Interesting. Are you saying it's only in the Septuagint or Latin Vulgate? I wasn't aware of that....
Materialists
- Thread starter ShoeshineBoy
- Start date
Interesting. Are you saying it's only in the Septuagint or Latin Vulgate? I wasn't aware of that....
And by all means limit the scope! You brought up so many topics I didn't know what you were really getting at...
i'm saying the Hebrew text does not contain the word "virgin".
thomas jefferson:
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
Well, I realize that this would probably be a rather sensitive subject, so let's leave it there.
Let me know if you have anything else...
AXE thought the following was a good argument
"
Im referring to the well known evidence that the earlier
copies could not have contained the quote.
All the following biblical scholars make the case that
the quote would have shown up in other authors
documents if it had indeed existed in earlier copies.
Even authors who were aware of the book with STRONG REASONS
to quote it, fail to do so. (Because it wasnt there).
But of course... JEM claims that ALL of these
biblical scholars ARE WHACKOS since they dont
support his silly position. LMAOOOOOO
This is a clear forgery. The more you study it, the more clear
it becomes that it must be rejected for numerous reasons.
peace
axeman
Modern Christian scholars generally concede that the passage is a forgery. Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity, adduces the following arguments against its genuineness:
âI do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works; except the testimony above mentioned, and the passage concerning James, the Lordâs brother. It interrupts the narrative. The language is quite Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text. It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus. Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expressly states that the historian [Josephus], being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ. Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, has ever mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christâ (Answer to Dr. Chandler).
Again Dr. Lardner says: âThis passage is not quoted nor referred to by any Christian writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century. If it had been originally in in the works of Josephus it would have been highly proper to produce it in their disputes with Jews and Gentiles. But it is never quoted by Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, nor by Tertullian or Origen, men of great learning, and well acquainted with the works of Josephus. It was certainly very proper to urge it against the Jews. It might also have been fitly urged against the Gentiles. A testimony so favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our Savior, who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own country, who had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would not be overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologistâ (Lardnerâs Works, vol.I, chap. iv).
The Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England, says: âThose who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles, as to find this notice of Christ among the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How, then, could he have written that Jesus was the Christ? Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage under consideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new religion, and thus the passage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around it. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies with the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (I, ii), is the first who quotes it, and our reliance on the judgment or even honesty of this writer is not so great as to allow our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuineâ (Christian Records, p. 30).
The Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his âLost and Hostile Gospels,â says: âThis passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A. D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi ; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (A. D. 140) Clement of Alexandria (A. D. 192), Tertullian (A. D. 193) and Origen (A. D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. i).â
Canon Farrar, who has written the ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned, repudiates it. He says: âThe single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spuriousâ (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46). The following, from Dr. Farrarâs pen, is to be found in the âEncyclopedia Britannicaâ: âThat Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe.â âThere are, however, two reasons which are alone sufficient to prove that the whole passage is spurious-- one that it was unknown to Origen and the earlier fathers, and the other that its place in the text is uncertain.â (Ibid)
Dr. Alexander Campbell, one of Americaâs ablest Christian apologists, says: âJosephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the Apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion. Respecting the founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, and as this passage is not quoted or referred to until the beginning of the fourth century, it is, for these and other reasons, generally accounted spuriousâ (Evidences of Christianity, from Campbell-Owen Debate, p. 312)."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Axe
if you could understand your own quotes. You would comprehend that you are quoting the debate on the sentence "Jesus was the Mesiah" or is the messiah. It is assumed that this sentence was added later because Jospeheus was not a Christian.
So as I said yes it is argued that "Jesus was Mesiah" could be a forgery. But noone but wackos and you deny that Josepheus made reference to Jesus in his famous recordation of history.
So your arguement is sOOOOOO completely wrong and your quotes actually confirm what I have been stating to you this entire time.
Josephues made reference to Jesus and his followers.
Two
You said Josephues was hearsay and would never be admitted in a court of law. I stated you should leave the lawyering to lawers because it is out of your league. YOU HAVE SO LITTLE UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW AND YET YOU FORCE ME TO BELITTLE YOU.
Issue- was Jesus a historical figure.
Answer- He was historically MADE REFERENCE TO IN recorded HISTORIES LIKE JOSEPHUES BESIDES THE BIBLE.
axe- although I am AN IDIOT not a lawyer I object- hearsay
JEM your honor as to this issue. We are not seeking to admit this evidence as to the truth of the matter but as to whether JESUS exists in historical documents. AND HE DOES. Think about this issue. AXE states we have no records that Jesus existed. So then we point to a record of Jesus in a famous and respected history. AXE then says objection hearsay. Hearsay is irrelevant to the issue of whether jesus's existence recorded. The question would be is whether to book that recorded the existence of Jesus is an accepted history. Answer yes.
