualified to perform legal duties because of a potential conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.
  
  "he was recused when he referred to the corporation as ‘a bunch of villains’"
  
  
  * (of a judge) excuse oneself from a case because of a potential conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.
  
  "it was the right of counsel to ask a judge to recuse himself from continuing to hear a case because of bias"

For this reason I recused Celsus via Origen. Find me a manuscript written by Celsus alone and preserved separately from Origen's refutation and I will add Celsus to the list of seven non Christian authors on the short-list

Contested: Authenticity has been questioned by scholarship (bolded cases) at some stage.

SUMMARY of the Contested Non Christian witnesses to the "Early Christians"

101-112 Pliny the Younger Ep 10:97
101-112 Emperor Trajan - Dear Pliny
115-116 Tacitus - Annals 15:44
118-119 Suetonius - (Christians punished; Nero 16)

170-180 Lucian - Life of Peregrine
170-180 Lucian - Alexander the Prophet
180-200 Galen - Greek: "On the Pulse" 2 refs
180-200 Galen - Arabic: "On the Prime Mover"
280-303 Porphyry - Vita Plotinus 16


ETA: The same applies to the 4th century author Hierocles,
We have the treatise of Eusebius

THE TREATISE OF EUSEBIUS, THE SON OF PAMPHILUS,
AGAINST THE LIFE OF APOLLONIUS OF TYANA
WRITTEN BY PHILOSTRATUS,
OCCASIONED BY THE PARALLEL
DRAWN BY HIEROCLES
BETWEEN HIM AND CHRIST.

but we don't have the independent manuscript from Hierocles.

[davidmartin]

Lattke thinks some hermetic writings might have been drawn from early christian ideas.

[Leucius Charinus]

From the NHL discussion:

Possibly, I may have been misled by some history-rejecting tendency that could be called son of "all Cretans are liars"-- your "all Christians are liars" version.

For example, your dismissal of Origen quoting at length and commenting on the criticism of Christianity by Celsus as a Constantine-era forgery seems amazingly, improbably, obtuse.

I have earlier described the dismissal of Celsus (incl. Fronto and Heirocles) in terms of recusing the Christian sources in which they are preserved. I asked for literature direct from Celsus. Again I may have mislead people because my terminology was not specific enough.

The OP asked for non Christian literature sources. What I also meant by "recusing" Origen et al but have not made explicit, is that I am far more interested in the primary evidence. Origen et al represent secondary evidence. I will return Origen et al to the list and flag them as secondary evidence. Whether these sources were later forgeries can be debated as a separate issue elsewhere.

I trust this change of terminology makes more sense. I have outlined the methodology to which I subscribe but may not have stressed the relative importance of primary and secondary sources. Personally I avoid any attempt to mix these together until the primary evidence has been examined in isolation.

[GakuseiDon]

I trust this change of terminology makes more sense. I have outlined the methodology to which I subscribe but may not have stressed the relative importance of primary and secondary sources. Personally I avoid any attempt to mix these together until the primary evidence has been examined in isolation.

Could you give an example of a primary non-Christian source? For example, if we have a copy of one of Lucian's works from the 11th Century that has been copied via Christian monks down through the centuries: would you consider that a primary source (ignoring interpolations for the moment)?

[Leucius Charinus]

I trust this change of terminology makes more sense. I have outlined the methodology to which I subscribe but may not have stressed the relative importance of primary and secondary sources. Personally I avoid any attempt to mix these together until the primary evidence has been examined in isolation.

Could you give an example of a primary non-Christian source? For example, if we have a copy of one of Lucian's works from the 11th Century that has been copied via Christian monks down through the centuries: would you consider that a primary source (ignoring interpolations for the moment)?

For the purpose of the OP I think it would be responsible to propose that an 11th century manuscript preserving Lucian or a 9th century manuscript preserving Suetonius can be treated as a primary source but with caveats. For example a further proposition is required in that primary source has been authentically copied between the 2nd century and century of the earliest extant manuscript. (proposition = no interpolations).

