Vorkosigan

Yes, but unlike with the Jesus stories, we can check Caesar's accounts against archaeology. For example, his account of the siege of Alesia can be checked against work done on the battle site. We also have mountains of other evidence, including inscriptions, mentions in documents from other cultures, and so on.

I don't know where you are getting this stuff. It's rather widely known that there are no fragments of the Gospels among the DSS materials. Theide's claims about the Mark fragment (more probably from Enoch) and the Magdalen fragment have been decisively rejected by scholars. Paul Tobin has a good page on it here. Magdalen is dated to the end of the second century. Here is a post from the scholarly Greek list pointing out how deeply flawed Thiede's methods are.

There is no reason to believe this refers to Christians. Suetonius uses a variant name "Chrestus" which was a known slave name. That he knew the correct word for Christians is evidenced by the fact that he uses it later in the work.

We're discussing this in another thread here. Darrell Doughty summarizes some arguments against authenticity here.

This passage is hotly disputed. And the issue too complex to go into detail. Go to Peter Kirby's webpage and read all of the articles on the TF in Josephus. (www.earlychristianwritings.com)

This does not mean anything, for no one disputes the existence of Christians in 112. The question is whether this qualifies as evidence for the existence of Jesus. It certainly does not.

This is a generic apologetic claim long since refuted. Carrier shows the claim is unsupportable.

Nothing you've listed above qualifies as "historical evidence for Jesus."

Actually, the life and death of Jesus is literary fiction.

No one disputes that individuals had visions of Jesus.

The disciples were are talking about are the ones allegedly appointed by Jesus in Mark 3 and elsewhere in the Gospels. They do not seem to have any real existence, aside from James, Peter, and John.

Which James was that?

John is also held to have died naturally in Ephesus.

If that were the only thing that looked like literary fiction in the Gospels, no one would dispute it. But unfortunately there are numerous other events that appear to be constructions like that. So when placed in the context of other events and personages, it looks suspicious.

Vorkosigan

spin

Stevewe matey,

Wasn't nearly all this stuff just the usual stuff cribbed from books and the net? Vork deals with all of it. Let me just deal with the first part:

This line of argument is just silly. Firstly, statues usually come with inscriptions. Check 'em out. Coins often come commemorating events. You'll find coins that call him dictator. Secondly, the events of the life of Julius Caesar are well and truly demonstrated by archaeology. Gaul was conquered. A civil war was fought. Vork mentions the specific example of Alesia. The effect of his life brought about further events like a battle at Philippi. All left traces.

But the fact that there were statues of Caesar should be enough for you to see that there is nothing in the early xian tradition comparable, no artefact whatsoever. We are sure that Caesar existed. We can't be sure that a Jesus existed.

But it's not just Caesar, Octavian/Augustus, even more statues, even more coins, even more monuments, and two long inscriptions thousands of kilometres apart that are an account of his achievements, a contemporary account written by the man himself, which was inscribed in stone and which we have. This is the best history you get from the lifetime of the person.

All you have a papyrus or parchment documents maintained by xians, as your written sources and these are simply not contemporary by nature. But it's not strange that there were a lot more xian documents which survived from antiquity. It was the xians who preserved nearly all the documents. That's why those few classical writers who survived got mangled and interpolated.

Fortunately there are better sources of history to supply a framework on which to hang the literary remains in the case of Roman history.

It is a particularly blind approach, this one of saying that Jesus is better attested than any other personage in history. It is simply false, proposed by people who know no better. If they had, they'd know that not only xian documents were found at Oxyrhynchus but also contemporary letters from Roman appointed officials and literary works, including people like Thucydides and other historians important to the Greek speakers of Egypt.

And I could probably tell you what Ramses II's last meal was if one were allowed to perform an autopsy.

You'd be better off researching anything you got from your sources, because nine times out of ten, given the examples you've provided, they'd certainly be wrong.


spin

spin

Just came across some coins from the period of Julius Caesar. There was one showing him as consul for the third time and another as perpetual dictator, which must have been one of the last coins he minted. Then there was one minted by Brutus which feature the cap of liberty, two daggers and the letters EID.MAR., ie the Ides of March. Interesting symbolism from the chief assassin. Another interesting coin is one showing the Divine Julius, ie dead, on one side with Marcus Antonius on the other, as well as Divine Julius with Octavian on the other side. Yet another with M.Antonius and Cleopatra.

Coins can interestingly provide a lot of history.


spin

Vorkosigan

So that would be a coin of Augustus? That's fascinating stuff. I never realized Brutus issued coins. In what capacity would he have done that?

spin

In the capacity of someone trying to raise cash to fund an army! Cassius also minted, showing a person voting. At least one other conspirator minted as well.

You'll find them through Google. Here's just one page which has Brutus and various others: http://www.romancoins.info/12C-Republic.HTML


spin

SLD

Roman coinage did not always require official sanction from the government. Any silversmith, or goldsmith could probably strike a coin. But there were also designated "moneyers" who made their own designs and struck them - often commemorating Roman History, and the supposed moneyer family's role in that history. Brutus thus could have had coins struck to commemorate his, in his own mind, great deed. IIRC, only later in the empire period did coinage require official sanction from the imperial household.

SLD

Stevewe

So among the patronizing comments was one referring me to the pge below where I would be set straight about Josephus.


"This passage is hotly disputed. And the issue too complex to go into detail. Go to Peter Kirby's webpage and read all of the articles on the TF in Josephus. (www.earlychristianwritings.com)"

I went. It led me to members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/home.htm. I found there the latest on Josephus is that the latest is that the references to Christ arent later interpolations but accurate renditions of what Christian sources were saying.
And that Luke and Josephus shared the common Christian source.
So Josephus was passing on what presumably he considered to be reliable info on Christ. He was there, at the end of the First Century, therefore, giving credence to the existence of Christ.


Of course there's no statues of Christ or coins, him being no head of state. This proves nothing. Meanwhile the existence of accounts, written like no fiction of the day, within the lifetime of witnesses, does constitute historical , documentary evidence.

Godless Wonder

In the book "The Keys of Egypt" by Lesley and Roy Adkins, around p. 138-139, there's some stuff about Caesar.

Vorkosigan

Steve, how is it patronizing to say "This passage is hotly disputed and the issue is too complex to go into detail." That is a pretty good summary of the problem!

You should read the review articles of both Peter Kirby and Earl Doherty, as they take opposite sides and are both thorough. You should also read the original and highly illogical claims of John Meier, which have become widely accepted. You can find them in Vol 1 of his three volume series called A Marginal Jew.

That view is not held by anyone except some old apologists and that particular web page. See Steve Mason's Josephus and the New Testament for a rational scholarly discussion of the problem. Pay particular attention to chapter 6.

The passage as it stands is probably entirely an interpolation, despite desperate attempts by apologists to save it. In the very least, it has been heavily altered (how do you know Josephus' original words were not negative?)

Steve, any serious scholar can tell you that none of the Gospels is from the hand of a witness, and the Pauline letters contain little, if any, historical information about Jesus.

Vorkosigan

Suzume

But your claim wasn't that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he existed, it was that there was more evidence of his existance then that of Julius Ceasar, in which case the coins, statues and archeological evidence still counts. The fact that major historical figures have more evidence relating to them then minor rabbis is the whole point of why your example was mistaken. Better would have been to try to compare to lesser known historical figure that is still assumed to exist, maybe Imhotep or someone.