Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kapyong · 05-31-2009, 09:50 PM

Greetings all,

Believers sometimes claim that sceptics thought Pilate was a myth, up until an inscription naming him was found in 1961. There are numerous examples of this,

e.g. -
John Warwick Montgomery in "The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity"
' Modern archaeological research has confirmed again and again the reliability of New Testament geography, chronology, and general history. To take but a single, striking example: After the rise of liberal biblical criticism, doubt was expressed as to the historicity of Pontius Pilate, since he is mentioned even by pagan historians only in connection with Jesus' death. Then, in 1961, came the discovery at Caesarea of the now famous "Pilate inscription," definitely showing that, as usual, the New Testament writers were engaged in accurate historiography. '
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm

or -
"For years, skeptics have claimed that Pontius Pilate, the one responsible for Jesus' execution, was nothing more than a mythical figure."
http://defendchristianfaith.blogspot...lly-exist.html

or -
"How can atheists deny that Herod and Pontius Pilate existed when there are coins that were issued by them ? I have seen them. When they say the Bible is fiction, they would have to also deny numismatic evidence. "
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9071413AAd4maf

or -
"When critics of the Passion of the Christ argue about Pilate not being historical and Caiaphas being too rabid, they are ignoring Biblical accounts and secular history because they don’t like the Biblical story."
http://www.bible-sermons.org/classes/Passion2.doc

Well, I decided to check this, and here I list the references to Pilate through the centuries - I have included all the main cites I could find - Christian writers as well as sceptics and others. If any sceptic had claimed Pilate did not exist, some Christian would surely mention that - in the same way that when early sceptics denied Jesus came in the flesh, we see various Christians insisting he DID so.

Contemporary, early 1st century
Philo Judaeus was a direct contemporary of Pilate, and he refers to Pilate twice in his historical work "On the Embassy to Gaius" :

"Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea."

Clearly Philo thought Pilate was historical.

Late 1st century
Josephus in late 1st century records Pilate numerous times in his two historical books (Wars and Antiquities), e.g. :

"When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor."

Clearly Josephus thought Pilate was historical.

Late 1st and 2nd century
Many early Christian books mention Pilate for his part in Jesus' story :

Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, The Epistle of the Apostles, The Gospel of Peter, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Acts of Peter and Paul, the various Pilate forgeries, Irenaeus, Melito of Sardis, Clement of Alexandria.

Every single one of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise.

3rd century
Porphyry's fragments mentioned Pilate as historical.
Many Christian works and writers mention Pilate :

Acts of Andrew, Acts of Peter and Andrew, Acts of Thadeus, Acts of Thomas, Against Novatian, Acta Pilati, The Teaching of Simon Cephas in Rome, The Clementina, Cyprian of Carthage, Hippolytus, Origen, Peter of Alexandria, Tertullian.

Every single one of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise.

4th century
Many Christian works and writers mention Pilate :

The Constitution of the Holy Apostles, The Doctrine of Addai, The Gospel of Nicodemus, Ambrose, Aphrahat, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim of Syria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Gennadius, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Lactantius, Macarius Magnes, Optatus of Miletus, Palladius of Helenopolis, Rufinus.

Every single one of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise.

5th century
Many Christian works and writers mention Pilate :

Aurelius Prudentius, Cyril of Alexandria, John Cassian, Leo the Great, Moses of Chorene, Philoxenus, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomenus, Theodoret.

Every single one of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise.

6th and 7th century
Several Christian works and writers mention Pilate :

Aurelius Prudentius, Cyril of Alexandria, John Cassian, Leo the Great, Moses of Chorene, Philoxenus, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomenus, Theodoret, Antiochus Strategos, John Nikiu.

Every single one of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise.

~9th century
The Anglo Saxon Chronicle mentions Pilate as historical :

"A.D. 26. This year Pilate began to reign over the Jews."

10th century
Various forged books about Pilate appear (e.g. The Death of Pilate) - all based on him being historical. No mention of any sceptics who claim he was a myth.

11th, 12th, 13th centuries
Various Christian books mention Pilate :

St Anselm, Giraldus Cambrensis, Barlaam and Ioasaph, Thomas Aquinas,.

Each of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise.

