Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians

Post by neilgodfrey »

To return to the question of literary witnesses, would we not expect a religion created by/under Constantine to have more consistent gospels and epistles with respect to their narratives and teachings?
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians

Post by Leucius Charinus »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:30 pm To return to the question of literary witnesses, would we not expect a religion created by/under Constantine to have more consistent gospels and epistles with respect to their narratives and teachings?
Thanks for the question Neil.

IMHO this expectation was met in the earliest Greek codices by the plain and simple act of prefacing the four gospels with the Eusebian Canon Tables. This inclusion highlights (to me anyway) that Constantine was looking for agreements between the four "eye-witnesses" as would be expected in a Roman court of law. Such an analysis (which Eusebius attributed to Ammonius !) would indicate to a magistrate that there was sufficient agreement to accept the common claims of four independent eye-witnesses. Disagreements between four eye-witness reports were, and still are, to be expected. But these were not advertised. Only the agreements were advertised.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebian_Canons

Critical source criticism, and a study of the inconsistencies between the gospels, did not arise in any widespread fashion for over a thousand years after the 4th century codex publication. In the later 4th century (if not before) the NT Bible codex was moved into the back-office of the church industry and could not be read by the unauthorised. In its place, on center stage of the church industry, the cult of the Saints and Martyrs flourished along with the "Holy Relic Trade".
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians

[as asserted by various "Church Fathers" and other Christian sources in antiquity]

To return to this study it may not be obvious why various items are listed. Everyone should immediately understand why Josephus **, Tacitus, Pliny, Trajan and Suetonius are listed. Some people may be wondering why the Erythraean Sibyl, Cicero and Virgil are listed. Or for that matter why these bogus letters like the letter of King Abgar of Edessa, the Letter from Herod Antipas to Pilate, the Letter from Pilate to Tiberius or the Report of Tiberius to the Senate are listed. The answer is that these represent literary references / attestations / witnesses made by non Christians to the advent of Jesus or the (nation of) Christians.

Obviously these are today not usually mentioned or referenced simply because they have been recognised by past scholarship as plain and simple forgeries or interpolations.

However all these references simply cannot be removed from the evidence on the table. They are purposefully included because the study has aimed at being complete and comprehensive. That is why the OP has called for any other items to be identified for inclusion on this list.

Unless someone would like to defend the authenticity of any of these listed items (or add something to the list) it would appear, to me anyway, that all these items are spurious and/or inauthentic and that as a result we have zero authentic non Christian references to the existence of the Christians prior to the 4th century.

** ETA: The TF is not solely concerned with a reference to Jesus.
Josephus wrote: About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians

Post by neilgodfrey »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:21 pm IMHO this expectation was met in the earliest Greek codices by the plain and simple act of prefacing the four gospels with the Eusebian Canon Tables. This inclusion highlights (to me anyway) that Constantine was looking for agreements between the four "eye-witnesses" as would be expected in a Roman court of law.
The difficulty I have with this answer is that the differences among the gospels point to theological debates. How do you explain the apparent existence of such debates that in turn led to the need to emphasize agreements rather than differences?
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians

Post by Leucius Charinus »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:52 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:21 pm IMHO this expectation was met in the earliest Greek codices by the plain and simple act of prefacing the four gospels with the Eusebian Canon Tables. This inclusion highlights (to me anyway) that Constantine was looking for agreements between the four "eye-witnesses" as would be expected in a Roman court of law.
The difficulty I have with this answer is that the differences among the gospels point to theological debates. How do you explain the apparent existence of such debates that in turn led to the need to emphasize agreements rather than differences?
What debates are you referring to? Can you give an example?

IMO Constantine published the NT without debate. It was a simple story book about the "Good Jesus" - the "Chrestos Jesus". The four gospel writers were designed as (false) eyewitnesses. Paul was designed to write to the many (false) churches (and Seneca).

On publication of the NT and its declaration as a political instrument by Constantine, what we now refer to as the Arian controversy immediately ensued. The history of the Arian "debate" was written up by 5th century orthodox Christians.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians

Post by arnoldo »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:30 pm To return to the question of literary witnesses, would we not expect a religion created by/under Constantine to have more consistent gospels and epistles with respect to their narratives and teachings?
The Emperor Julian thought so.