So yes I'd consider these much later manuscripts represent the closest to a primary source that we could get - (unless we had some originals). However I'd consider much later manuscripts for Origen to be secondary evidence with respect to the OP because Origen is not a non Christian literary source. If we had much later manuscripts of Celsus then these would be primary evidence with respect to the OP.

[Leucius Charinus]

LEGEND ............................
Forgery or Interpolation of sources
Authenticity is Contested
Secondary Sources
No Christian Reference

Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians

DATE --- Non-Christian Author and text,

BCE-BCE Erythraean Sibyl
106-043 Cicero translates Sibyl’s acrostic
040 BCE Virgil - advent of Christ predicted
BCE-100 Dead Sea Scrolls - theories?
030-033 King Abgar of Edessa - the letter
030-033 Letter from Herod Antipas to Pilate
034-034 Letter from Pilate to Tiberius
034-037 Report of Tiberius to the Senate
093-094 Josephus Flavius - TF18
093-094 Josephus Flavius - Antiquity 20
050-065 Seneca - correspondence with "Paul"
054-305 Nero to Diocletian: Persecutions

101-112 Pliny the Younger Ep 10:97
101-112 Emperor Trajan - Dear Pliny
115-116 Tacitus - Annals 15:44
117-138 Hadrian - Letter to Servianus
117-120 Epictetus - mentions "Galilaeans" via Arrian
118-119 Suetonius - (Christians punished; Nero 16)
118-119 Suetonius - (Chrestus; Claudius 25)
122-122 Hadrian - Letter to Minicius Fundanus
150-150 Antoninus - Epistle to assembly of Asia;
100-160 Fronto - Against; Minucius Felix
170-180 Marcus Aurelius - Letter to Senate
170-180 Marcus Aurelius - Meditations 11:3
170-180 Lucian - Life of Peregrine
170-180 Lucian - Alexander the Prophet
170-180 Lucian - The Patriot
170-180 Lucian - The Timarion
175-177 Celsus - True Discourse
180-200 Galen - Greek: "On the Pulse" 2 refs
180-200 Galen - Arabic: "On the Prime Mover"
180-200 Galen - Arabic: "Platonic Dialogues"
160-350 Talmud - Babylonian; Jerusalem

230-235 Cassius Dio - Epitome by Xiphilinus
240-270 Mani - Various writings
260-270 Plotinus - Chapter Heading about the Gnostics
270-275 Aurelian - Letter about Sibylline Books
280-303 Porphyry - Vita Plotinus 16
290-303 Sossianus Hierocles - Lover of Truth
280-380 Historia Augusta = 10 further refs

SUMMARY STATS

Forgery or Interpolation of sources
(Authors = 18, Texts = 30)

Authenticity is Contested
(Authors = 7, Texts = 10)

% Authors Interpolated = 18 / 25 = 72%
% Texts Interpolated = 30 / 40 = 75%


Not part of the stats:

Secondary Sources
(Authors = 3, Texts = 3)

No Christian Reference
(Authors = 3, Texts = 3)


SUMMARY of the Contested Non Christian witnesses to the "Early Christians"

101-112 Pliny the Younger Ep 10:97
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/autho ... Trajan.htm
101-112 Emperor Trajan - Dear Pliny
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/autho ... Trajan.htm
115-116 Tacitus - Annals 15:44
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/author_tacitus.htm
118-119 Suetonius - (Christians punished; Nero 16)
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/author_suetonius.htm

170-180 Lucian - Life of Peregrine
170-180 Lucian - Alexander the Prophet
180-200 Galen - Greek: "On the Pulse" 2 refs
180-200 Galen - Arabic: "On the Prime Mover"
280-303 Porphyry - Vita Plotinus 16

I reserve my doubts that the references to Christians in each of these 7 non Christian writers are authentic and were NOT interpolated by Christian scribes centuries afterwards. The links provided are to summaries of the evidence and include references to some of the arguments made against the authenticity of the Christian references in the manuscripts of Pliny, Trajan, Tacitus and Suetonius.