Chaucer

Oh, for Pete's sake, when will you mythers get it? This is history and historical research, not a trial. Professional secular historians deal with what is likely, not with proof, not even with reasonable doubts (though as a qualifier to an eventual answer) -- to paraphrase a saying in the political world, "it's what's more likely, stupid". If historians had to go beyond likelihood, half the figures of the ancient world would be Orwelled out of existence. Hannibal and dozens of others would just be gone!

Some ignoramuses think that the professional historians' tendencies to deal in qualifications before proceeding to a (qualified) answer is a sign of weakness. On the contrary, it's a sign of strength. How ironic that the professional historian presents what is more likely with qualifiers, while the crank historian, like a myther, presents the less likely as if it's a proved fact.

Chaucer

spin

Was any of this ranting necessary? Surely you could just have said "codswallop" and been done, rather than "you mythers blah, blah, blah", "ignoramuses", cranks. The you-myther you were talking to was merely taking someone else's analogy and running with it. You don't have to spew on him for doing so. Is it any wonder I don't usually respond to you?

Toto

This has been disproven time and time again, by comparing the actual evidence for historical figures with that available for Jesus of Nazareth.

I thought that this thread was going to be your - Chaucer's - positive case for the slam dunk evidence for the existence of Jesus. Could you present that positive case? Why is the available evidence persuasive?

Chaucer

Which historical figures?

Toto

Julius Caesar

Alexander the Great

others

Where's your positive evidence?

avi

Chaucer's "evidence" for an historical JC: from post # 11

1. Josephus "Antiquities"

2. Tacitus "Annals"

3. Suetonius "Life of Claudius"

Question: how can one rely upon Suetonius' writing to justify the supposed historical fact of JC, when that god's life is NOT listed as one of Suetonius' most accomplished biographies?

Wouldn't you suppose that a guy who supposedly could raise the dead, restore sight, walk on water, feed hundreds from just a couple of loaves of bread and a handful of fish, would then have a biographical excerpt second to NONE?

If someone were to inquire: ? What is Chaucer's main focus on this forum, wouldn't it be fair to reply: the historicity of JC?
Would it not be incorrect, to write, instead, in a footnote of a scholarly treatise summarizing the activities and interests of all of the members of this forum, that Chaucer enjoyed watching football on the television, without explaining one word about Chaucer's activities on the forum, i.e. his concern to express support for the notion of JC as a historical person....

Yet, here is Suetonius, one of Chaucer's three alleged sources of information about JC, and his main accomplishment, Lives of the Caesars, has only this inscrutable mention of "christians":

That is Chaucer's evidence for the historicity of JC? A statement about Jews?


I am obliged to repeat Philosopher Jay's question, for up to now, there seems to be no response, suggesting that perhaps the matter is still under investigation?

avi

spin

Tushratta
Shuppiluliumas I
Ashur-uballit I
Burnaburiash II
(Amarna Letters and their prospective countries' archives or inscriptions)

Tutankhamen
(Mummy, intact tomb, statues and inscriptions)

Numerous Assyrians and Babylonians mentioned in inscriptions in both countries.

Seti I
Ramses II
(Mummies--father and son genetics--and public inscriptions)

Hattusilas III
(Egyptian and Hittite treaties)

Darius I
Xerxes I
(Persian tombs, Egyptian inscriptions)

Augustus and Livia
(Ara Pacis, coins and inscriptions)

All Roman emperors with both coins and inscriptions found throughout the empire...

Yeah, where?

andrewcriddle

I think the arrests are presumed, (you can't get from condemning Christians to executing them without arresting them in between). Also the claim that Nero's persecution was not fully supported by the general population would weaken Sulpicius Severus' case that later persecution of Christians ultimately goes back to Nero.

At a more general level, I do feel that this sort of analysis obscures the obvious; ie that it is simpler to assume that something like the account in our current text of Tacitus was already in the text of Tacitus read by Sulpicius Severus.

(I obviously agree that the account in Sulpicius Severus does not provide direct support for the passage in Tacitus about Christ suffering under Pontius Pilate.)

Andrew Criddle

Davka

I hate to break it to you, but there is not a single solitary nun on that bus. There may be some distant relatives of nuns, wearing stolen habits, but that's all.

A "busload of nuns" would consist of eyewitnesses to HJ. There are none (not to be confused with "nun"). In fact, not only is the record entirely bereft of eyewitnesses, it is similarly bereft of second-hand witnesses. All we have are manuscripts dating hundreds of years after the fact, which were copied during a period when deliberate tampering with the New Testament itself is an established fact.

What Chaucer has brought to the trial is actually a busload of whores.

jgreen44

About 5 years ago I worked with this woman who swore to me that she personally knew someone who was on duty in the emergency room the night a well known Hollywood actor came in to have a gerbil removed from his colon. About 1,900 years ago there were people who swore they personally knew someone who was on scene the morning a well known messiah figure came out of the grave.