sotto voce

Indeed it is reasonable to question; but is it reasonable to insist on a particular answer?

(Click on 'Quote All' and use the speech bubble to quote others, fifth button from the end, top row.)

Scotsguy44

My view is that every character named in ancient literature is prima facie historical unless there is stronger counter-evidence to defeat that prima facie historicity.

MrMacSon

My view is that every character named in ancient theological literature is prima facie fictional unless there is stronger evidence to support historicity.

MrMacSon

Paul's epistles. Most have been disputed as to authorship, including the so-called "undisputed epistles" particularly by the Dutch Radicals.

There has been a view that Socrates was a fictional character of Plato and Aristotle, though there are no writings specifically attributed to Socrates. There will be others.

smeat75

No that would not be reasonable, what is reasonable is to ask that persons and events depicted in a text which is full of supernatural occurrences should be corroborated from sources other than said texts.

(And thank you for teaching me about the quote button, I think I've got the hang of it!)

mountainman

It's also worth noting that the non canonical texts are purposefully regarded as second rate data on jesus because the christian academics are really only concerned about the canonical books. The main arena of action has been the canon. If the Vatican had been doing its usual manuscript collection operations, as it had done between the 4th and 20th centuries, we would not be reading the Nag Hammadi Codices, and the Gospel of Judas. They would probably also still be sitting on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Besides, only the non canonical authors were forgers and liers and scumbags and vile heretics.
The canonical authors all had the standard issue "Halo of Genuineness".






Without evidence all that is left is authentic faith and belief.
They ran out of that stuff some time ago.


The texts about Paul (and Pseudo Paul) appear in their magnificence,
in an authentic fairy story for children.


Here's what Emperor Julian wrote in his 4th century REVIEW:





At least part of the "Historia Augusta" is dedicated to Constantine. This massive "History of the Caesars" is openly regarded by classicists as a "mockumentary". The propaganda entitled "The History of the Church" exibits the same modus operandi as the "History of the Emperors".

A pattern of similar facts.

Consider the forged correspondence between "Paul" and Seneca.

sotto voce

And yet, it is a frequent insistence.

True, but which text is full of alleged supernatural occurrences? Only a deliberate fantasy, such as a children's story. One must use accurate language here, and not exaggerate as in ordinary conversation.

In the Bible, supernatural occurrences are set in a natural environment with people and places that contemporaries knew well. Now if public claims are made for the supernatural today, they will certainly be scrutinised and debunked in public if they are found false, due to public hostility to such claims. The absence of debunking of the biblical claims for the supernatural tends to validate those claims, because there was at least as much hostility to the NT claims as today, and from people with powerful vested interests.

Glad to help.

sotto voce

Because?

Duvduv

What would happen if reputable scholars were simply to start by saying, "We have no empirical evidence that Jesus existed; we have no empirical evidence that John the Baptist existed; we have no empirical evidence that the man named Paul existed." ??

And if they added, "There is so much confusion and so many contradictions in the writings of the heresiologist historians and between them that it is impossible to be certain that any of them wrote in the early periods ascribed to them by the church. That includes Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen, and it appears quite likely that much or all of what is ascribed to them was actually written during the 4th and 5th centuries. Individuals such as Eusebius carry insufficient reliability as biased church mouth pieces." ??

Would such scholars be sent to the Inquisition for transgressing some articles of faith??

Toto

No.

But they would not be invited to teach at religious colleges. Charges would be leveled about selective skepticism.

More to the point, they would have nothing to contribute to the dialogue unless they went beyond this to evaluate the evidence and identify the most probable scenario.

Breaking down your claims:

By "empirical" do you mean reliable? unbiased? There is evidence for these three alleged individuals, but it can be challeneged.

No secular historian looks for absolute certainty.

It is impossible to be certain, but how uncertain are you? Is the level of uncertainty enough to throw out everything? What difference does this make?

Eusebius is not generally regarded as reliable, so this statement is not very controversial. But it's not clear what difference it would make if Tertullian wrote a bit later, or what your basis for a later dating is.