Judge- You are correct. Axe is a fool. You are not seeking to prove the truth of the matter so hearsay is an improper objection.
Issue- Did jesus exist?
bible and other historical records.
Axe see above hearsay
Jem I believe Josepheus recorded this history as a part of his duties.
Judge - it comes in
AXE but it was 35 years after the fact.
Yes but my interpretation of it is that this clerk was recording his history and put it in as part of his duties at that time. Plus when we are dealing with histories 2000 years old 35 years is pretty contempraneous. If the issues was whether jesus had shoes or sandals on while on the cross, I might be more inclined to sustain the objection.
But as to whether Jesus was recorded in history. What more do you want than quotes from a historian, and letters by Christians to that became parts of the bible. Should jesus have hired his own personal historian to record his life contemporaneously.
Like I said axe your arguments sucks.
Jesus and his follwers were referenced in Jospeheus.
Let us agree to strike the words "Jesus was the mesiah" and once we do axe you have not argument. You do not comprehend the subject of your own quotes.
AXE you lose and you are done.
"
Im referring to the well known evidence that the earlier
copies could not have contained the quote.
All the following biblical scholars make the case that
the quote would have shown up in other authors
documents if it had indeed existed in earlier copies.
Even authors who were aware of the book with STRONG REASONS
to quote it, fail to do so. (Because it wasnt there).
But of course... JEM claims that ALL of these
biblical scholars ARE WHACKOS since they dont
support his silly position. LMAOOOOOO
This is a clear forgery. The more you study it, the more clear
it becomes that it must be rejected for numerous reasons.
peace
axeman
Modern Christian scholars generally concede that the passage is a forgery. Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity, adduces the following arguments against its genuineness:
âI do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works; except the testimony above mentioned, and the passage concerning James, the Lordâs brother. It interrupts the narrative. The language is quite Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text. It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus. Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expressly states that the historian [Josephus], being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ. Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, has ever mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christâ (Answer to Dr. Chandler).
Again Dr. Lardner says: âThis passage is not quoted nor referred to by any Christian writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century. If it had been originally in in the works of Josephus it would have been highly proper to produce it in their disputes with Jews and Gentiles. But it is never quoted by Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, nor by Tertullian or Origen, men of great learning, and well acquainted with the works of Josephus. It was certainly very proper to urge it against the Jews. It might also have been fitly urged against the Gentiles. A testimony so favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our Savior, who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own country, who had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would not be overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologistâ (Lardnerâs Works, vol.I, chap. iv).
The Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England, says: âThose who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles, as to find this notice of Christ among the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How, then, could he have written that Jesus was the Christ? Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage under consideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new religion, and thus the passage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around it. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies with the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (I, ii), is the first who quotes it, and our reliance on the judgment or even honesty of this writer is not so great as to allow our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuineâ (Christian Records, p. 30).
The Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his âLost and Hostile Gospels,â says: âThis passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A. D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi ; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (A. D. 140) Clement of Alexandria (A. D. 192), Tertullian (A. D. 193) and Origen (A. D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. i).â
Canon Farrar, who has written the ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned, repudiates it. He says: âThe single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spuriousâ (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46). The following, from Dr. Farrarâs pen, is to be found in the âEncyclopedia Britannicaâ: âThat Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe.â âThere are, however, two reasons which are alone sufficient to prove that the whole passage is spurious-- one that it was unknown to Origen and the earlier fathers, and the other that its place in the text is uncertain.â (Ibid)
Dr. Alexander Campbell, one of Americaâs ablest Christian apologists, says: âJosephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the Apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion. Respecting the founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, and as this passage is not quoted or referred to until the beginning of the fourth century, it is, for these and other reasons, generally accounted spuriousâ (Evidences of Christianity, from Campbell-Owen Debate, p. 312)."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Axe
if you could understand your own quotes. You would comprehend that you are quoting the debate on the sentence "Jesus was the Mesiah" or is the messiah. It is assumed that this sentence was added later because Jospeheus was not a Christian.
So as I said yes it is argued that "Jesus was Mesiah" could be a forgery. But noone but wackos and you deny that Josepheus made reference to Jesus in his famous recordation of history.
