gstafleu

The OP asked for references to "Jesus of Nazareth." Is Nazareth mentioned in any of these? That may sound like a minor squibble, but it is maybe not so minor when you remember Doherty's arguments.

Steven Carr

Bigger than somebody who attracted vast crowds, and had to be eliminated because of the danger of a Roman backlash?

These things were not done in a corner.

Sarpedon

Not to mention someone who's death was accompanied by the spontaneous resurrection of 500 dead holy men.

If that had actually happened, everyone who could write would have written about it.

S.C.Carlson

Where does the number 500 come from? Matthew 27:52-53 just has "many."

Stephen

spacejunkie

First of all the cut-off dates are not exactly “arbitrary” but they do seem to pose a “serious problem” for those looking to prove that the Christian faith is more than a fable.

Secondly is it true that the 2nd century accounts of Tactitus and Suetonius are, “two of the most important sources we have” for this era? Surly there are histories of the time that were recorded during the time itself as opposed to 100+ years later.

Spanky

Here's a nice little essay on the subject http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel1.html

If anyone sees any fault with what is written let me know.
But the writer points out a few historians that were contemporaries who never mentioned a thing. People that lived in Jerusalem at the time, people who were interested and wrote of cults like the Essenes but never mentioned Christ or Christians.

Here's a sample:

Nice Squirrel

According to the Church of Stop Shopping Testament gospels, Rev Billy's fame spread far and wide throughout his lifetime. He was known throughout NYC and beyond renowned not only as a teacher and wise man, but also as a prophet and miraculous healer. Great Consumers, enough to draw the anger of the Starbucks temple elders. He attracted the attention of some of the most prominent leaders of his day, both CNN and Guardian.

http://www.revbilly.com/

(You see how followers can think something is really big, when it is, in fact, big in their eyes only.)

gregor

Off topic, but a masterful understatement

"damaged" - much the same way the Hindenberg had a bit of a fire

"perhaps unreliable" - to the same degree that there were perhaps no WMDs in Iraq.

darstec

Might I point out to you that spacejunkie ask the opinion of learned scholars. You aren't one but yet you piped up. Secondly spacejunkie wanted the opinion of scholars of anti-religion and we well know that you are as conservative and orthodox a True Believer as they come.

And then you say Tacitus mentions a Jesus of Nazareth, a prevarication that is beneath even you. You well know, or at least would know if you read your own website, that Tacitus never mentions Jesus later referred to as the Anointed one, let alone a Jesus from Nazareth.

I'm sure historians will be surprised to learn that Tacitus and Suetonius wrote books between 100 BCE and 100 CE. I think you will be confusing them by placing different (and contradictory) information on your website.

RUmike

I think the proper response is: the majority of scholarly opinion holds that Josephus made two mentions of Jesus (both in the 1st century CE), and this Jesus is considered to be the same person that is commonly regarded as "Jesus of Nazareth" in the NT. That Josephus makes no indication of where Jesus came from (as if we should even expect him to know) makes no difference. Perhaps many on this thread don't believe the references in Josephus are original in any form, but AFAIK that does not appear to be the scholarly conensus.

Didn't Origen say something like, "Josephus does not believe Jesus to be the Christ"? Why would he say that if Josephus made no mention of Jesus?