Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians

[Leucius Charinus]

Three Challenges:

(1) Identify (from the list or elsewhere) any non Christian source which attests to the historical existence of Christians prior to the rise of Constantine, and for which you are prepared to argue, with a reasonable level certainty, that the source identified is legitimate and authentic.


(2) Explain to me why there are so many forgeries, frauds and interpolations in this class of literature.

(3) What evidence would it take to invoke your suspicion that the interpolation / forgery of these Christian references in these sources was systematic?

(1) Lucian of Samosata refers to Christians in two of his works:

1. Passing of Peregrinus
2. Alexander the False Prophet

The works are dated to the Second Century CE. According to this site, his works have reached us from volumes published from between the 9th Century CE and the 11th C CE.

Whether those documents published 1000 years ago were reproducing works actually written by Lucian is a good question of which I don't know the answer. It seems the attribution of those works, as well as other pagan and Christian works, are accepted with a 'reasonable level of certainty' by modern scholarship.

Yes it is true that these two works of Lucian which contain references to the Christians are accepted as genuine by modern scholarship. Scholars have been citing these non-Christian references to (early) Christians for a long time. Seneca was cited for over a thousand years because of the existence of the "historical letter exchange" with Paul.

However in regard to the assessment of Lucian's references my major concern is what is written in your cited article. This is the Loeb editor A.M. Harmon. Among the eighty-two works of Lucian known to A.M. Harmon (Loeb, 1913) at least fifteen forgeries are listed, some of which are clearly Christian forgeries (e.g., Philopatris).

Against the entry for Lucian we must therefore note a suspicion. The road is long G'Don. All the references together will tell a story about what the non Christian literature of the first three centuries report concerning the nation of the Christians.

I think your theory is crazy, but it does call into question something that seem to me (as an amateur) need to be questioned: the provenance of early texts. (I don't see a problem with assigning provenance provisionally, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, but we also shouldn't forget that it is provisional).

It's more of a question than a theory. But I am prepared to ask the question, to seek and identify the evidence, and then to evaluate and assess its integrity in discussion.

(2) There are forgeries, frauds and interpolations in both pagan and Christian literature. Plutarch, Lucian, Plato, Seneca, all had texts purported to have been written by them. It would be surprising not to find it in Christian literature. The more famous the writer, the more likely that later authors would have leveraged off of that fame.

Yes it's true. Forgeries are part of the tapestry of stuff past and present. But my question related to the scale - the numbers - of obvious forgeries in that list in the OP. The letter of Marcus Aurelius to the Senate, Letter from Pilate to Tiberius, Report of Tiberius to the Senate. Seneca. Supposedly non Christian literary sources and therefore listed. So my question remains. Explain to me why there are so many forgeries, frauds and interpolations in this logical class of literature.

(3) Means, Motive, and Opportunity. I think your theory falls down in the 'motive' department. Why the confusing mess of heretics,

I view the confusing mess of heretics who are the subject of long polemical tracts by the orthodox heresiologists as the authors of the NT Apocryphal literature. I have proposed that there are three classes of Christian literature in a separate thread. This thread is about the non-Christian literature.

... almost pointless interpretations into pagan literature (what's the point of interpolating those passages about Christians into Lucian, for example?),

What was the point of Eusebius interpolating that passage about Christians into Josephus, for example? The same very point. Eusebius was interpolating the non Christian literature so that these false flags gave the investigator the impression that the Christians existed in the first century of the common era, just like the Christian literature asserted.

The objective is to go through the list and rate each of these items. Maybe the first step is to agree on how many known forgeries are on the list. I can acknowledge that there will be some people who would argue that some of these references are legit and authentic references to Christians in non Christian authors. OK. Flag the items as such. But try and also deal with the entire logical set of the evidence that has been listed.

[Leucius Charinus]

So, I just see no reason to see this passage as an interpolation, and I don't see any reason to consider Pliny's letter on Christians an interpolation either. In both cases, the methods and arguments proposed just don't seem remotely convincing to me.

Thanks for the long and detailed response defending the authenticity of the Tacitus and the Pliny references. I can appreciate there will be some who argue that a small number of the items listed in the OP are legit or authentic. I have set out (above) my own notes in separate posts.