14th century
Dante mentions Pilate as historical in his Inferno.
The Travels of John Mandeville refer to Pilate as historical.
Chaucer mentions Pilate.
Henry Suso mentions Pilate as historical.
Julian of Norwich does too.
No hint of any sceptics who claimed he was a myth.

16th century
Edmund Spencer's "The Faerie Queen" mentions Pilate.
James Arminius mentions Pilate as historical.
John of the Cross mentions Pilate as historical.
Christopher Goodman's "How Superior Powers Ought To Be Obeyed" mentions Pilate as historical.
Teresa of Avila mentions Pilate as historical.
No hint of any sceptics who claimed he was a myth.

17th century
Shakespeare mentions Pilate as historical.
Blaise Pascal mentions Pilate as historical.
Francis Bacon mentions Pilate as historical.
John Locke mentions Pilate as historical.
No hint of any sceptics who claimed he was a myth.

18th century
Dupuis mentions Pilate as historical in his sceptical book which argues Christ was a myth :

' Those who have “fabricated” it, have added thereto fictitious events, not only at known places, as all the ancient poets have done in the fables of Hercules, Bacchus, Osiris, &c., but also at an epoch with well known names, such as the age of Augustus, of Tiberius, of Pontius Pilate, &c.; which does not prove the real existence of Christ, but only that the sacerdotal fiction is posterior to that epoch; and of this we have no doubt. '

Edward Gibbon mentions Pilate as historical in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".
Thomas Paine mentions Pilate as historical in his sceptical book.
No hint of any sceptical claims that Pilate was a myth.

19th century
Albert Pike's "Morals and Dogma" mentions Pilate as historical.
Strauss' famous and sceptical "Life of Jesus Crtically Examined" mentions Pilate as historical.
Renan's famous and sceptical "The Life of Jesus" mentions Pilate as historical.
No hint of any sceptical claims that Pilate was a myth.

Early 20th century
Albert Schweitzer's famous and sceptical "The Quest for the Historical Jesus" mentions Pilate many times as historical.
Gerald Massey the mythicist mentions Pilate as historical.
John E. Remsberg's sceptical "The Christ" mentions Pilate as historical.
Joseph Wheless' sceptical "Forgery in Christianity" mentions Pilate as historical.
M.M. Mangasarian's sceptical "The Truth about Jesus" mentions Pilate as historical.
Marshall Gauvin's sceptical "Did Jesus Christ really Live?" mentions Pilate as historical.
Shirley Jackson Case's critical "The Historicity of Jesus" mentions Pilate as historical.
Walter Bauer's "Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity" mentions Pilate as historical.
G.R.S. Mead's "Did Jesus live 100 BC?" mentions Pilate as historical many times.
Kirsopp Lake's "Landmarks" mentions Pilate as historical.
Walter Cassels "Supernatural Religion" mentions Pilate as historical.
No hint of any sceptical claims that Pilate was a myth.

Mid 20th century
Alvin Boyd Kuhn's sceptical "Who is this King of Glory" mentions Pilate as historical.
Maurice Goguel's sceptical "Jesus the Nazarene - Myth or History?" has Pilate as historical.
Alfred Loisy "The Bith of the Christian Religion" has Pilate as historical.
Edgar J. Goodspeed's "An Introduction to the New Testament" has Pilate as historical.
Edward Carpenter's "Pagan and Christian Creeds : Their Origin and Meaning" has Pilate as historical.
No hint of any sceptical claims that Pilate was a myth.

1961
An inscription is found mentioning Pilate's name - the first archeological evidence for Pilate.

After 1961
Christian apologists start claiming that before the inscription was found Pilate was considered by sceptics to have been a myth.

Summary
There is NO evidence anywhere that anyone ever considered Pilate a myth.
We have dozens of references to him from almost every century, even including contemporary accounts. Every single one considers him historical.
Even the sceptics who argued Jesus was a myth agree that Pilate was historical.
Not one believer in history ever mentions anyone claiming Pilate was a myth.

Conclusion
The claim that any sceptics ever said Pilate was a myth is totally FALSE.

Kapyong

Toto · 05-31-2009, 10:00 PM

Good work.

That was the result we reached in this old thread: Did any skeptic every consider Pilate a myth?

GakuseiDon · 05-31-2009, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

The claim that any sceptics ever said Pilate was a myth is totally FALSE.

