Pericles,

“I'm not mistaken in that?”

Without checking I assume you copied and pasted so yes that was my understanding.

”Josephus: …”

You wish to defer any arguments about “His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion…”?

Googling indicates there is speculation that it is inauthentic as he didn’t consider Jesus to be Messiah and a pharasiac Jew wouldn’t have said nice things about someone killed for heresy. On this basis some believe it is tweaked with. Perhaps but he was working in Rome as a historian for Roman emperor Domitian so you would have to turn your mind to whether he might have actually avoided bias in spite of his history. Issue noted however. Thanks.

”Tacitus: "Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate" ...”

”Pliny: "they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god". Likewise.

I'll give you points for both these though, on the assumption that Christus might be our man. “

Thanks.

”Phlegon: Nope. Not a single mention.”

Yes, more particularly, the original is lost and is cited by Julius Africanus in about 220AD to claim that Phlegon recorded that in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth. He considered it to refer to the same event that Thallus mentioned.

”Thallus: Nothing.”

Yes, more particularly, Julius Africanus also cited it to claim that Jesus’ death was accompanied by earthquake and darkness. Thanks for both.

””Suetonius: … Possibly. But getting wobblier.”

”Lucian: "the man who was crucified in Palestine because …" But who? …”

As he precedes with “The Christians you know worship” a reasonable inference can be made. Did I come close to a point?

Cont.

”Celsus: ….”

Hopefully Origen had better things to do then debate something that wasn’t said. I acknowledge that the original is lost and that is not favourable. (Although if originals are inconvenient some atheists argue that they must be tampered with.)

Mara Bar-Serapion: "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?" Jesus? Not a mention, just a reference. Could have been a judgement on hearsay.

”Talmud: no mention, just a fleeting glimpse of a possibility of someone fitting the description.”

Someone with the same name with a mother of the same name who was betrothed to a carpenter when she conceived him. Someone who was considered by Talmudic Jews to be a heretic who led people astray with their sorcery and was crucified for being a heretic. Possibility perhaps but there is a few aspects to the description that fits.

“Listen, it matters not at all to me that you believe that Jesus did all the stuff the gospels tell. But when you suggest there is evidence that does not need a leap of faith to swallow, I have to protest.”

You are entitled to your opinion. I’d just like to stick to an objective consideration of the New Testament as a historical document whether or not you believe “all the stuff”. You are doing a great job of ironing out any rough edges in my knowledge.

>>The comparison was just to show that Jesus seemed to generate a bit of interest<<

”But in fact, it shows the exact opposite.”

You gave points on 3 and I’d suggest not all the rest were completely wiped out for relevance if not pretty safely references to Jesus. Of those that clearly didn’t mention Jesus there is good reason to consider them to refer to an unusual event associated with His life. Again we are talking about someone 2000 years ago and ignoring anyone who converted. In the context that for non-converts He was just a man who got killed like a criminal without accomplishing anything not a king, emperor or conqueror I suggest “exact opposite” a little extreme.

We have strayed a little from the straight-and-narrow here,mjpb.

This is where we started:

>>There are slightly more (10) early non Christian writers who mention Jesus than those who mention Tiberius the Roman emperor at the time (9).<<

You apparently count as "mentioning Jesus", references to Christ, Christus, Chrestus, a "wise king" plus a couple of indications that an eclipse of the sun may or may not have been coincident with the story.

Against the well-documented, contemporary reports of the existence of a Roman emperor.

Don't you think,in retrospect, that this might be drawing a rather long bow?

Pericles,

Sorry I have had a horrendously busy week and deliberately avoided getting side tracked with discussions in here.

"This is where we started:

>>There are slightly more (10) early non Christian writers who mention Jesus than those who mention Tiberius the Roman emperor at the time (9).<<

"You apparently count as "mentioning Jesus", references to Christ, Christus, Chrestus, a "wise king" "

I consider 5 very strong and the Talmudic Jesus appearing a little too coincidental but less strong. I agree with your comments on Suetonius and Mara Bar-Serapion. So the wise king is not on the list of finalists.

"plus a couple of indications that an eclipse of the sun may or may not have been coincident with the story.

Against the well-documented, contemporary reports of the existence of a Roman emperor.

Don't you think,in retrospect, that this might be drawing a rather long bow?"

In retrospect it has been educational. Although the point as I understood it was incorrect I found it worthwhile fine tuning my knowledge. More than a long bow the 10 external references to Jesus didn't all shape up as direct references as I understood them to be so unless I was also mistaken about the Emperor the point is not a point. The ranking is reversed.

That conceded even the documents that failed were significant. Even when a now lost document is cited in 220AD by an historian who discussed it as a reference to an unusual event associated with Jesus' life it has relevance to the historicity. The overall context for "where we started" was the historicity of the New Testament.

Pericles,

I’m happy to amend the Internal Evidence section of the original post as follows:

Internal evidence

The writers were either Jews or in close touch with contemporaries of the events they record. The Gospels were written in the colloquial Greek of the period with some Hebrew idiom. Jews of the time eg.Philo (d. 50AD) used the same literary medium. Their numerous references to topography and political, social, and religious conditions of Palestine at the time of Christ are accurate.

The basic theme appears historically accurate. In spite of being killed as a criminal there are 5 early non Christian writers who clearly refer to Jesus and some others either might refer to him or apparently refer to events surrounding his death. By comparison there are 9 early writers who mention Tiberius the Roman emperor at the time. Non Christian writers collectively reveal that Jesus lived in the time of Tiberius Caesar, lived a virtuous life, was reputed to be a wonder worker, was considered by some to be the Messiah, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover, darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died, his disciples believed he rose from the dead, His disciples were willing to die for their belief in Him, Christianity spread quickly as far as Rome. Although some have speculated that positive comments eg. virtuous life might indicate tampering with the original document.

Pericles,

Moving right along...

Circumstantial inferences

That the books are substantially the same as written can be inferred by:

1. The great reverence of the Church for the Gospels.
2. The practice from earliest times of reading the Gospels at public meetings so that their contents were known.
3. The wide distribution of the Gospels throughout the world.
4. The substantial uniformity of all existing manuscripts including early fragments.
5. The illiteracy at the time and the need to rely upon memory. Augustine records an incident involving an African Bishop Jerome. Jerome used the word “ivy” for “gourd” in the book of Jonah. This innovation caused such dissatisfaction when read to the laity that Jerome felt compelled to stick with the original.

Were the books generally historically accurate?

This overlaps with the previous category and the comments in there apply but more can be added.

Trustworthiness of the Evangelists

Matthew and John were companions of Christ while Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with Christ’s contemporaries. It is sometimes suggested that they were converts so they were biased. However this raises the question of “Why did they convert?” They definitely seem sincere. They had nothing wordly to gain from witnessing for Christ. Power? What power did they gain? None. They got submission, servitude, persecution, torture, and death for boldly maintaining their account of events. If for some reason they were colluding to promote a fictitious story surely the penny would have dropped that sticking to their story wasn’t a good idea by the time Peter was crucified. Given that they were writing to people including those around during Jesus’ earthly ministry why would they pin everything down so much with places and famous people thus inviting denial and proof that the events never occurred? It would make sense to spin stories about recent events by making them as unverifiable as possible if they were fictitious.

In Acts:26:24-28 Luke reports an exchange between King Agrippa, Governor Festus and Paul. During the discussion Paul states:

“The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him.

CONT