In summary, for Tacitus I follow Drew's arguments in "The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus" summarising Hochart's position

Arthur Drews in "The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus" summarising Hochart's position:

Finally, there is the complete silence of profane writers and the vagueness of the Christian writers on the matter; the latter only gradually come to make a definite statement of a general persecution of the Christians under Nero, whereas at first they make Nero put to death only Peter and Paul. The first unequivocal mention of the Neronian persecution in connection with the burning of Rome is found in the forged correspondence of Seneca and the apostle Paul, which belongs to the fourth century. A fuller account is then given in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died 403 A.D.), but it is mixed with the most transparent Christian legends, such as the story of the death of Simon Magus, the bishopric and sojourn of Peter at Rome, etc. The expressions of Sulpicius agree, in part, almost word for word with those of Tacitus. It is, however, very doubtful, in view of the silence of the other Christian authors who used Tacitus, if the manuscript of Tacitus which Sulpicius used contained the passage in question. We are therefore strongly disposed to suspect that the passage (Annals, xv, 44) was transferred from Sulpicius to the text of Tacitus by the hand of a monastic copyist or forger, for the greater glory of God and in order to strengthen the truth of the Christian tradition by a pagan witness.[67]

But how could the legend arise that Nero was the first to persecute the Christians? It arose, says Hochart, under a threefold influence. The first is the apocalyptic idea, which saw in Nero the Antichrist, the embodiment of all evil, the terrible adversary of the Messiah and his followers. As such he was bound, by a kind of natural enmity, to have been the first to persecute the Christians; as Sulpicius puts it, “because vice is always the enemy of the good.”[68] The second is the political interest of the Christians in representing themselves as Nero's victims, in order to win the favour and protection of his successors on that account. The third is the special interest of the Roman Church in the death of the two chief apostles, Peter and Paul, at Rome. Then the author of the letters of Seneca to Paul enlarged the legend in its primitive form, brought it into agreement with the ideas of this time, and gave it a political turn. The vague charges of incendiarism assumed a more definite form, and were associated with the character of Antichrist, which the Church was accustomed to ascribe to Nero on account of his supposed diabolical cruelty. He was accused of inflicting horrible martyrdoms on the Christians, and thus the legend in its latest form reached the Chronicle of Sulpicius. Finally a clever forger (Poggio?) smuggled the dramatic account of this persecution into the Annals of Tacitus, and thus secured the acceptance as historical fact of a purely imaginary story.

We need not recognise all Hochart's arguments as equally sound, yet we must admit that in their entirety and agreement they are worthy of consideration, and are well calculated to disturb the ingenuous belief in the authenticity of the passage of Tacitus.

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/autho ... s.htm#1005

For Pliny I follow the caution of Darrell J. Doughty (above references)


The Tacitus and Pliny manuscript discoveries

Both manuscripts are discovered by influential "researchers" connected to the church industry. The church industry had always been interested in procuring new Greek and Latin manuscripts. The Popes openly offered rewards for manuscripts. At this time, the dawn of the 16th century, manuscript transmission histories migrated from the scriptorium to the printing press. All sorts of manuscripts were discovered in the archives of the church industry and undoubtedly some of them may have been authentic. But I have my doubts about Tacitus and Pliny.

In Context

I note against both Tacitus and Pliny that their authenticity has at least been been challenged by scholarship. I agree that Tuccinardi should provide further information. For the sake of the argument let's leave our disagreement over Tacitus and Pliny aside.

Are there any other non Christian sources listed in the OP that you reckon may be authentic? (Do you think the TF is authentic?)

[Leucius Charinus]

From this it seems clear to me atm (also see comments below) that both Tertullian and Eusebius were not referring to any general persecution of the Christians by Nero but rather the death of the chief apostles Peter and Paul in Rome.

I don't see the logic in that, I'm afraid. Can the execution of Peter and Paul be separated from a general persecution of Christians under Nero?