Pilate's name appears to come from "pilum", meaning "spear" or "javelin". Early mythicists had suggested that such a name -- given that Jesus was pierced in the side with a spear -- was not coincidence.

From "Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus" by Arthur Drews (1912):
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essene...DREWS_1912.htm

Quote:

In regard to the significance of Pilate in Tacitus, a remarkable hypothesis has recently been put forward by Andrzej Niemojewski in his work, Gott Jesus im LicJite fremder und eigener Forschungen samt Darstellung der evangelischen A stralstoffe, A stralszenen, und A stralsysteme (1910).

According to this, the Pilate of the Christian legend was not originally an historical person ; the whole story of Christ is to be taken in an astral sense, and Pilate represents the constellation of Orion, the javelin-man (pilatus, in Latin), with the arrow or lance- constellation (Sagitta), which is supposed to be very long in the Greek myth, and appears in the Christian legend under the name of Longinus, and is in the Gospel of John the soldier who pierces the side of Jesus with a spear (longche, in Greek).

The author states that the "pilatus-man" was confused by Tacitus with the actual Pontius Pilate.

Also, from here:
http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readin...2/stella.shtml

Quote:

"In the Russian circles remained absolutely unnoted the interesting discovery, made in 1961 by the Italian archeologists in Palestine. Excavating the staircase of an ancient theatre of Caesarea of Palestine, the archeologists, leaded by Professor Anthony Frova, found a stone with the letters, hammered out on it...

This discovery is very significant. As many other contemporary discoveries, it refutes all anti-Christian inventions of Prof. Bruno Bauser [sic] and Lutheran pastor Arthur Drews, stating that there existed no Jesus Christ, Apostles, Pontius Pilate, no other persons, mentioned in the Gospel, that all of them are only the latest myths. This theory found great success in the God-opposing circles, both in the East and West, and in the Soviet Union even 20 years before the works of pastor Drews were published in multi-million editions."

So it might be that the thesis that "pilatus-man" was identified with an actual Pilate was understood by others as a claim that "there was no historical Pontius Pilate". The Great Soviet Encyclopedia apparently said that Jesus was a myth, so perhaps that they might have taken Bauer's and Drews' comments and made that particular claim.

Does anyone know if Bruno Bauer's work is on-line? Or early editions of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia?

Toto · 06-01-2009, 12:52 AM

Are you seriously contending that American evangelicals read the Great Soviet Encyclopedia? or Arthur Drews?

GakuseiDon · 06-01-2009, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Are you seriously contending that American evangelicals read the Great Soviet Encyclopedia? or Arthur Drews?

Of course they did. Why wouldn't they? :huh: But I'm not sure where "evangelicals" come into this.

Anyway, probably what happened is that people on both sides of the argument repeated comments like Drews' "the Pilate of the Christian legend was not originally an historical person", and that is how the idea grew. Given the comments I quoted above, I suspect the place to look is in publications coming out of the Soviet Union of that time.

angelo · 06-01-2009, 01:55 AM

There is a little evidence for an historical Pontius Pilate, but less so for a historical Jesus.

www.jesusneverexisted.com

show_no_mercy · 06-01-2009, 05:43 AM

Maybe Pilate the person wasn't a myth, but how he's depicted in the gospels is most certainly myth. In the gospels he's presented as a even-handed prefect that's a bit concerned about executing an innocent person and reluctantly gives in after having his hand forced by the mob.

However, both Philo and Josephus present him in the exact opposite way:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philo, Embassy of Gaius Book 38

(301) for [Pilate] was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate

[...]

(302) [Pilate] feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity.

(303) Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious
passions, he was in great perplexity, neither venturing to take down what he had once set up, nor wishing to do any thing which could be acceptable to his subjects, and at the same time being sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points. And those who were in power in our nation, seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius.

Philo says that Pilate executed people without trial...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josephus, "Antiquties of the Jews" Book 18, Chapter 3.2

"He spent money from the sacred treasury in the construction of an aqueduct to bring water into Jerusalem, intercepting the source of the stream at a distance of thirty-five kilometers. The Jews did not acquiesce in the operations that this involved; and tens of thousands of men assembled and cried out against him, bidding him relinquish his promotion of such designs. Some too even hurled insults and abuse of the sort that a throng will commonly engage in.

