Chaucer

No, it isn't. It's based on more than just one or two different textual strata, some of which are not even Christian.

If one sets out to discredit the non-Christian strata, then one has to concoct a series of coincidences entailing either general cultural misunderstanding or textual tampering for pagan source after pagan source. At a certain point, this kind of ad hoc suppositioning loses all credibility by dint of its very multiplicity and the sheer number of convenient coincidences needed to flesh it out. It becomes special pleading of the most blatant kind. OTOH, the HJ position does not need this kind of special pleading.

Every responsible professional secular ancient historian, whether dealing with a Hannibal, a Julius Caesar, or a Jesus of Nazareth, will tell you that the discipline of ancient history deals in likelihoods. There is too much of a consilience of evidence for certain ancient figures to have not been likely. There is no such consilience for a Zeus or an Odin. There is such a consilience for Hannibal, Julius Caasar and Jesus of Nazareth. That's the difference.

A faith position is one that is arrived at in spite of the prevailing evidence. But in this case, the prevailing evidence, including pagan evidence, shows that there is more of a likelihood than not that Jesus of Nazareth was a genuine historical rabbi who was crucified than that he wasn't. By the same token, it appears likely that Jesus the Christ was an ad hoc construct that evolved culturally some years after Jesus of Nazareth had died and was thus not based on history. Mythers habitually confuse these two and suppose -- against the consilience of the evidence -- that both Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus the Christ are equally fictional. Now that is a position of faith since it goes against the consilience of evidence, including pagan sourcES, that shows the historicity of Jesus of N. to be more likely than not and the historicity of Jesus the C. to be less likely than likely.

Chaucer

Wiploc

This is interesting. I have a lightly held belief in a historical Jesus. I don't think my belief is faith-based.

Nonetheless, your claims seem to me unsupportable. I would like to see you try to support them.

Chaucer

How so?

Chaucer

Wiploc

I don't believe that. I want you to support the claim. It's going to be really interesting if you can do it, surprising to me. I believe that it is a baseless claim, but I am open to being surprised.



Coincidences like what?



Why are you saying this? Seriously, you have taken an affirmative position, try to support it. Don't just say, "How so," like you are astounded that someone took you seriously enough to ask what your argument is. Show us what you got. Or did you come to this meal without a fork?



Cool.



Put up or shut up.



What is your alleged evidence?



I confess my confusion. Mea ultima confusico. If you're here to straighten me out, start straightening.

As a forinstance, why do you figure the historical Jesus was crusified. I assume he wasn't born in Bethelehem, or else we wouldn't be saddled with that bogus census story. But that's as far as my lightly held belief goes.



Let's see some pagan sourcES that say the real Jesus was crucified.



I'm all ears.

Chaucer

I will do so as soon as the mods put this thread back in the Biblical Criticism & History forum where it was launched.

Chaucer

angelo

As usual, Antiquities will be trotted out. Tacitus and the other extra biblical sources which none are even third hand witnesses. None of these writers spoke to anyone who ever met or knew a historical Jesus. They are merely repeating hearsay, what was already widely assumed was fact when it was nothing of the sort. Josephus for example was not quoting Roman records of the time but repeating the myth that by now had taken hold and would become law when Constantine [to suit his purpose] declared it as the Roman religion.

Toto

There's too much baggage in this thread, but perhaps these posts can be split off and moved

Wiploc

We're in BC&H now: You're on.

show_no_mercy

Chaucer has never once acknowledged that Josephus saying that someone was "called [the] Christ" is wholly unJosephan language. He either brings up some ad hocery about "Christ" being mistaken as a name or it having been hijacked by Christians (both are unsupportable and are only trotted out to prevent falsification) OR he just completely ignores this problem (and the problem of the context of the two places where "christ" is in the text) and continues on as though it never happened.

It's like talking to a wall. I expect much of the same in his exchange with poor wiploc.

Wiploc

Poor wiploc, I'm so sorry for him.

I'm not asking for a debate, I just wanted him to state his case so we'll know where he's coming from.