Yes of course it can (IMO). Here is how Arthur Drew's sets out the sequence of events -

Arthur Drews in "The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus" summarising Hochart's position:

Finally, there is the complete silence of profane writers and the vagueness of the Christian writers on the matter; the latter only gradually come to make a definite statement of a general persecution of the Christians under Nero, whereas at first they make Nero put to death only Peter and Paul. The first unequivocal mention of the Neronian persecution in connection with the burning of Rome is found in the forged correspondence of Seneca and the apostle Paul, which belongs to the fourth century. A fuller account is then given in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died 403 A.D.), but it is mixed with the most transparent Christian legends, such as the story of the death of Simon Magus, the bishopric and sojourn of Peter at Rome, etc. The expressions of Sulpicius agree, in part, almost word for word with those of Tacitus. It is, however, very doubtful, in view of the silence of the other Christian authors who used Tacitus, if the manuscript of Tacitus which Sulpicius used contained the passage in question. We are therefore strongly disposed to suspect that the passage (Annals, xv, 44) was transferred from Sulpicius to the text of Tacitus by the hand of a monastic copyist or forger, for the greater glory of God and in order to strengthen the truth of the Christian tradition by a pagan witness.[67]

But how could the legend arise that Nero was the first to persecute the Christians? It arose, says Hochart, under a threefold influence. The first is the apocalyptic idea, which saw in Nero the Antichrist, the embodiment of all evil, the terrible adversary of the Messiah and his followers. As such he was bound, by a kind of natural enmity, to have been the first to persecute the Christians; as Sulpicius puts it, “because vice is always the enemy of the good.”[68] The second is the political interest of the Christians in representing themselves as Nero's victims, in order to win the favour and protection of his successors on that account. The third is the special interest of the Roman Church in the death of the two chief apostles, Peter and Paul, at Rome. Then the author of the letters of Seneca to Paul enlarged the legend in its primitive form, brought it into agreement with the ideas of this time, and gave it a political turn. The vague charges of incendiarism assumed a more definite form, and were associated with the character of Antichrist, which the Church was accustomed to ascribe to Nero on account of his supposed diabolical cruelty. He was accused of inflicting horrible martyrdoms on the Christians, and thus the legend in its latest form reached the Chronicle of Sulpicius. Finally a clever forger (Poggio?) smuggled the dramatic account of this persecution into the Annals of Tacitus, and thus secured the acceptance as historical fact of a purely imaginary story.

We need not recognise all Hochart's arguments as equally sound, yet we must admit that in their entirety and agreement they are worthy of consideration, and are well calculated to disturb the ingenuous belief in the authenticity of the passage of Tacitus.

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/autho ... s.htm#1005

[StephenGoranson]

PT/LC/Mt-m,
It may be that you underestimate current scholars' ability to identify texts falsely attributed to Lucian, as well as which texts he did write (in a Greek style that perhaps few could imitate well), including awareness of Christians.

Me, I'm more familiar with Celsus and Origen. They for sure lived before Constantine.

Oxford Handbook on Origen, published this year, has oddles on Origen.

"Celsus of Pergamum: Locating a Critic of Early Christianity," Ch. 30 in The Archaeology of Difference: Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the "Other" in Antiquity: Studies in Honor of Eric M. Meyers (AASOR 60/61, 2007)
https://people.duke.edu/~goranson/Celsu ... rgamum.pdf

[Chrissy Hansen]

Are there any other non Christian sources listed in the OP that you reckon may be authentic? (Do you think the TF is authentic?)

Hi LC.

I would contend that the Suetonius references are authentic, but the one about "Chrestus" is not about Jesus at all, but about a Jewish messianic claimant who rose up in rebellion in Rome. So I don't think it is pertinent. I would also argue that both Tacitus and Suetonius gained their info on "Christians" from Pliny the Younger, so none of them constitute independent evidence of Christianity.

I think all three references to Jesus, James, and JohntB in Josephus' Antiquities are inauthentic.

I'm unsure about the Talmudic references. I'd personally contend a large quantity of those on your list probably are inauthentic (the Abgar letters, the letters of Hadrian, the Historia Augusta letters, the Marcus Aurelius letters, the Hadrian Pilate Tiberius correspondences, etc.). However, a number of them probably are authentic in my estimation. The references to Christians in the works of Galen I consider authentic, and the references in Lucian as well. I also think the work of Celsus was likely authentic.

I think these texts all in particular just make more sense as authentic, because the number of hoops one would have to leap through to get to them all being inauthentic just seems precarious at best.

[GakuseiDon]

(2) There are forgeries, frauds and interpolations in both pagan and Christian literature. Plutarch, Lucian, Plato, Seneca, all had texts purported to have been written by them. It would be surprising not to find it in Christian literature. The more famous the writer, the more likely that later authors would have leveraged off of that fame.