He thereupon ordered a large number of soldiers to be dressed in Jewish garments, under which they carried clubs, and he sent them off this way and that, thus surrounding the Jews, whom he ordered to withdraw. When the Jews were in full torrent of abuse he gave his soldiers the prearranged signal.

They, however, inflicted much harder blows than Pilate had ordered, unishing alike both those who were rioting and those who were not. But the Jews showed no faintheartedness; and so, caught unarmed, as they were, by men delivering a prepared attack, many of them actually were slain on the spot, while some withdrew disabled by blows. Thus ended the uprising."

Pilate doesn't seem to care about the opinion of a mob of Jews.

Later on, Josephus writes that Pilate slaughtered some Samaritans who went up to Mount Gerizim and was recalled back to Rome.

Roger Pearse · 06-01-2009, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Are you seriously contending that American evangelicals read the Great Soviet Encyclopedia? or Arthur Drews?

Of course they did. Why wouldn't they? :huh: But I'm not sure where "evangelicals" come into this.

Anyway, probably what happened is that people on both sides of the argument repeated comments like Drews' "the Pilate of the Christian legend was not originally an historical person", and that is how the idea grew. Given the comments I quoted above, I suspect the place to look is in publications coming out of the Soviet Union of that time.

Excellent work, Don. Joseph McCabe translated Drews work, so we can be certain that it would circulate among American atheists. Being in German originally, Drews was familiar with this other German work.

It does little good, as the OP did, to heap up people who DO state that Pilate was historical (Shakespear? Dante??). What's needed is people who're into the mythicism thing.

I have seen other myths get embellished to a quite fantastic extent. E.g. People who think the bible was set at Nicaea tend then to suppose that it was voted on, and then feel able to state the numbers voting! Perhaps this has happened here.

Is Drews online? We need to get back behind him to the Polish-sounding chap.

Roger Pearse · 06-01-2009, 06:01 AM

Slightly better version:

Quote:

In regard to the significance of Pilate in Tacitus, a remarkable hypothesis has recently been put forward by Andrzej Niemojewski in his work, Gott Jesus im Lichte fremder und eigener Forschungen samt Darstellung der evangelischen Astralstoffe, Astralszenen, und Astralsysteme (1910). According to this, the Pilate of the Christian legend was not originally an historical person; the whole story of Christ is to be taken in an astral sense, and Pilate represents the constellation of Orion, the javelin-man (pilatus, in Latin), with the arrow or lance-constellation (Sagitta), which is supposed to be very long in the Greek myth, and appears in the Christian legend under the name of Longinus, and is in the Gospel of John the soldier who pierces the side of Jesus with a spear (longche, in Greek). In the astral myth, the Christ hanging on the cross, or world-tree (i.e., the Milky Way), is killed by the lance of “Pilatus.” Hence, according to Niemojewski, the Christian populace told the legend of a javelin-man, a certain Pilatus, who was supposed to have been responsible for the death of the Saviour. This wholly sufficed for Tacitus to recognise in him the procurator in the reign of Tiberius, who must have been known to the Roman historian from the books of Josephus “On the Jewish War,” which were destined for the imperial house.[80] In point of fact, the procurator Pontius Pilate plays a part in the gospels so singularly opposed to the account of the historical Pilate, as Josephus describes him, that we can very well suspect a later introduction of an historical personage into the quasi-historical narrative.

yalla · 06-01-2009, 06:54 AM

This, from the link above:
"In point of fact, the procurator Pontius Pilate plays a part in the gospels so singularly opposed to the account of the historical Pilate, as Josephus describes him, that we can very well suspect a later introduction of an historical personage into the quasi-historical narrative. " [my italics]
does not constitute a denial of Pilate as an 'historical personage'. Quite the opposite.

