The Silent Historians

[stromboli]

https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/articles/5656

The Silent Historians
Aelius Theon
Albinus
Alcinous
Ammonius of Athens
Alexander of Aegae
Antipater of Thessalonica
Antonius Polemo
Apollonius Dyscolus
Apollonius of Tyana
Appian
Archigenes
Aretaeus
Arrian
Asclepiades of Prusa
Asconius
Aspasius
Atilicinus
Attalus
Bassus of Corinth
C. Cassius Longinus
Calvisius Taurus of Berytus
Cassius Dio
Chaeremon of Alexandria
Claudius Agathemerus
Claudius Ptolemaeus
Cleopatra the physician
Cluvius Rufus
Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Gaetulicus
Cornelius Celsus
Columella
Cornutus
D. Haterius Agrippa
D. Valerius Asiaticus
Damis
Demetrius
Demonax
Demosthenes Philalethes
Dion of Prusa
Domitius Afer
Epictetus
Erotianus
Euphrates of Tyre
Fabius Rusticus
Favorinus Flaccus
Florus
Fronto
Gellius
Gordius of Tyana
Gnaeus Domitius
Halicarnassensis Dionysius II
Heron of Alexandria
Josephus
Justus of Tiberias
Juvenal
Lesbonax of Mytilene
Lucanus
Lucian
Lysimachus
M. Antonius Pallas
M. Vinicius
Macro
Mam. Aemilius Scaurus
Marcellus Sidetes
Martial
Maximus Tyrius
Moderatus of Gades
Musonius
Nicarchus
Nicomachus Gerasenus
Onasandros
P. Clodius Thrasea
Paetus Palaemon
Pamphila
Pausanias
Pedacus Dioscorides
Persius/Perseus
Petronius
Phaedrus
Philippus of Thessalonica
Philo of Alexandria
Phlegon of Tralles
Pliny the Elder
Pliny the Younger
Plotinus
Plutarch
Pompeius Saturninus
Pomponius Mela
Pomponius Secundus
Potamon of Mytilene
Ptolemy of Mauretania
Q. Curtius Rufus
Quintilian
Rubellius Plautus
Rufus the Ephesian
Saleius Bassus
Scopelian the Sophist
Scribonius
Seneca the Elder
Seneca the Younger
Sex. Afranius Burrus
Sex. Julius Frontinus
Servilius Damocrates
Silius Italicus
Soranus
Soterides of Epidaurus
Sotion
Statius the Elder
Statius the Younger
Suetonius
Sulpicia
T. Aristo
T. Statilius Crito
Tacitus
Thallus
Theon of Smyrna
Thrasyllus of Mendes
Ti. Claudius Pasion
Ti. Julius Alexander
Tiberius
Valerius Flaccus
Valerius Maximus
Vardanes I
Velleius Paterculus
Verginius Flavus
Vindex

Perhaps none of these writers is more fascinating than Apollonius Tyanus, saintly first-century adventurer and noble paladin. Apollonius was a magic-man of divine birth who cured the sick and blind, cleansed entire cities of plague, foretold the future, and fed the masses. He was worshiped as a god and as a son of a god. Despite such nonsense claims, Apollonius was a real man recorded by reliable sources.

Because Jesus ostensibly performed miracles of global expanse (such as in Matthew 27), his words going “unto the ends of the whole world” (Rom. 10), one would expect virtually every literate person to have recorded those events. A Jesus contemporary such as Apollonius would have done so, as well as those who wrote of Apollonius.

Such is not the case. In Philostratus’s third-century chronicle Vita Apollonii, there is no hint of Jesus. Nor does Jesus appear in the works of other Apollonius epistolarians and scriveners: Emperor Titus, Cassius Dio, Maximus, Moeragenes, Lucian, Soterichus Oasites, Euphrates, Marcus Aurelius, or Damis of Hierapolis. It seems that none of these first- to third-century writers ever heard of Jesus, his miracles and alleged worldwide fame be damned.

Another bewildering author is Philo of Alexandria. He spent his first-century life in the Levant and even traversed Jesus-land. Philo chronicled contemporaries of Jesusâ€"Bassus, Pilate, Tiberius, Sejanus, Caligulaâ€"yet knew nothing of the storied prophet and rabble-rouser enveloped in glory and astral marvels.

Historian Flavius Josephus published his Jewish Wars circa 95 CE. He had lived in Japhia, one mile from Nazarethâ€"yet Josephus seems unaware of both Nazareth and Jesus. (I devoted a chapter to the interpolations in Josephus’s works that make him appear to write of Jesus when he did not.)