Yes it's true. Forgeries are part of the tapestry of stuff past and present. But my question related to the scale - the numbers - of obvious forgeries in that list in the OP. The letter of Marcus Aurelius to the Senate, Letter from Pilate to Tiberius, Report of Tiberius to the Senate. Seneca. Supposedly non Christian literary sources and therefore listed. So my question remains. Explain to me why there are so many forgeries, frauds and interpolations in this logical class of literature.

"So many" is a value judgement that I think needs clarification: do you believe that there is an unexpected number of forgeries, frauds and interpolations? If it is unexpected, what would be the expected number of forgeries, frauds and interpolations in that class of literature?

It would be unfair to expect you to give a lengthy answer here, so I'm not looking for that at this time. But it's a question I haven't thought about so I would like to know your over-all thinking here, and how the number of forgeries, etc, support your theory. Warnings of forgeries exist from the time of the letters of Paul. Eusebius goes through the literature and spells out those works that are disputed in his time:
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPN ... #TopOfPage

3 Among the disputed writings,226 which are nevertheless recognized227 by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James228 and that of Jude,229 also the second epistle of Peter,230 and those that are called the second and third of John,231 whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

4 Among the rejected writings232 must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul,233 and the so-called Shepherd,234 and the Apocalypse of Peter,235 and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas,236 and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles;237 and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject,238 but which others class with the accepted books.239

5 And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews,240 with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.241

6 But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted,242 from those others which, although not canonical but disputed,243 are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers-we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter,244 of Thomas,245 of Matthias,246 or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew247 and John248 and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

7 And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics.249 Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected250 writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.

Assuming a mainstream interpretation of ancient literature, are we looking at an unexpectedly large number of forgeries, etc? A number that, in your view, mainstream scholarship needs to address?

... almost pointless interpretations into pagan literature (what's the point of interpolating those passages about Christians into Lucian, for example?),

What was the point of Eusebius interpolating that passage about Christians into Josephus, for example? The same very point. Eusebius was interpolating the non Christian literature so that these false flags gave the investigator the impression that the Christians existed in the first century of the common era, just like the Christian literature asserted.

Who were the investigators? Christians who had doubts that Christianity started in the First Century? Or pagans who had doubts that Christianity started in the First Century? And how did interpolations into a Second Century author like Lucian help to support a First Century origin for Christianity?

I imagine we can speculate on reasons why Eusebius might have done this. What I'm interested in is whether there is anything in the surviving literature to support the existence of Fourth Century investigators who would have been impressed by the interpolations into Lucian's writings, I know there is Julian's "the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness", but he seems to have accepted the existence of First Century Christianity. Is there anything that suggests people were doubting the existence of First Century Christianity?

The objective is to go through the list and rate each of these items. Maybe the first step is to agree on how many known forgeries are on the list. I can acknowledge that there will be some people who would argue that some of these references are legit and authentic references to Christians in non Christian authors. OK. Flag the items as such. But try and also deal with the entire logical set of the evidence that has been listed.

It's a big task, which of course doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile regardless of whether your theory is right or wrong. But it is a bigger task than you suspect. Since you've opened the door to the provenance of ancient texts, every time you use an ancient pagan writer, I wonder how you've established the provenance of that text? Are you accepting the same methods that mainstream scholars use for Christian texts (tradition and textual criticism)? Or are you making an exception in terms of pagan texts? Does mainstream scholarship do a good job for establishing the provenance of ancient pagan texts, in your view?

I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Earl Doherty: I admire that you've put yourself out there with your theory. it is easy for me to fire off a hundred questions since I have no skin in the game. So feel free to answer or not answer my questions here and elsewhere as you have time and inclination. But, even assuming your theory becomes mainstream and all doubts about its validity are removed, those questions would still be asked. To paraphrase the Mummy in The Mummy movie: The end of a historical Jesus would be just the beginning of historical studies! (and would probably be the best thing for it)

[Leucius Charinus]

It may be that you underestimate current scholars' ability to identify texts falsely attributed to Lucian, as well as which texts he did write (in a Greek style that perhaps few could imitate well), including awareness of Christians.

It's not really a question of underestimating current scholars' ability to identify texts falsely attributed to Lucian. The fact remains that many forgeries of Lucian have been identified, It is therefore factual to note something like this against Lucian's two works on this list.

