aa5874

The Steve Mason argument in no way affects the historicity of the sect called the Pharisees, which is critical to the issue. The 1st century writers and historians were impacted or at least recognised the sects that affected in some major way the Jewish social structure.

The writings of these historians, namely Philo, Pliny the Elder and Josephus, when examined, paint a clear picture undisturbed by any so-called charismatic preacher and miracle-worker who had many thousand of followers, whose teachings were contrary to the Mosaic Laws and circumsion, an act which was unique to the Jews at the time and fundamental.

These writers have not recorded any disturbance or conflict of any new phenomena that would undermined the Judaic religion as it was practised then, no mention of any 'death squads' that were eliminating followers of the Christ, even though Pliny and Josephus were engaged in some type of military operations at sometime.

It is odd that the Christ has not been recorded by these writers, although it is claimed he raised himself and others from the dead, one at least dead for four days.

gnosis92

Do we have any writings from any pharisees in the Second Temple period? Not Philo nor Josephus. I do not know about Justus though I must admit. What about Essene or Sadducee?

Sampling error can explain must of the Christ-mythicist argument.

Malachi151

Not really since the "Christ myth" argument doesn't have much of anything to do with lack of historical references. JM has more to do with that IS said about Jesus than what is not said, as well as what other stories of the time and place said.

aa5874

What evidence explains the historicity of the Christ?

mountainman

"It is only necessary to reflect for a moment
what a blank would be left in our knowledge
of this most important chapter in all human history,
if the narrative of Eusebius were blotted out"

-- J.B. Lightfoot, Eusebius of Caesarea, (article. pp. 324-5),
Dictionary of Christian Biography