Toto

As I noted above, I have checked one prominent German mythicist and a secondary source and some of the prominent English speaking skeptics, with no hint of this supposed doubt as to Pilate's existence.

There is still a possibility that there is some minor German mythicist out there who opined that Pilate was a myth, but the possibility seems remote at this point.

I'm glad that you have now decided that you are agnostic on the issue. Are you now going to advise the numerous Christian apologists who claim that skeptics once doubted the existence of Pilate that "whatever we say, we must have some basis for it?" That would put an end to that claim.

Roger Pearse

[Deleted -- WRP]

Roger Pearse

I will make no more posts in this thread and have requested all of the posts I did make to be removed. I do not abuse people.

Sincerely,

Roger Pearse

Toto

Roger - I did not see the alleged ad hominen that Celsus deleted. An ad hominen is not necessarily abusive. I suspect that Celsus is just tightening up the moderation because things are getting rather heated here.

I don't think that any of your prior posts should be deleted.

Celsus

Roger,

Please check your private messages. Toto is right: BC&H is becoming a little hot right now, and we are clamping down to try to ease things up a bit.

Joel

Steven Carr

'once doubted'?

I remind you of the claim of Jim Larmore on this board that 'Until 1961 critics disclaimed the existence of Pontius Pilate, however that year archeologist found near ancient Ceasarea an inscription that revealed the name of Pontius Pilate.'

Jim claimed that this was a widespread position until 1961.

Jim Larmore

Jim quoted Grant Jeffrey's Book which asserted what your saying above. I'm still searching. The internet doesn't seem to be able to supply any further evidence, I'm now looking in the local library and will research some references in Dr. Mike Muller's library at Bartesville Wesleyan Universtity. Who knows I might get lucky. Its hard to devote a lot of time to this but I plan on investing some time on the weekends to look.

Doctor X

Move to submit motion to vote:

This House Feels that No Scholarship of Significance prior to 1961 Contended that Pilate did not Exist

"Aye!"

--J.D.

Jim Larmore

Dr.X,
I know this is for all intents and purposes inconsequential for Biblical scholarship. I agree that Grant Jeffrey's reference to this issue is lacking in verifiable support. Time will tell if there really is no evidence at all which the man could have made this statement from. It appears there isn't much so far.

I guess the main issue being contested here is this. Do critics unjustifiably deny the existence of Biblical characters just because there is no archeological evidence in existence at this time or that extant historical documentation isn't there to support their existence. Seems to me both sides are very happy to point a finger and accuse the other of dishonesty or impropriaties ( m.s.). Both sides seem to have an agenda and a philosophy that they "believe" is true. As a christian I want to believe the Bible is true and accurate. I have already said I know its not without problems per se'. I remain willing to face the truth no matter what it is, but we need to use sagacity and keep an open mind. I guess the mud slinging is going to continue no matter what but somewhere we can learn if we want to .

I have been researching more now than I have in years on Biblical issues. Bernard Muller's contention with me for instance on the dating of the book of Daniel is an example of a pure dicotomy in action. Conservative scholars place Daniels existence and work well before the 2nd century B.C. Liberal "critics" not conservative ones place the dating of Daniel as late as 1st century B.C. which ones are accurate?? Its not that easy to tell sometimes because there are legitimate arguments supporting both sides. Prudent thinking and logic is the only way to get a good picture in the long run. One person's perception or way of thinking may be as valid as the other.

For instance I see how the mention of Jesus in Flavious' writings could be genuine because I happen to feel that if someone wanted to be deceptive they would have been more cerebral about it. They would have done a better job of sounding like Josephus. I mean think about it this way. If you were going to insert something into a work that you knew the author didn't write wouldn't you study the style and narrative construction of the author? I would. It seems to me the fact that he just "SAYS IT" the way he does doesn't necessaily make it a fake or add in of some dishonest christian at the time. Josephus could have just said it and that was that.Was it out of style for him? Yeah. Have you ever written out of style for yourself? I have. The fact that its in all of his manuscripts is supportive of authenticity to a degree.

This is off subject but I just wanted to tell you what I was thinking here. Both sides can be right and wrong and I'm sure there is right and wrong in Biblical reseach.

Doctor X

Jim:

A couple of things:

Actually, it is a bit of both, though I would use the word "justifiably." Major figures . . . even ancient ones . . . generate a paper . . . er . . . papyrus trail. You then also have to consider the mythic aspects of the figure. Real figures pick up myth--Hammurapi/bi applies it to himself in his Code. If after separating the myth from the man you will see where we all soon will be [No Tim Rice lyrics!--Ed.] sorry . . . if after separating the myth from the man you have nothing left . . . take Solomon . . . no extra biblical evidence of his existence. Given there is evidence of other figures, there should be evidence of him.

Forgers do not have to be that clever. Notice the Christian material added to the Anglo-Saxon Beowulf and The Wanderer. With regards to Josephus, it results from the realization that if someone wrote a history of the period he would mention someone who was "so great." Unfortunately, it sticks out like an inflammed hallucis.

If he was willing to mention the figure . . . why did he not provide more details?

No, a text is only as good as its source text. You can have a million copies of an error.

Now of course there will be "right" and "wrong" in biblical research. As I noted on another thread, if someone proves that "Secret Mark" is a forgery it will sink some research--same as if someone proves it is not and reflects a movement.

One thing is certain, either a historical Junior existed or he did not. Evidence supports supposition on both sides. Far more reliable than Josephus, in my view, is the fact that Paul did not like Junior's brother! Why would he perpetuate the myth of his conflict with a mythical brother of a myth?!

If that means a "Historical Junior" existed . . . it says absolutely DIDDLY-SQUAT about what he said or did. Oh . . . one can "assume" that the "anti-Paul" view of James was "close to" what Junior taught . . . of course one is then depending on Paul giving a fair account of a group his disagreed with!

--J.D.