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians

Post by neilgodfrey »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 3:03 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:52 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:21 pm IMHO this expectation was met in the earliest Greek codices by the plain and simple act of prefacing the four gospels with the Eusebian Canon Tables. This inclusion highlights (to me anyway) that Constantine was looking for agreements between the four "eye-witnesses" as would be expected in a Roman court of law.
The difficulty I have with this answer is that the differences among the gospels point to theological debates. How do you explain the apparent existence of such debates that in turn led to the need to emphasize agreements rather than differences?
What debates are you referring to? Can you give an example?
The Gospel of Mark's Jesus expresses a theology of grace and faith that reflects "Pauline" teaching in the main epistles; Gospel of Matthew appears to counter GMark by rewriting the story as pro-Law, even anti-Paul; Then the Gospel of Luke appears as the catholicizer who melds different gospel traditions, attempting to harmonize differences; Acts evidently opposes the Paul of the main epistles by subsuming Paul beneath the apostles he opposed in his letters, but still tries to rescue Paul with a different teaching from what we read in the epistles. Then John comes along with a quite different theology from the rest and re-writes them all with a theology that says the kingdom is not something yet to come but is here right now in Christ.

Similarly with the resurrection accounts -- their differences are testimony to theological debates about the nature of the resurrected Jesus and testimony against the notion of actual eye-witnesses.

Mark's Jesus appears as a personification of the nation of the Judeans and subsequent "spiritual Jews" or the church. Mark's Twelve disciples are failures ("the rocky ground" on which the seed fell) while Matthew exalts Peter as "the rock" on which the church is built.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians

Post by Leucius Charinus »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 3:28 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 3:03 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:52 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:21 pm IMHO this expectation was met in the earliest Greek codices by the plain and simple act of prefacing the four gospels with the Eusebian Canon Tables. This inclusion highlights (to me anyway) that Constantine was looking for agreements between the four "eye-witnesses" as would be expected in a Roman court of law.
The difficulty I have with this answer is that the differences among the gospels point to theological debates. How do you explain the apparent existence of such debates that in turn led to the need to emphasize agreements rather than differences?
What debates are you referring to? Can you give an example?
The Gospel of Mark's Jesus expresses a theology of grace and faith that reflects "Pauline" teaching in the main epistles; Gospel of Matthew appears to counter GMark by rewriting the story as pro-Law, even anti-Paul; Then the Gospel of Luke appears as the catholicizer who melds different gospel traditions, attempting to harmonize differences; Acts evidently opposes the Paul of the main epistles by subsuming Paul beneath the apostles he opposed in his letters, but still tries to rescue Paul with a different teaching from what we read in the epistles. Then John comes along with a quite different theology from the rest and re-writes them all with a theology that says the kingdom is not something yet to come but is here right now in Christ.

Similarly with the resurrection accounts -- their differences are testimony to theological debates about the nature of the resurrected Jesus and testimony against the notion of actual eye-witnesses.

Mark's Jesus appears as a personification of the nation of the Judeans and subsequent "spiritual Jews" or the church. Mark's Twelve disciples are failures ("the rocky ground" on which the seed fell) while Matthew exalts Peter as "the rock" on which the church is built.
OK. Those "apparent debates".

I view the NT as a fabrication and, following Julian, "a monstrous tale"; "a fiction of men composed by wickedness". The apparent existence of such debates is also IMHO entirely fictional and a product, intentional or unintentional, of the fabricator(s). Jesus, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Paul are IMO entirely non historical, as is the Acts of the Apostles.


The key questions in my mind are 1) when was the NT fabricated and 2) who could have undertaken such a fraud.

1) WHEN: early or late? Most argue early. I argue late - the terminus ad quem.

2) Who gained the most from the NT? The money trail IMO leads to Constantine.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians

Post by neilgodfrey »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:10 pm The apparent existence of such debates is also IMHO entirely fictional and a product, intentional or unintentional, of the fabricator(s).
Do you hold the same for Marcion?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians

Post by MrMacSon »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:10 pm ... 1) when was the NT fabricated
  • If you think it was fabricated, along with all the texts of the so-called Church Fathers, you have to consider over what time frame it was all fabricated, b/c it can't have happened in a year, let along five years

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:10 pm 1) WHEN ... I argue late - the terminus ad quem
  • I think you mean the terminus a quo was late

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:10 pm 2) Who gained the most from the NT? The money trail IMO leads to Constantine
  • lol: that's conspiracy level beyond the tenth heaven
Post Reply