So your arguement is sOOOOOO completely wrong and your quotes actually confirm what I have been stating to you this entire time.
Josephues made reference to Jesus and his followers.
Two
You said Josephues was hearsay and would never be admitted in a court of law. I stated you should leave the lawyering to lawers because it is out of your league. YOU HAVE SO LITTLE UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW AND YET YOU FORCE ME TO BELITTLE YOU.
Issue- was Jesus a historical figure.
Answer- He was historically MADE REFERENCE TO IN recorded HISTORIES LIKE JOSEPHUES BESIDES THE BIBLE.
axe- although I am AN IDIOT not a lawyer I object- hearsay
JEM your honor as to this issue. We are not seeking to admit this evidence as to the truth of the matter but as to whether JESUS exists in historical documents. AND HE DOES. Think about this issue. AXE states we have no records that Jesus existed. So then we point to a record of Jesus in a famous and respected history. AXE then says objection hearsay. Hearsay is irrelevant to the issue of whether jesus's existence recorded. The question would be is whether to book that recorded the existence of Jesus is an accepted history. Answer yes.
Judge- You are correct. Axe is a fool. You are not seeking to prove the truth of the matter so hearsay is an improper objection.
Issue- Did jesus exist?
bible and other historical records.
Axe see above hearsay
Jem I believe Josepheus recorded this history as a part of his duties.
Judge - it comes in
AXE but it was 35 years after the fact.
Yes but my interpretation of it is that this clerk was recording his history and put it in as part of his duties at that time. Plus when we are dealing with histories 2000 years old 35 years is pretty contempraneous. If the issues was whether jesus had shoes or sandals on while on the cross, I might be more inclined to sustain the objection.
But as to whether Jesus was recorded in history. What more do you want than quotes from a historian, and letters by Christians to that became parts of the bible. Should jesus have hired his own personal historian to record his life contemporaneously.
Like I said axe your arguments sucks.
Jesus and his follwers were referenced in Jospeheus.
Let us agree to strike the words "Jesus was the mesiah" and once we do axe you have not argument. You do not comprehend the subject of your own quotes.
AXE you lose and you are done.
AXE TO MAKE IT CLEAR
WHEN YOU STRIKE "JESUS WAS THE MESIAH" OR ITS EQIVALENT FROM JOESPHEUS, YOU STILL HAVE OTHER PASSAGES THAT MAKE REFERENCE TO JESUS AND HIS FOLLOWERS.
NO REAL SCHOLARS BUT YOUR WACKOS DENY THIS FACT.
HE IS CONSEQUENTLY A HISTORICAL FIGURE WHO LIVED BASED ON RECORDED HISTORY.
OH AND BY THE WAY THIS WAS A SIDE ISSUED INFLAMED BY YOU THE REAL QEUSTION IS WHY DID YOU DUCK THE ATHIEST QUESTIONS
THE FATHER OF MODERN ATHIEST THOUGHT OR WAS IT AXE AND HIS MERRRY MAN WHO SAY WELL I DISAGREE WITH BERTRAND RUSSELL BECAUSE...
STILL WAITING FOR THAT BECAUSE.
SO FAR WE HAVE BECAUSE I SAID SO AND i AM AN ATHIEST
THAT IS SO POWERFUL AXE YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ARGUE IN COURT WITHOUT A LICENSE
WHEN YOU STRIKE "JESUS WAS THE MESIAH" OR ITS EQIVALENT FROM JOESPHEUS, YOU STILL HAVE OTHER PASSAGES THAT MAKE REFERENCE TO JESUS AND HIS FOLLOWERS.
NO REAL SCHOLARS BUT YOUR WACKOS DENY THIS FACT.
HE IS CONSEQUENTLY A HISTORICAL FIGURE WHO LIVED BASED ON RECORDED HISTORY.
OH AND BY THE WAY THIS WAS A SIDE ISSUED INFLAMED BY YOU THE REAL QEUSTION IS WHY DID YOU DUCK THE ATHIEST QUESTIONS
THE FATHER OF MODERN ATHIEST THOUGHT OR WAS IT AXE AND HIS MERRRY MAN WHO SAY WELL I DISAGREE WITH BERTRAND RUSSELL BECAUSE...
STILL WAITING FOR THAT BECAUSE.
SO FAR WE HAVE BECAUSE I SAID SO AND i AM AN ATHIEST
THAT IS SO POWERFUL AXE YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ARGUE IN COURT WITHOUT A LICENSE
I think Axe would prefer a video tape if you don't mind...