As discussed the exercise must be a multiple-pass exercise the first stage of which is to identify all manuscripts which fall into this logical class of literature. I believe my list is close to being comprehensive and complete but it may not be. The second step would be to assess integrity / authenticity of each item.

Where there have been scholarly arguments raised against authenticity this should be noted. That we have other books forged in the name of Lucian is to be also noted. If the authenticity has never been challenged (as it may be with the two books of Lucian mentioning Christians) this too should also be noted.

Me, I'm more familiar with Celsus and Origen. They for sure lived before Constantine.

It is logical (IMO) that Celsus needs to be recused from the list. We have a conflict of interest here because we are not hearing from Celsus directly. We are only hearing what Eusebius tells us about what Origen tells us about what Celsus was telling the world. There are at least two Christian influences behind what we read Celsus wrote. Momigliano writes:

• “it is indeed impossible to be certain that Celsus is fairly represented by the texts Origen quotes to refute him”.

Hierocles and Fronto fall into the same basket.

There should be plenty of items left on the list to get an overall picture about what we know about what the non Christian authors wrote about the early Christians.

[Leucius Charinus]

Are there any other non Christian sources listed in the OP that you reckon may be authentic? (Do you think the TF is authentic?)

Hi LC.

I would contend that the Suetonius references are authentic, but the one about "Chrestus" is not about Jesus at all, but about a Jewish messianic claimant who rose up in rebellion in Rome. So I don't think it is pertinent.

Fair point. One of my concerns is that the earliest (c.820 CE) Suetonius manuscript (Paris, BnF lat 6115) is listed as being from north-central Carolingian France. This places it extremely close in both space and time to the Pseudo-Isidore Latin church industry forgery mill which appears to have been run out of Corbie Abbey. My notes on Suetonius are set out here:
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/author_suetonius.htm

I would also argue that both Tacitus and Suetonius gained their info on "Christians" from Pliny the Younger, so none of them constitute independent evidence of Christianity.

Arguments like this may be worthwhile visiting once all the acknowledged forgeries are removed and once the remaining items have been categorized / annotated.

I think all three references to Jesus, James, and JohntB in Josephus' Antiquities are inauthentic.

OK.

I'm unsure about the Talmudic references. I'd personally contend a large quantity of those on your list probably are inauthentic (the Abgar letters, the letters of Hadrian, the Historia Augusta letters, the Marcus Aurelius letters, the Hadrian Pilate Tiberius correspondences, etc.).

OK.

However, a number of them probably are authentic in my estimation. The references to Christians in the works of Galen I consider authentic,

There are a few of these. One of the four Christian references in the voluminous writings of Galen should in the future be referred to as the Testimonium Galenium. From his summary of Plato's Republic:

"In the religious community of the followers of Christ there are most admirable people who frequently act according to perfect virtue; and this is to be seen not only in their men but in their women as well." And I see that he admires them for their virtue, and although he is a man whose position is known and whose opposition to Judaism and Christianity is manifest and clear to everybody who has studied his books and knows what he states in them, he nevertheless cannot deny the excellent qualities which the Christians display in their virtuous activities.

Shades of the Testimonium Flavianum. Such a glowing reference by Galen is simply too good to be true. The other short references (to "Jesus and Moses") in Galen of course need to be treated separately

and the references in Lucian as well.

As noted in the response above regarding Lucian.

I also think the work of Celsus was likely authentic.

Celsus IMO needs to be recused (as also outlined above)

I think these texts all in particular just make more sense as authentic, because the number of hoops one would have to leap through to get to them all being inauthentic just seems precarious at best.

I also agree that it would appear to be a very precarious argument to make - that everything on the list may be inauthentic. Logically the default position is that each of these references are not only independent of the Christians but they are also independent of each other. Although this default is sound it may not necessarily be prove sound if a large percentage of the items listed turn out to be frauds, forgeries or interpolations by the church industry.

The more the evidence of fraud in this list then it becomes responsible to ask - at some stage of the game - what if we are not looking at independent references but rather at evidence of a systematic corruption of the non Christian literature by the church.