05-31-2009, 09:50 PM	#1
Kapyong Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Perth Posts: 1,779	Did any sceptics ever consider Pilate a myth? Greetings all, Believers sometimes claim that sceptics thought Pilate was a myth, up until an inscription naming him was found in 1961. There are numerous examples of this, e.g. - John Warwick Montgomery in "The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity" ' Modern archaeological research has confirmed again and again the reliability of New Testament geography, chronology, and general history. To take but a single, striking example: After the rise of liberal biblical criticism, doubt was expressed as to the historicity of Pontius Pilate, since he is mentioned even by pagan historians only in connection with Jesus' death. Then, in 1961, came the discovery at Caesarea of the now famous "Pilate inscription," definitely showing that, as usual, the New Testament writers were engaged in accurate historiography. ' http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm or - "For years, skeptics have claimed that Pontius Pilate, the one responsible for Jesus' execution, was nothing more than a mythical figure." http://defendchristianfaith.blogspot...lly-exist.html or - "How can atheists deny that Herod and Pontius Pilate existed when there are coins that were issued by them ? I have seen them. When they say the Bible is fiction, they would have to also deny numismatic evidence. " http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9071413AAd4maf or - "When critics of the Passion of the Christ argue about Pilate not being historical and Caiaphas being too rabid, they are ignoring Biblical accounts and secular history because they don’t like the Biblical story." http://www.bible-sermons.org/classes/Passion2.doc Well, I decided to check this, and here I list the references to Pilate through the centuries - I have included all the main cites I could find - Christian writers as well as sceptics and others. If any sceptic had claimed Pilate did not exist, some Christian would surely mention that - in the same way that when early sceptics denied Jesus came in the flesh, we see various Christians insisting he DID so. Contemporary, early 1st century Philo Judaeus was a direct contemporary of Pilate, and he refers to Pilate twice in his historical work "On the Embassy to Gaius" : "Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea." Clearly Philo thought Pilate was historical. Late 1st century Josephus in late 1st century records Pilate numerous times in his two historical books (Wars and Antiquities), e.g. : "When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor." Clearly Josephus thought Pilate was historical. Late 1st and 2nd century Many early Christian books mention Pilate for his part in Jesus' story : Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, The Epistle of the Apostles, The Gospel of Peter, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Acts of Peter and Paul, the various Pilate forgeries, Irenaeus, Melito of Sardis, Clement of Alexandria. Every single one of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise. 3rd century Porphyry's fragments mentioned Pilate as historical. Many Christian works and writers mention Pilate : Acts of Andrew, Acts of Peter and Andrew, Acts of Thadeus, Acts of Thomas, Against Novatian, Acta Pilati, The Teaching of Simon Cephas in Rome, The Clementina, Cyprian of Carthage, Hippolytus, Origen, Peter of Alexandria, Tertullian. Every single one of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise. 4th century Many Christian works and writers mention Pilate : The Constitution of the Holy Apostles, The Doctrine of Addai, The Gospel of Nicodemus, Ambrose, Aphrahat, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim of Syria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Gennadius, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Lactantius, Macarius Magnes, Optatus of Miletus, Palladius of Helenopolis, Rufinus. Every single one of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise. 5th century Many Christian works and writers mention Pilate : Aurelius Prudentius, Cyril of Alexandria, John Cassian, Leo the Great, Moses of Chorene, Philoxenus, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomenus, Theodoret. Every single one of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise. 6th and 7th century Several Christian works and writers mention Pilate : Aurelius Prudentius, Cyril of Alexandria, John Cassian, Leo the Great, Moses of Chorene, Philoxenus, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomenus, Theodoret, Antiochus Strategos, John Nikiu. Every single one of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise. ~9th century The Anglo Saxon Chronicle mentions Pilate as historical : "A.D. 26. This year Pilate began to reign over the Jews." 10th century Various forged books about Pilate appear (e.g. The Death of Pilate) - all based on him being historical. No mention of any sceptics who claim he was a myth. 11th, 12th, 13th centuries Various Christian books mention Pilate : St Anselm, Giraldus Cambrensis, Barlaam and Ioasaph, Thomas Aquinas,. Each of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise. 14th century Dante mentions Pilate