From a christian author regarding the historical record. Remember Jesus was crucified around 33 a.d.
Cornelius Tacitus - Governor of Asia
Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian and governor of Asia [Turkey] in A.D. 112. He was a personal friend of the historian Pliny the Younger. In his Annals, written after AD 64, he referred to Emperor Nero's persecution of the Christians. This attack was caused by Nero's false accusation that the Christians had burned the city of Rome. This monstrous lie was intended to cover the truth that the evil emperor himself had ordered the capital set on fire. Tacitus wrote:
To suppress therefore the common rumour, Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishments upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known as Christians. They had their denomination from Christus [Christ], who in the reign of Tiberius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, though checked for a while, broke out again, and spread, not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached the city [Rome] also. (Annals of Imperial Rome, XV 44).
Tacitus, as a Roman government official and historian with access to the government archives of Rome, confirmed many of the historical details in the Gospels, as well as the books of Acts and Romans. He confirmed that Jesus was executed as a criminal under the authority of Pontius Pilate (who ruled Judea under the reign of Emperor Tiberius). He also declared that the Christians, who began in Judea and were now spreading throughout the empire, derived their worship and religion from the person known as Christ. He verified the explosive growth of this new religion within 32 years of Jesus' crucifixion despite the fact that its founder suffered the death penalty as a criminal. Additionally, Tacitus confirms that the Christians were despised, hated, and falsely accused of crimes, yet they rapidly grew to become a "vast multitude" in Rome itself (Annals XV 44). The reason Tacitus and many other Romans hated the Christians is because of the Christians refusal to worship the pagan gods, and Emperor Nero himself.
Suetonius - Roman Historian
Caius Suetonius was the official historian of Rome during the reign of both Emperor Trajan and Adrian. He was also a friend of Pliny the Younger, and was referred to in several of Pliny's letters. Suetonius wrote a book on the Lives of the First Twelve Caesars. In the section on the Emperor Claudius (who ruled from AD 41 to 54) Suetonius referred to the Christians causing disturbances in Rome which led to their being banished from the city. Suetonius wrote about Claudius: "He banished the Jews from Rome, who were continually making disturbances, Chrestus being their leader." He identified the sect of Jewish Christians as being derived from "the instigation of Chrestus" which was his curious spelling of the name Christ (Life of Claudius 25.4, written in A.D. 125). This statement provides powerful evidence that there were a significant number of Christians living in Rome before A.D. 54, only two decades after Jesus. This passage confirms the statement of Luke (in the Book of Acts) about the exiling of the Jews from Rome during the reign of Claudius. The Apostle Paul found, "a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome
and came unto them" (Acts 18:2).
Cornelius Tacitus - Governor of Asia
Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian and governor of Asia [Turkey] in A.D. 112. He was a personal friend of the historian Pliny the Younger. In his Annals, written after AD 64, he referred to Emperor Nero's persecution of the Christians. This attack was caused by Nero's false accusation that the Christians had burned the city of Rome. This monstrous lie was intended to cover the truth that the evil emperor himself had ordered the capital set on fire. Tacitus wrote:
To suppress therefore the common rumour, Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishments upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known as Christians. They had their denomination from Christus [Christ], who in the reign of Tiberius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, though checked for a while, broke out again, and spread, not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached the city [Rome] also. (Annals of Imperial Rome, XV 44).
Tacitus, as a Roman government official and historian with access to the government archives of Rome, confirmed many of the historical details in the Gospels, as well as the books of Acts and Romans. He confirmed that Jesus was executed as a criminal under the authority of Pontius Pilate (who ruled Judea under the reign of Emperor Tiberius). He also declared that the Christians, who began in Judea and were now spreading throughout the empire, derived their worship and religion from the person known as Christ. He verified the explosive growth of this new religion within 32 years of Jesus' crucifixion despite the fact that its founder suffered the death penalty as a criminal. Additionally, Tacitus confirms that the Christians were despised, hated, and falsely accused of crimes, yet they rapidly grew to become a "vast multitude" in Rome itself (Annals XV 44). The reason Tacitus and many other Romans hated the Christians is because of the Christians refusal to worship the pagan gods, and Emperor Nero himself.
