diana

Hi, Jiri.

I concur that it's ridiculous to assert that Moses wrote the Torah. However, it's quite a leap from that to "Moses was purely legendary," as I'm sure you'll agree. This is another one that can go either way for me: either Moses was a person upon whom a legend was built or he never existed in the first place. I would avoid simply asserting "There was no Moses!" That's all I was saying.

I don't know. I do know that scholars, where they generally have assumed Jesus' historicity, have questioned John's historicity. I did a quick Google search and found a JSTOR article and another scholarly bit I can't get to without prescription. I'll have to remember to run the search at work so I can read the damn things.

Ah. I understand. I'm not sure I agree, but I do see your point. Plus, Abram and Moses were so far back in the mists of time that there is nothing but oral transmission to ~6th C. BCE. On a scale of historical certainty to doubt, I'd place them far, far to the right, as well.

I think I understand where you're coming from now. You're saying that, despite the fact that we have no contemporary corroboration of Jesus actually meeting Pilate (etc), the fact that he has been placed in a specific time in a specific place makes him more easily verifiable/falsifiable than, say, Moses or Abram. Am I tracking yet?

You mean, if and when any further evidence comes to light? Interesting. I don't normally think in those veins when it comes to historical information, although it's a valid point.

I think Tacitus' mention already is...questionable. While this does not establish Jesus as an unhistorical figure (I don't think anything could, btw), it's admittedly rather pathetic evidence of his existence as a man, and it's ridiculously pathetic evidence of a god/man.

d

Amaleq13

Nor did I suggest you did. I attributed the "denying-a-death-blow" position to hypothetical mythicists responding to your charge.

Then to make my response more explicit, the "regular name" approach is too weak to be of any real use since you cannot establish that the meaning of the name was unknown and it has ample import attached to it from Scripture.

Amaleq13

Zindler does in The Jesus the Jews Never Knew.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

I would guess probably not, as this (from the reference I read) seems to be an administrative list of people relocated after the conquest of Jerusalem, and thus not likely to be copied for centuries.

Well, I may have misunderstood then, but this has been in the past a special taunt of the skeptics, and no doubt some still maintain that Luke was wrong in his census attribution, and this is an argument from silence, only now there is not such a silence of the evidence. It becomes an argument against evidence, such as the MJ people are bringing to the table, here.

Strange, I just had listed some new and remarkable confirmations. I might well reply that modern archaeology continues to undermine your skepticism, and argue that this is the reality here.

Strange also, how the skeptics claim virtual omniscience. No magi! No trip. You know all this, and now I would like to also know (if you have such extraordinary access to lost information) the contents of the books in the library at Alexandria, and the answers to a few further questions.

Though perhaps, to this request, there will be silence, a fitting counterpart perhaps, to what you base your argument on here.

Chris Weimer

Why did you introduce a false dichotomy here?

Yourself an English teacher, I'm amazed that you aren't familiar with history as literature. You're missing out on some 3000 years of literary tradition.

I have rejected as authentic?

They lacked the access to digital information - and they're worldview, their way of thinking, was different. It was premodern.

That depends on how you're using "common sense", and how much "common sense" is really worth in certain positions. "Common sense", with a total lack of knowledge about gravity, would indicate that the heavier object should fall faster. It made sense for thousands of years - what changed? Certainly not gravity.

How else would they call him? What did Suetonius call the rabble rouser in Rome? He called him Chrestus. That's it. Nothing else. The Greeks only had one name, apart from their patronym and place of origin. The patronym, however, doesn't show up all the time in Latin writings. Figures of a certain prominence usually go by their name and their name alone. Moreover, it's not like Jesus had a birth certificate. He didn't have a drivers license to identify himself. If he was called Χριστος by his followers, there's no reason to assume that the Romans would have called him anything else.

This does introduce a host of questions - surely he wouldn't have been called Christus by his followers. So what was he called? Are you familiar with the mini-synoptic?

Proof is for math. I'm asking you to make a critical analysis here. What does it tell you?

False. However, I will concede that the Romans were unlikely to list this crucified criminal as Christus. But then again, maybe they would have. It's not impossible. I'd prefer to think of it in terms of the mini-synoptic, though.

Josephus?

That's because you've left off some options.

Toto

I have of course read that book some years ago, but I went back and looked at those pages. I fail to see how they support your position at all.

I assume you mean In Quest of the Historical Pharisees (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Jacob Neusner (Editor), Bruce D. Chilton (Editor). It looks interesting.

Most of what I have learned about Josephus is from Steve Mason. I'm not sure what your point is. What do you disagree with? That some of Josephus is trustworthy? That some is not?

Chris Weimer

What he wrote is essentially my position, and it contradicts yours. You stated "I have argued here before that the historical Jesus was an invention of Deists and freethinkers who rejected the divine Jesus." What did Erhman say? I guarantee you its not that. Deists and freethinkers who rejected the divine Jesus? Unless you stretch that way out of its normal indication, you're a little late.

Oh, I suppose next we should be saying that "evolution is the invention of those that rejected the divine creation."

Neither - they're just two reigning theories of academia.

Essentially, Josephus in Antiquities rewrote much of what he wrote in War:

diana

Because those are the only two options that occur to me. Please provide other available options as they occur to you.

After the silliness of providing a known forgery when you were (I'm quite sure) aware that I wasn't asking for a forged manuscript (because why would I?), you can hardly blame me for attempting to clarify every word you utter. Please leave off the smartass. It really diminishes your stature, such as it is.

In other words, please attempt to engage in a respectful exchange of ideas with me. If you can't be fucked to do so, go ahead and simply admit it now, and we can just shake hands and walk away. Fair?

What are you on about?

More specifically, please. I seek a decent overview that I have reason to suspect is on the tip of your fingers. For reasons which elude me, you seem reticent.

Two points: What records was Suetonius consulting, and what makes you think there was only one "Christ" in Rome during that period?

Didn't Jesus reportedly deny being the Christ? So you're arguing that Jesus had no ID so the Romans wrote down what his followers called him in their records? Isn't this a bit of a stretch for you?

No, I'm not. But I'm interested. Please inform.

Your explanation of the mini-synoptic,* I'm sure, will make this clear.

* I checked your blog under the "mini-synoptic" subtitle, but alas...it didn't explain the meaning. Just to say: I'm trying to understand your position the best I can.

Again...not intentionally. The charitable thing for you to have done was to suggest (without prompting) which options I may have overlooked.

d

Amaleq13

I think you are confused on this. What is not supported by Josephus is Luke's claim that the census was to cover "all the world" and that is because Quirinius' census was specifically restricted to the region that was newly under Roman control.

dog-on

Please elaborate for the benefit of the ignorant. Please point me to the document from antiquity which discusses the "average Joe" HJ.