as historical in his Inferno. The Travels of John Mandeville refer to Pilate as historical. Chaucer mentions Pilate. Henry Suso mentions Pilate as historical. Julian of Norwich does too. No hint of any sceptics who claimed he was a myth. 16th century Edmund Spencer's "The Faerie Queen" mentions Pilate. James Arminius mentions Pilate as historical. John of the Cross mentions Pilate as historical. Christopher Goodman's "How Superior Powers Ought To Be Obeyed" mentions Pilate as historical. Teresa of Avila mentions Pilate as historical. No hint of any sceptics who claimed he was a myth. 17th century Shakespeare mentions Pilate as historical. Blaise Pascal mentions Pilate as historical. Francis Bacon mentions Pilate as historical. John Locke mentions Pilate as historical. No hint of any sceptics who claimed he was a myth. 18th century Dupuis mentions Pilate as historical in his sceptical book which argues Christ was a myth : ' Those who have “fabricated” it, have added thereto fictitious events, not only at known places, as all the ancient poets have done in the fables of Hercules, Bacchus, Osiris, &c., but also at an epoch with well known names, such as the age of Augustus, of Tiberius, of Pontius Pilate, &c.; which does not prove the real existence of Christ, but only that the sacerdotal fiction is posterior to that epoch; and of this we have no doubt. ' Edward Gibbon mentions Pilate as historical in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". Thomas Paine mentions Pilate as historical in his sceptical book. No hint of any sceptical claims that Pilate was a myth. 19th century Albert Pike's "Morals and Dogma" mentions Pilate as historical. Strauss' famous and sceptical "Life of Jesus Crtically Examined" mentions Pilate as historical. Renan's famous and sceptical "The Life of Jesus" mentions Pilate as historical. No hint of any sceptical claims that Pilate was a myth. Early 20th century Albert Schweitzer's famous and sceptical "The Quest for the Historical Jesus" mentions Pilate many times as historical. Gerald Massey the mythicist mentions Pilate as historical. John E. Remsberg's sceptical "The Christ" mentions Pilate as historical. Joseph Wheless' sceptical "Forgery in Christianity" mentions Pilate as historical. M.M. Mangasarian's sceptical "The Truth about Jesus" mentions Pilate as historical. Marshall Gauvin's sceptical "Did Jesus Christ really Live?" mentions Pilate as historical. Shirley Jackson Case's critical "The Historicity of Jesus" mentions Pilate as historical. Walter Bauer's "Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity" mentions Pilate as historical. G.R.S. Mead's "Did Jesus live 100 BC?" mentions Pilate as historical many times. Kirsopp Lake's "Landmarks" mentions Pilate as historical. Walter Cassels "Supernatural Religion" mentions Pilate as historical. No hint of any sceptical claims that Pilate was a myth. Mid 20th century Alvin Boyd Kuhn's sceptical "Who is this King of Glory" mentions Pilate as historical. Maurice Goguel's sceptical "Jesus the Nazarene - Myth or History?" has Pilate as historical. Alfred Loisy "The Bith of the Christian Religion" has Pilate as historical. Edgar J. Goodspeed's "An Introduction to the New Testament" has Pilate as historical. Edward Carpenter's "Pagan and Christian Creeds : Their Origin and Meaning" has Pilate as historical. No hint of any sceptical claims that Pilate was a myth. 1961 An inscription is found mentioning Pilate's name - the first archeological evidence for Pilate. After 1961 Christian apologists start claiming that before the inscription was found Pilate was considered by sceptics to have been a myth. Summary There is NO evidence anywhere that anyone ever considered Pilate a myth. We have dozens of references to him from almost every century, even including contemporary accounts. Every single one considers him historical. Even the sceptics who argued Jesus was a myth agree that Pilate was historical. Not one believer in history ever mentions anyone claiming Pilate was a myth. Conclusion The claim that any sceptics ever said Pilate was a myth is totally FALSE. Kapyong

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-31-2009, 10:00 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Good work. That was the result we reached in this old thread: Did any skeptic every consider Pilate a myth?

06-01-2009, 12:52 AM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Are you seriously contending that American evangelicals read the Great Soviet Encyclopedia? or Arthur Drews?

06-01-2009, 01:55 AM	#6
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	There is a little evidence for an historical Pontius Pilate, but less so for a historical Jesus. www.jesusneverexisted.com

06-01-2009, 06:54 AM	#10
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	This, from the link above: "In point of fact, the procurator Pontius Pilate plays a part in the gospels so singularly opposed to the account of the historical Pilate, as Josephus describes him, that we can very well suspect a later introduction of an historical personage into the quasi-historical narrative. " [my italics] does not constitute a denial of Pilate as an 'historical personage'. Quite the opposite.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.