Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK, thanks, I would love to know how historians of the archaic period have treated the skepticism about the existence of Socrates. I guess it does make sense that there would be a few atheists on the Internet who would call into question the existence of Socrates, since the evidence of his existence is just a little better to that of Jesus. I imagine that such historians react only with a facepalm, though I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Civil1z@tion

To be fair, Socrates does show up outside the Platonic dialouges. Aristophanes features Socrates as one of the main characters in his play Clouds. This Socrates is far different than the Platonic Socrates, but that's probably primarily because Aristophanes was mocking Socrates.

Originally Posted by Josephus, War of the Jews 6.5.3

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, 23 began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city.

However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus [for he was then our procurator] asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.

Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost

Originally Posted by Josephus, Life 12 / 22

12 [...] So Jesus the son of Sapphias, one of those whom we have already mentioned as the leader of a seditious tumult of fishermen and poor people, prevented us, and took with him certain Galileans, and set the entire palace on fire, and thought he should get a great deal of money thereby, because he saw some of the roofs gilt with gold. They also plundered a great deal of the furniture, which was done without our approbation; for after we had discoursed with Capellus and the principal men of the city, we departed from Bethmaus, and went into the Upper Galilee. But Jesus and his party slew all the Greeks that were inhabitants of Tiberias, and as many others as were their enemies before the war began.

22 [...] Yet did not this his knavery succeed well at last; for as he was already nearly approaching, one of those with him deserted him, and came to me, and told me what he had undertaken to do. When I was informed of this, I went into the market-place, and pretended to know nothing of his treacherous purpose. I took with me many Galileans that were armed, as also some of those of Tiberias; and, when I had given orders that all the roads should be carefully guarded, I charged the keepers of the gates to give admittance to none but Jesus, when he came, with the principal of his men, and to exclude the rest; and in case they aimed to force themselves in, to use stripes [in order to repel them]. Accordingly, those that had received such a charge did as they were bidden, and Jesus came in with a few others; and when I had ordered him to throw down his arms immediately, and told him, that if he refused so to do, he was a dead man, he seeing armed men standing all round about him, was terrified, and complied; and as for those of his followers that were excluded, when they were informed that he was seized, they ran away.

Originally Posted by maryhelena

.....So, of the 4 examples given in the blog comment - I would quite happily go with no.3. There is a historical core to the gospel storyline - but that historical core is not Jesus - it is not the carpenter’s son who was crucified. It could be a historical figure that is quite unrelated to that gospel figure, a historical figure that bears “little resemblance” to the gospel Jesus. This is a very important insight by Eric Reitan - an insight that the historicists need to appreciate if they are ever to find the historical core to the gospel storyline that they seek.

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

What if the Jesus presented in the gospels was based on this character:

Could we say that Jesus of Ananias was the historical Jesus? Why or why not?

What about this Jesus:

What if we combined them? Could we say that these two Jesuses (Jesi?) were the foundation for the gospel Jesus? Would Jesus then be historical?

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Why bother looking for someone called Jesus :huh:

Name changing seems to be quite a serious pastime in the NT....

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

The only name changes I can recall off the top of my head in the NT are Saul to Paul, Simon to Peter, and (textually) Cephas to Peter.

Name changes seems to be more common in the Tanakh. Relevant in this instance was "Hoshea" being renamed to "Jesus" in Numbers 13.