Suetonius - Roman Historian
Caius Suetonius was the official historian of Rome during the reign of both Emperor Trajan and Adrian. He was also a friend of Pliny the Younger, and was referred to in several of Pliny's letters. Suetonius wrote a book on the Lives of the First Twelve Caesars. In the section on the Emperor Claudius (who ruled from AD 41 to 54) Suetonius referred to the Christians causing disturbances in Rome which led to their being banished from the city. Suetonius wrote about Claudius: "He banished the Jews from Rome, who were continually making disturbances, Chrestus being their leader." He identified the sect of Jewish Christians as being derived from "the instigation of Chrestus" which was his curious spelling of the name Christ (Life of Claudius 25.4, written in A.D. 125). This statement provides powerful evidence that there were a significant number of Christians living in Rome before A.D. 54, only two decades after Jesus. This passage confirms the statement of Luke (in the Book of Acts) about the exiling of the Jews from Rome during the reign of Claudius. The Apostle Paul found, "a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome
and came unto them" (Acts 18:2).Suetonius also wrote about the persecution of Christians during the reign of Nero. "The Christians were punished; a sort of men of a new and magical superstition." His criticism of the early Church affirms that this was a "new" religion that had recently appeared (in confirmation of the Gospels and the book of Acts). Furthermore, his reference to "magical superstition" confirms that the Christians were known to produce miracles and healing. The new faith of Christianity was based on the resurrection of their Messiah Jesus of Nazareth which would certainly qualify as a "magical superstition" to a pagan Roman historian.
Pliny the Younger
Caius Plinius Secundus, known as Pliny the Younger, was born near Milan, Italy in A.D. 62. The historian Pliny, a close friend of Tacitus, served as a consul during the reign of emperor Trajan and was later appointed governor of the Roman provinces of Pontus and Bithynia [Turkey] in the period A.D. 101 to 110. He wrote to the emperor to request specific instructions about the interrogation of the Christians whom he was persecuting. In his Epistles X 96, he states that these Christian believers would not worship Emperor Trajan and would not curse their leader, Jesus Christ, even under extreme torture. Pliny wrote that the Christians were:
in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.
Pliny described the Christians as people who loved the truth at any cost. It is difficult to believe that these people would willingly die for Jesus Christ if they knew and believed it was a lie. The martyrdom of thousands of these Christians was based on the fact that they knew the truth of the statements in the Gospels about Jesus and were willing to die as martyrs rather than deny their faith in Jesus as the Son of God.
Lucian of Samosata
Lucian lived in Samosata in Syria during the reign of Emperor Adrian in the century following Christ. In the later years of his life he served as a government official in Alexandria, Egypt. In Lucian's book, The Passing Peregrinus, he wrote the history of a well known Greek traveller named Proteus who was forced to flee his country after several crimes; he traveled the world under the name Peregrinus. He met some followers of Jesus in the early Church. Lucian wrote,
At which time he learned the wonderful doctrine of the Christians, by conversing with their priests and scribes near Palestine... they spoke of him as a god, and took him for a lawgiver, and honored him with the title of master... They still worship that great man who was crucified in Palestine, because he introduced into the world this new religion... Moreover their first lawgiver has taught them, that they are all brethren, when once they turned, and renounced the gods of the Greeks, and worship that master of theirs who was crucified, and engage to live according to his laws.
Lucian has provided an independent confirmation of numerous historical facts that are mentioned in the Gospels including: the crucifixion; that Jesus was considered a lawgiver; that Christ was worshipped as God; and that His followers committed to follow Christ's laws.
The Letter From Mara Bar-Serapion
A Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion wrote a curious letter from prison during the first century. The letter was written to his son, Serapion, to encourage him to follow the example of various esteemed teachers of past ages. This letter is listed as Syriac Manuscript number 14,658 in the British Museum. His father reminded him:
What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.
The historical value of this Mar Bar-Serapion letter is that it provides strong independent pagan corroboration that Jesus was considered to be the "King" of the Jews. This letter may refer to a Gospel statement about the written statement that was placed above the cross. "And set up over his head his accusation written, This is Jesus The King Of The Jews" (Matthew 27:37). The writer of the letter also states that Jesus was executed illegally by the Jews, who then suffered the judgments of God for their misdeeds in a possible reference to the well known tragic destruction of Judea and Jerusalem by the legions of Rome in A.D. 70. It is fascinating to note that the writer considered that Jesus was in some sense immortal because His teachings "lived on" after His death. In addition Mara Bar-Serapion refers to Jesus as "a wise and virtuous man." As a pagan Mara Bar-Serapion considered Jesus to be a great philosopher together with Socrates and Pythagoras.