The Bible venerates the artist formerly known as Saul of Tarsus, but he was a man essentially oblivious to his savior. Paul was unaware of the virgin mother and ignorant of Jesus’s nativity, parentage, life events, ministry, miracles, apostles, betrayal, trial, and harrowing passion. Paul didn’t know where or when Jesus lived and considered the crucifixion metaphorical (Gal. 2:19â€"20). Unlike what is claimed in the Gospels, Paul never indicated that Jesus had come to Earth. And the “five hundred witnesses” claim (1 Cor. 15) is a forgery.

Qumran, hidey-hole for the Dead Sea Scrolls, lies twelve miles from Bethlehem. The scroll writers, coeval and abutting the holiest of hamlets one jaunty jog eastward, never heard of Jesus. Christianity still had that new-cult smell in the second century, but Christian presbyter Marcion of Pontus in 144 CE denied any virgin birth or childhood for Christ. Jesus’s infant circumcision (Luke 2:21) was thus a lie, as well as the crucifixion! Marcion claimed that Luke was corrupted; Christ self-spawned in omnipresence, esprit sans corps.

I read the works of second-century Christian father Athenagoras and never encountered the word Jesusâ€"Athenagoras was unacquainted with the name of his savior! This floored me. Had I missed something? No; Athenagoras was another pious early Christian who was unaware of Jesus.

The original Mark ended at 16:8, with later forgers adding the fanciful resurrection tale. John 21 also describes post-death Jesus tales, another forgery. Millions should have heard of the crucifixion with its astral enchantments: zombie armies and meteorological marvels (Matt. 27) recorded not by any historian but only in the dubitable scriptures scribbled decades later by superstitious folks. The Jesus saga is further deflated by Nazareth, a town without piety and in fact having no settlement until after the war of 70 CEâ€"suspiciously, just around the time the Gospels were concocted.

I put the list at the top out of order and the article is a lot longer, so please read it. This is old news to many of us on here, but I thought it was a good resource for future use.

[Baruch]

Apollonius of Tyana ... IMHO provided part of the Jesus legend.

So are they simply listing all the Loeb Classics they have read?  Loeb Classics are the darlings of early 20th century classical scholarship, with the ancient language quoted on the left hand page and the modern translation quoted on the right hand page.

[Mike Cl]

Well, Strom, you just dug up my next book to read. :))  This looks to dove tail into Carrier's last book.  Have you read it?

[stromboli]

Well, Strom, you just dug up my next book to read. :))  This looks to dove tail into Carrier's last book.  Have you read it?

No. I'm too busy for books.

[Mike Cl]

No. I'm too busy for books.

Okay--when I finish it I'll submit a book report.

[redsoxfan77]

I have some points to raise.

Taken from the wikipedia article on Nazareth.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

"James F. Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: "Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century CE. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea."[38] Strange originally calculated the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ as "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people" but, in a subsequent publication, revised this figure down to "a maximum of about 480."[39] In 2009, Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth."[40] Other sources state that during Jesus' time, Nazareth had a population of 400 and one public bath, which was important for civic and religious purposes.[41]"

I'm curious as to why one would expect to find a biographer of Apollonius to mention Jesus? 

Qumran texts were kept by a fringe Jewish group out in the desert.  Again, no surprise that a non-Christian group would not have any information about Jesus at all. 

As for Athenagoras of Athens here is his wiki link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenagoras_of_Athens

Quote: "He first complains of the illogical and unjust discrimination against the Christians and of the calumnies they suffer, and then meets the charge of atheism (a major complaint directed at the Christians of the day was that by disbelieving in the Roman gods, they were showing themselves to be atheists). He establishes the principle of monotheism, citing pagan poets and philosophers in support of the very doctrines for which Christians are condemned, and argues for the superiority of the Christian belief in God to that of pagans. This first strongly-reasoned argument for the unity of God in Christian literature is supplemented by an able exposition of the Trinity. Assuming then the defensive, he justifies the Christian abstention from worship of the national deities by arguing that it is absurd and indecent, quoting at length the pagan poets and philosophers in support of his contention. Finally, he meets the charges of immorality by exposing the Christian ideal of purity, even in thought, and the inviolable sanctity of the marriage bond. In refuting the charge of cannibalism Athenagoras states that Christians detest all cruelty and murder, refusing to attend contests of gladiators and wild beasts and holding that women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder for which they will have to give an account to God.[2]"

This quote is useful in a few different ways.  First, is the irony of the criticism of the early Christians as being atheists, which we can all appreciate.  Second, Athenagoras uses an "able exposition" about the Trinity to illuminate Christian belief.  Jesus, as you rightly know, is considered the second person of the Holy Trinity.  The first person being God the Father and the third being the Holy Spirit. Finally, Athenagoras responds to criticisms of cannibalism leveled against the early Christians. No doubt this being a defense/reference of the Eucharist.  This shows an early belief in the real presence. 


