DCHindley

Actually, none at all. I work for state gov'mint, and a field job at that (I visit businesses a couple times a day to conduct financial audits - well, someone has to do it). Yeah, a "real" job.

Labor is represented by a union, believe it or not, and the contract calls for lunch and 2 breaks a day. That's pretty standard union stuff, mind you, but kind of hard to take them at predictable times (our office's work territory spans 3-4 counties and each business stop can take between 30 min to over 2 hrs). I pass by my home to take them whenever I can (nothing like microwaved leftovers for lunch! mmmmm).

We all keep an electronic time log and a calendar, and management does occasionally check it. Since some folks outside of our bureau imagine we field employees just sit around at home in our bathrobes and sip beer all day (that's Louisiana for goodness sake!), I feel compelled to say why I am able to post here now and then during the week.

DCH (after hours, boss)

Doug Shaver

If the Josephan references to Jesus are authentic, even in part, then they are evidence for historicity. If no part of them is authentic, then they are not evidence of anything except Christian tampering with the historical record. Such tampering is not evidence against historicity. It does raise the question of why Christians thought it was necessary, but "because they knew Jesus didn't really exist" is not a plausible answer.

aa5874

Of course placing false information about the existence of Jesus of the NT in Josephus is an indication that Jesus of the NT did not exist.

Josephus mentioned many characters called Jesus, from madmen to highpriests, it surely can be construed that Jesus of the NT did not exist once Josephus did not make any mention of the Messiah called Jesus who was deified by the Jews after being crucified for blasphemy.

It is NOT IMPLAUSIBLE at all that the forger of the TF knew or had reason to believe Jesus of the NT did not exist.

jakejonesiv

How would they know?

lpetrich

What do you consider so terrible about Earl Doherty's new book?

Zaphod

If no part of them is authentic, it also means that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is not mentioned at all in his writings.

The problem of complete historical silence and a complete lack of archaeological evidence is a BIG problem for the Historical Jesus. So big, in fact, that I would hope that intellectual integrity would insist that the proper default position is that the Historical Jesus did NOT exist until such time as some real evidence is discovered.

Doug Shaver

Yes. And that would be a good indication that he was not as famous as Christians later made him out to be.

Doug Shaver

I was responding to a post about Josephus. I intended no comment on the overall historical record.

As for archeological evidence, what sort of archeological evidence do we normally find of people who start, or otherwise inspire, major religions or other institutions of that sort? Is there any archeological evidence for Muhammad? How about Plato?

DCHindley

I am not sure of this, but isn't there supposed to be in existance now an actual written contract written by Muhammed himself? I have seen assertions of this, but no one ever seems to say where the thing is. It may be a copy or something.

I also understand that there are copies of some Suras written in palm leaves or some such thing by one of his relatives or biographers who knew him when alive.

A document signed by Bar Kochba himself does exist, perhaps some land contracts that mention him, as well as original correspondence from some of his military subordinates. Also, his wife's glass dishware - manufactured in Rome FWIW - has survived, secreted in a cave halfway up a steep cliff. Bar Kochba was no revolutionary shepherd, but a member of the aristocratic class.

DCH

spamandham

If there is any truth at all to the gospels (and there isn't as far as I can tell), Christianity was a religion of 'the book' from it's earliest inception. Paul wrote prolifically, and so did other early church fathers.

It is reasonable to expect writings directly from Jesus or someone who immediately knew him to have survived as reverred texts if he really was a cult figure in an environment such as this. Certainly, we can come up with plausible scenarios as to why we might not have them, but as we build an overall case, their absence does count as evidence against an HJ, and I'd say the weight of that is at least as large as the positive weight of anything we might derive from the writings of Josephus.