Finally there is also the matter of the existence of past forgery and/or interpolation of non Christian literature by the church which has happened over the last 16 centuries but which have fallen away from the discussion of scholarship. Once forgeries have been exposed they are sometimes just removed from all future discussion. That is, the evidence which was in centuries past put forward and accepted as true, when it is recognised as forgery, is simply removed from the table. I'd like to have everything on the table but some of it has probably been removed. One example may be material in this class of literature (non Christian references to the Christians) which is now classed within the Pseudo-Isidore forgery.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Well where we will find it interesting is that I don't actually think all of these would be Christian forgeries, even all those I acknowledge to be inauthentic. For example, the references in the Talmud I have occasioned to think are inauthentic, but given their polemical nature, I think those would be polemical additions by Jewish scribes, not by Christians. Similarly, I think the John the Baptist reference in Josephus was not by Christians but possibly a group following JtB, as argued by Huidekoper in the past.

So, what I would contend is actually that interpolations may just have been a more or less common occurrence. We can likewise find them in Homer's Odyssey and such, with various conflicting manuscripts. As such, I'm not sure it counts as any systemic Church corruption and forgery mill, necessarily. Though no doubt this sort of forgery milling did occur at various intervals.

For me, as well, I would need far more evidence than a manuscript having been found in the approximate geographical region that contained a so-called "forgery mill." I also think that it would have been likely that a forger with Suetonius would have probably expanded out the text a lot more, and also if that passage were inauthentic, it is strange that they would place persecution of Christians among Nero's good accomplishments, and not among his failings. In its place in the text, nothing about it screams Christian interpolation to me. Also the Suetonius manuscript you speak of was made in Tours, if I'm not mistaken. And the Pseudo-Isidore forger actually worked out of Reims, so North-Eastern France and a long ways away. So their proximity actually is not that close. It should also be noted that Pseudo-Isidore was primarily a forger not of historical works, but particularly of legal pieces and legislation and decretals by Popes. So I am not actually sure this would even fit PI's modus operandi. It also doesn't appear that Pseudo-Isidore was very successful either, with most of these being noticed, and either ignored or removed. So, ultimately, I think the hypothesis is a bit of a stretch and it is really only based on loose geographical proximity, which I would definitely like to see more evidence.

I am definitely in agreement that later church fathers and the Catholic church definitely did forge items and falsely portray this victimized and purified early conception of Christian origins, for sure. But I am still not at a place where I would go "systemic large scale forgery" and the likes that you propose yet. I think the evidence needs to be further developed.

[Leucius Charinus]

(2) There are forgeries, frauds and interpolations in both pagan and Christian literature. Plutarch, Lucian, Plato, Seneca, all had texts purported to have been written by them. It would be surprising not to find it in Christian literature. The more famous the writer, the more likely that later authors would have leveraged off of that fame.

Yes it's true. Forgeries are part of the tapestry of stuff past and present. But my question related to the scale - the numbers - of obvious forgeries in that list in the OP. The letter of Marcus Aurelius to the Senate, Letter from Pilate to Tiberius, Report of Tiberius to the Senate. Seneca. Supposedly non Christian literary sources and therefore listed. So my question remains. Explain to me why there are so many forgeries, frauds and interpolations in this logical class of literature.

"So many" is a value judgement that I think needs clarification: do you believe that there is an unexpected number of forgeries, frauds and interpolations? If it is unexpected, what would be the expected number of forgeries, frauds and interpolations in that class of literature?

It would be unfair to expect you to give a lengthy answer here, so I'm not looking for that at this time. But it's a question I haven't thought about so I would like to know your over-all thinking here, and how the number of forgeries, etc, support your theory.

In terms of the number of forgeries appearing in the list of the OP - "Witnesses to the Historicity of early Christians in Non Christian literature" - we will have to wait and see what the list looks like after each of the items have been annotated. A percentage figure may be some sort of measure. I hope to have some draft of this soon.

Warnings of forgeries exist from the time of the letters of Paul. Eusebius goes through the literature and spells out those works that are disputed in his time:
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPN ... #TopOfPage

3 Among the disputed writings,226 which are nevertheless recognized227 by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James228 and that of Jude,229 also the second epistle of Peter,230 and those that are called the second and third of John,231 whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

4 Among the rejected writings232 must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul,233 and the so-called Shepherd,234 and the Apocalypse of Peter,235 and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas,236 and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles;237 and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject,238 but which others class with the accepted books.239

5 And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews,240 with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.241

6 But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted,242 from those others which, although not canonical but disputed,243 are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers-we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter,244 of Thomas,245 of Matthias,246 or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew247 and John248 and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

7 And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics.249 Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected250 writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.