Finally, I'm not surprised at the non-Christian sources who fail to mention Christ at all in their accounts.  Perhaps the most interesting sources are the early non-Christian sources that do mention Christ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[Baruch]

1. Biography of Apollonius - the point being, that there are similar miracle workers who were taken seriously by rough contemporaries.  But Apollonius was more acceptable, because he was a Gentile, not a Jew ... also because he may have been of higher class than Jesus, and he was pagan.

2. Atheism then as now, was a broad accusation.  Socrates was accused of atheism the same way early Christians were (some of whom, particularly Paulines, were Gentiles).  Socrates never wrote anything down, same as Jesus.  Socrates was a martyr to prejudice, same as Jesus.

3. On Nazareth ... what is strange isn't Nazareth, but the lack of mention in the Gospels of the two largest towns in Galilee ... Tiberias and Sepphoris.

4. Qumran/Essenes are related to John the Baptist ... and they still exist as Mandeans in Iraq, where they subsequently migrated.  Dr Eisenman claims that some of the Qumran scrolls provide "coded" material regarding a historical John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul.

5. Athenagoras is clearly a Christian ... mentioning the Trinity ... places his time in around 200 CE ... the time when this theology was first developed in detail, by Tertullian.  The Romans also periodically oppressed the philosophers ... and the Jews ... and any group that met unofficially.  You had to have a license to "club" in the Roman Empire ... because all activity had to have the theoretical sponsorship of the Emperor.  Jews at times were "official" and at other times not.  The persecution of "Christianoi" in Rome in the time of Nero ... means "messianic maniacs" ... a threat to the authorities, because of the claim of kingship.  The Roman authorities didn't take theological claims seriously, as also shown in the Gospels.  The messianic maniacs in Rome in the time of Nero were probably a mixture of Jews and worshippers of Isis (both wore white).  Some of the messianics may have started fires.  The Pauline community at this time would have been tiny, not enough to be seen as a threat, as it was 100 years later ... because it had recruited Gentiles and had grown big enough to be noticeable (by say 110 CE).  Jewish people of course refused to worship the Emperor or the pagan gods ... as did early Gentile Christians.  Paul called on early Gentile Christians to obey the Emperor, but not to worship him.  And of course to not worship the pagan gods.  Socrates worshipped the pagan gods, yet still was executed, 450 years earlier in Athens.  To not worship the Emperor was treason.  To not eat meat offered to pagan gods was considered anti-social.  Do actively discourage support of the pagan temples ... was considered anti-social.  In those senses, early Gentile Christians were atheists.

6. Other early sources are perhaps ... edited by Roman Christian scribes.  The Jewish people didn't keep copies of the works of Flavius Josephus or Philo of Alexandria (an early Jewish Johannine theology) ... only Christians did that.  Josephus was out of favor as a traitor.  And Philo was out of favor for being a Hellenizer.  Early post Jewish sources are all Sadducees and Pharisees ... and yet Jesus isn't brought into the picture in Jewish sources, until the Middle Ages, in defense of Jewish communities against Christian oppression.  Similarly with Arab communities.  All other early Christian sources are tiny (Papias) or theological or apologetic (100+ years after Paul).  It was mid 2nd century that Romans distinguished between the pre-Constantinian Christians (mostly Gentile) and pre-Constantinian Jews (mostly Pharisee) because of the events of the three wars  between the Jews and Rome ... 66, 114 and 132 CE.  At the end of the Bar Kochba war (135 CE) all Jewish messianics who didn't support the false messiah Bar Kochba ... were excommunicated from Judaism.  Small pockets of Jewish Christians continued in Antioch until around 400 CE, where they were oppressed by the Gentile Christians.

[Randy Carson]

Well, Strom, you just dug up my next book to read. :))  This looks to dove tail into Carrier's last book.  Have you read it?

Atheists Bart Ehrman and Tim O'Neil don't seem to have much regard for Richard Carrier or "Jesus mythicism" in general.

[Mike Cl]

Atheists Bart Ehrman and Tim O'Neil don't seem to have much regard for Richard Carrier or "Jesus mythicism" in general.

So, Randy, what do you think?

[Randy Carson]

So, Randy, what do you think?

Well, I have actually read Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?, and while he is no theist, he is a respected NT scholar with little academic regard for mythicists. He takes Carrier to task pretty thoroughly here:

http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

[Unbeliever]

Is there any good evidence that Nazareth even existed during the period when Jesus is supposed to have lived there? I seem to recall reading somewhere (sorry, can't recall where) that Fausta, the wife of Constantine, insisted that the place must exist, and so she simple created it herself.

