Jim Larmore

Steve,
I have been looking at this when I can, the list at the back of the chapter is lengthy and you can't tell by looking at them which one will say this. I'm thinking of calling Grant's office and seeing if he can cut my search down a little. Hes the one who made the statement in print I want him to tell me which one of his references back up this statement. When I get it I'll post it for you, I promise

Roger Pearse

I'm not sure where the 1960/61 comes from -- although given the propensity of 'sceptics' to repeat older material unchecked, I daresay it could be so.

However I too have read that the existence of Pilate was denied prior to the discovery in the 30's of the chunk of stone with his name on it. I have never been morose enough to read older anti-Christian literature purely in order to locate chapter and verse. Perhaps there are some people in this forum who actually like such literature? If so, have any seen such references?

I suppose one need merely look in the indexes of these books -- if they have indexes.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

Roger:

Why did you delete Steven Carr's name from the quote?

The charge is that there were no skeptics who denied the existence of Pilate, that an apologetic Christian invented those skeptics to show that archeology has always confirmed the Bible in the face of skeptics' doubts (and can be expected to do so in the future, by inference.)

I have never read about any doubts as to Pilate's existence in any anti-Christian literature.

Roger Pearse

I thought that might be the allegation.

Interesting, but really a search needs to be done.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

It is up to the people making the allegation that there were skeptics who denied the existence of Pilate to do that search if they wish to continue to allege that such skeptics existed.

I previously did a google search, and I believe that all such allegations go back to a particular apologist, who made that assertion without footnotes or references. I have not read everything written by skeptics, but I have read a fair amount by mythicists. There are claims that Jesus was a myth, and St. Peter, as well as Mary and Joseph and the three magi, and now John the Baptist (by Frank Zindler), but I do not recall any other NT major characters described as mythical.

Roger Pearse

I can't blame you for not wanting to read obsolete hate-speech.

Which apologist do you have in mind?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

There is really no call to be so nasty. I do not think of anti-Christian literature as either hate speech or obsolete. I do think of parts of the NT as being obsolete anti-Semitic hate speech, but I don't throw that term around casually.

It is difficult to tell who the original apologist is. But google the term "Pontius Pilate's historical authenticity was in doubt until 1961" and you find a number of web sites who use that phrase, without attribution. They all may be quoting from "Can We Trust Scripture?" (an article from Return to God Magazine, Volume 1 Number 2, page 16).

Layman

Apparently you do.

Lead by example Toto.

Doctor X

Hmmmm . . . sorry but the Synoptics . . . and Jn . . . do engage in anti-Semitism--"understandable"--who are you going to target, the guys who got crushed or the guys with the chariots?--which I hope is "obsolete."

That some skeptic . . . somewhere . . . argued incorrectly that Pontius Pilate never existed is as relevant as demonstrating that apologists tried unsuccessfully to harmonize the Synoptics years back. One can find extremists on all sides of an issue.

Whether or not Pontius Pilate was historical is a valid question until someone finds evidence for his existence. A current example involves David and Solomon . . . did "they" actually exist? Some scholars point to an inscription but that, frankly, is not evidence of actual existence more than perpetuating a tradition. Should someone dig up his ossary . . . perhaps behind the toilet of an antiquities dealer . . . then that would solve the problem . . . and everyone can start arguing how "true" the depiction of David is compared to reality.

If someone "digs up" a definitive kingship list--with cross references--that do not have an actual David then . . . well. . . .

[ZZzzzZZZZzzzZZZzz.--Ed.]

My point is that opinions will change over time as new evidence arises or as people look at evidence in a different light.

--J.D.

Toto

I do not consider this a casual reference - it was in reply to Roger's unsupported libel of early skeptics. I can make a good case for the NT containing hate speech, but I don't throw that charge randomly into other topics.

The existence of alleged skeptics who doubted Pilate's existence was claimed in another thread by Jim Larmore and challenged by Steven Carr, and now Roger Pearse is probing for an answer. I believe that Jim Larmore claims to be looking for his reference. I think the burden of proof is on him to come up with these alleged skeptics, and unless and until he does, the only conclusion is that there are no such skeptics.