Julius Africanus, Thallus, and Phlegon
Julius Africanus was a North African Christian teacher writing in A.D. 215. He recorded the writing of a pagan historian by the name Thallus who wrote his book in A.D. 52 only twenty years after the resurrection of Christ. Thallus wrote that the darkness totally covered the land at the time of the Passover in A.D. 32. Julius Africanus records, "As to [Jesus'] works severally, and His cures effected upon body and soul, and the mysteries of His doctrine, and the resurrection from the dead, these have been most authoritatively set forth by His disciples and apostles before us. On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness, Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Saviour falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes
place only when the moon comes under the sun." (Thallus (Samaritan, 1st century) -Julius Africanus, Extant Writings 18, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 6).
Pliny the Younger
Caius Plinius Secundus, known as Pliny the Younger, was born near Milan, Italy in A.D. 62. The historian Pliny, a close friend of Tacitus, served as a consul during the reign of emperor Trajan and was later appointed governor of the Roman provinces of Pontus and Bithynia [Turkey] in the period A.D. 101 to 110. He wrote to the emperor to request specific instructions about the interrogation of the Christians whom he was persecuting. In his Epistles X 96, he states that these Christian believers would not worship Emperor Trajan and would not curse their leader, Jesus Christ, even under extreme torture. Pliny wrote that the Christians were:
in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.
Pliny described the Christians as people who loved the truth at any cost. It is difficult to believe that these people would willingly die for Jesus Christ if they knew and believed it was a lie. The martyrdom of thousands of these Christians was based on the fact that they knew the truth of the statements in the Gospels about Jesus and were willing to die as martyrs rather than deny their faith in Jesus as the Son of God.
Lucian of Samosata
Lucian lived in Samosata in Syria during the reign of Emperor Adrian in the century following Christ. In the later years of his life he served as a government official in Alexandria, Egypt. In Lucian's book, The Passing Peregrinus, he wrote the history of a well known Greek traveller named Proteus who was forced to flee his country after several crimes; he traveled the world under the name Peregrinus. He met some followers of Jesus in the early Church. Lucian wrote,
At which time he learned the wonderful doctrine of the Christians, by conversing with their priests and scribes near Palestine... they spoke of him as a god, and took him for a lawgiver, and honored him with the title of master... They still worship that great man who was crucified in Palestine, because he introduced into the world this new religion... Moreover their first lawgiver has taught them, that they are all brethren, when once they turned, and renounced the gods of the Greeks, and worship that master of theirs who was crucified, and engage to live according to his laws.
Lucian has provided an independent confirmation of numerous historical facts that are mentioned in the Gospels including: the crucifixion; that Jesus was considered a lawgiver; that Christ was worshipped as God; and that His followers committed to follow Christ's laws.
The Letter From Mara Bar-Serapion
A Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion wrote a curious letter from prison during the first century. The letter was written to his son, Serapion, to encourage him to follow the example of various esteemed teachers of past ages. This letter is listed as Syriac Manuscript number 14,658 in the British Museum. His father reminded him:
What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.
The historical value of this Mar Bar-Serapion letter is that it provides strong independent pagan corroboration that Jesus was considered to be the "King" of the Jews. This letter may refer to a Gospel statement about the written statement that was placed above the cross. "And set up over his head his accusation written, This is Jesus The King Of The Jews" (Matthew 27:37). The writer of the letter also states that Jesus was executed illegally by the Jews, who then suffered the judgments of God for their misdeeds in a possible reference to the well known tragic destruction of Judea and Jerusalem by the legions of Rome in A.D. 70. It is fascinating to note that the writer considered that Jesus was in some sense immortal because His teachings "lived on" after His death. In addition Mara Bar-Serapion refers to Jesus as "a wise and virtuous man." As a pagan Mara Bar-Serapion considered Jesus to be a great philosopher together with Socrates and Pythagoras.
Julius Africanus, Thallus, and Phlegon
Julius Africanus was a North African Christian teacher writing in A.D. 215. He recorded the writing of a pagan historian by the name Thallus who wrote his book in A.D. 52 only twenty years after the resurrection of Christ. Thallus wrote that the darkness totally covered the land at the time of the Passover in A.D. 32. Julius Africanus records, "As to [Jesus'] works severally, and His cures effected upon body and soul, and the mysteries of His doctrine, and the resurrection from the dead, these have been most authoritatively set forth by His disciples and apostles before us. On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness, Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Saviour falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes
place only when the moon comes under the sun." (Thallus (Samaritan, 1st century) -Julius Africanus, Extant Writings 18, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 6).
Wow! Nice research! I had no idea there were so many references...