Anyone know much about this?

[Baruch]

Reposting my POV for others ...

History is propaganda ... it does not describe, even for 20th century events, what actually happened.  The first lie is what is left out, the second lie is how the part that is kept in, is spun.  Herodotus created a new genre of "reality" literature ... and that is what history is.  It is more realistic (it is secular, it leaves out gods) than the Illiad ... but just as fictional.  So I have no interest in the historicity of anyone not currently alive who can't be cross-examined.

There were plenty of dudes named Yeshua in the 1st century CE ... and not one of them was resurrected.  There have been many false Jewish messiahs down the ages, and they were all false.  EOD.  Except maybe Rabbi Menachem Schneerson ... not!  I have a favorite dead rabbi too, but he was no messiah, and he is very dead.

There is a theology, called Kabbalah, that explains all this ... that and Mahayana Buddhism in W Asia.  But it isn't history, it is literary and psychological analysis ... same thing one would do with The Great Gatsby.

[Mike Cl]

Well, I have actually read Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?, and while he is no theist, he is a respected NT scholar with little academic regard for mythicists. He takes Carrier to task pretty thoroughly here:

http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

Have you read Carrier's book?  It is long.  And it is detailed.  And I was further convinced when reading it--and going back over various parts--that his idea is right on.  Jesus was not an actual person.  So, when I read Ehrman's blog, I did not read it as a thrashing of Carrier; more of a 'tit-for-a-tat' kind of thing in that he is replying to Carrier's review of his work. 

I have found in the field of religious 'scholarship' and ideas, the changing of one's mind happens very rarely.  So, I would not expect any 'expert' to embrace Carrier's work with open arms.  The Biblical Scholars have  a vested interest in keeping Jesus as being a real being.  The more religious the more they cling to what that belief is.  Reason gets pushed out the door.  And yet, they will proclaim that Carrier is not enough of a 'scholar' to know or to be able to interpret the complicated and ancient texts and works that 'prove' Jesus was a person.  That, alone, makes me wonder.  Why would Jesus want to make it so very very difficult to prove that he existed?  Why would god do that?  Well, the simple answer is that there is no god, no jesus and totally the creation of man for political and monetary gain and control over the masses. 

[Randy Carson]

Have you read Carrier's book?  It is long.  And it is detailed.  And I was further convinced when reading it--and going back over various parts--that his idea is right on.  Jesus was not an actual person.  So, when I read Ehrman's blog, I did not read it as a thrashing of Carrier; more of a 'tit-for-a-tat' kind of thing in that he is replying to Carrier's review of his work. 

I have found in the field of religious 'scholarship' and ideas, the changing of one's mind happens very rarely.  So, I would not expect any 'expert' to embrace Carrier's work with open arms.  The Biblical Scholars have  a vested interest in keeping Jesus as being a real being.  The more religious the more they cling to what that belief is.  Reason gets pushed out the door.  And yet, they will proclaim that Carrier is not enough of a 'scholar' to know or to be able to interpret the complicated and ancient texts and works that 'prove' Jesus was a person.  That, alone, makes me wonder. 

I have not read Carrier's book. I have read what others have said about Carrier's book, and they have not been particularly kind. A book may be long, detailed and wrong. Folks say that about the Bible all the time, for example. 

Mythicism is for the intellectually lazy, and no, skeptics like Ehrman, O'Neil and other non-theist scholars have no real vested interest in Jesus being a real person any more than any other professor of ancient literature or history requires that the characters in the Greek tragedies he teaches be real historical figures. They would continue to teach their classes just the same, either way.

Why would Jesus want to make it so very very difficult to prove that he existed?  Why would god do that?  Well, the simple answer is that there is no god, no jesus and totally the creation of man for political and monetary gain and control over the masses.

That's the simplistic answer, to be sure.

But how much empirical evidence do we have that ANY figure from history existed prior to the invention of the camera? Scant little. And going back 2,000 years? It's remarkable what we DO know about Jesus' existence.

Jesus did not write a book...he established a Church which has survived for 2,000 and has spread the message of his existence to billions of people during that time. I'd say that's pretty effective and not bad for an obscure carpenter from a backwater of the Roman empire.

[Baruch]

Randy - and that is part of the foundation "myth" of the Church.  Not that none of it was real (in contemporary terms), or at least there were people back then who thought it was real (there is a strong case for this).  So if you are into foundation "myths" then you are going to convert to Islam then?  Muhammad is far more historical than Jesus, and did a lot more than Jesus.

BTW - I am Jewish, but I consider Moses to be mythical also.