Assuming a mainstream interpretation of ancient literature, are we looking at an unexpectedly large number of forgeries, etc? A number that, in your view, mainstream scholarship needs to address?

I treat the NT apocryphal literature you have Eusebius commenting upon above as the second class of Christian literature as follows:

1) NT Canonical literature (27 books)
2) NT Apocryphal literature (hundreds of books)
3) Ecclesiastical History (Major sub-categories being EH1 - Orthodox Doctrines and EH7 - Heresiology)

Eusebius' commentary above can be split between 1) and 2) and as such Eusebius is commenting on the orthodox doctrines and also heresiology.

Outside of the evidence furnished by a study of these three types of Christian literature there is the evidence of the non Christian literature (being listed in this thread).

Comment on the NT Apocryphal literature

I don't argue that these are "forgeries" as such. What I have argued is that "NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible." and that the authors of these texts were not Christians. Rather they were highly literate pagans, many being Platonist philosophers. So this is another subject altogether.

See for example: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE
viewtopic.php?t=771

... almost pointless interpretations into pagan literature (what's the point of interpolating those passages about Christians into Lucian, for example?),

What was the point of Eusebius interpolating that passage about Christians into Josephus, for example? The same very point. Eusebius was interpolating the non Christian literature so that these false flags gave the investigator the impression that the Christians existed in the first century of the common era, just like the Christian literature asserted.

Who were the investigators? Christians who had doubts that Christianity started in the First Century? Or pagans who had doubts that Christianity started in the First Century? And how did interpolations into a Second Century author like Lucian help to support a First Century origin for Christianity?

I imagine we can speculate on reasons why Eusebius might have done this. What I'm interested in is whether there is anything in the surviving literature to support the existence of Fourth Century investigators who would have been impressed by the interpolations into Lucian's writings, I know there is Julian's "the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness", but he seems to have accepted the existence of First Century Christianity. Is there anything that suggests people were doubting the existence of First Century Christianity?

I used the term investigators to mean anyone researching the history of Christianity. Posterity in general. We are the investigators. Few doubted the official history of Eusebius once it could be read by academics after it became legal to read. There were many centuries during which it and the bible were not for public digestion.

Very few people even today doubt the existence of First Century Christianity. However I believe that it is responsible to investigate the possibility that we could be dealing with a pseudo-history. So I ask for evidence. I could be wrong. But the method is right.

The objective is to go through the list and rate each of these items. Maybe the first step is to agree on how many known forgeries are on the list. I can acknowledge that there will be some people who would argue that some of these references are legit and authentic references to Christians in non Christian authors. OK. Flag the items as such. But try and also deal with the entire logical set of the evidence that has been listed.

It's a big task, which of course doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile regardless of whether your theory is right or wrong. But it is a bigger task than you suspect. Since you've opened the door to the provenance of ancient texts, every time you use an ancient pagan writer, I wonder how you've established the provenance of that text? Are you accepting the same methods that mainstream scholars use for Christian texts (tradition and textual criticism)? Or are you making an exception in terms of pagan texts? Does mainstream scholarship do a good job for establishing the provenance of ancient pagan texts, in your view?

Yes I think the classical scholars are doing a good job. But until recent centuries the highest academic degree one could aspire to was a Doctor of Theology. The education system has been supported by the church industry since the 4th century. None of the pagan texts has a powerful and influential industry backing it.

In respect of Christian literature there is a bit of a mess to be sorted through. The main problem as I see it is that we are looking at a mass of unknown authors who do not identify themselves or the century of their authorship. Our guiding light is heresiological. And this could be a problem.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9998

I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Earl Doherty: I admire that you've put yourself out there with your theory. it is easy for me to fire off a hundred questions since I have no skin in the game. So feel free to answer or not answer my questions here and elsewhere as you have time and inclination. But, even assuming your theory becomes mainstream and all doubts about its validity are removed, those questions would still be asked. To paraphrase the Mummy in The Mummy movie: The end of a historical Jesus would be just the beginning of historical studies! (and would probably be the best thing for it)

Yes questions should keep being asked. There were many long and dark centuries during which certain questions could not be asked. Some places on planet Earth are still suffering under such restrictions. Albert E. once wrote that it is the questions which are important - more important than the answers. Because sooner of later, once a question has been asked someone will eventually determine an answer for it. So it is that the questions are just as valuable as the answers.