Roger Pearse

I'm not sure that I understand you.

Is not inconvenient testimony by two of these three people, routinely debunked by people here? Is the existence of ancient evidence a barrier to the revisionist?

You see, I don't understand how rationally we can both appeal to Josephus and in the next breath assert him to be mistaken, corrupt, interpolated (whatever); appeal to 'mention' in Tacitus, and assert him to be mistaken, corrupt, interpolated, choosing one option for one person, the other for another.

The only difference between these cases is Philo's mention.

Does not this all rather suggest that those who found Jesus inconvenient would not have much problem with debunking Pilate likewise, and then using this 'proof' as evidence of problems with the NT? -- that a debunker might well have motive and opportunity to deny that Pilate existed?

But again, we need more facts. Once we have these, we can explain the mistakes of others. To do so in advance must be premature.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

The mention of Jesus Christ in Josephus is routinely debunked because it is so un-Josephan. Opinion varies on Tacitus - I don't think we have many strong debunkers of the passage in Tacitus. It is quite easy to explain Tactitus away as reporting rumors (which would imply that Pilate existed), and therefore as weak evidence for the historical Jesus in any case.

The argument for interpolation of the mention of Jesus Christ in Josephus is based on accepting the rest of Josephus as authentic in some sense.

Your point?

Could you give me a cite to someone who finds Jesus "inconvenient"? The mythicist case is based on the mythical qualities that the Jesus character shares with other mythical beings. Pilate, in contrast, is an all too familiar earthly despotic ruler.

Biblical skeptics have been more likely to argue that the Bible is problematic because the portrait of Pilate in the NT is so different from the portrait in Josephus and Philo. So there is no particular motive to deny that Pilate existed, and a motive to accept his existence as described in those two sources as historical.

Where would you suggest looking for those facts?

Steven Carr

I don't follow your logic here. Antiquites is a big work. We can rationally deny that one part is correct and maintain that another part is genuine.

And few poeple assert Tacitus is mistaken, corrupt or interpolated. We usually say that he , as a good historian, is accurately repeating what his sources - Christians - have told him


ROGER
that a debunker might well have motive and opportunity to deny that Pilate existed?

CARR
Wouldn't a debunker also need a corporeal existence? There don't seem to be any debunkers of Pilate who have seen the light of day yet.

Roger Pearse

In the atheist literature of the period, in particular that portion which asserts that Jesus never existed. I doubt many people have much of a knowledge of the stuff, but it could be done. It would probably also exist in German somewhere in the articles of the period; no-one today probably knows that stuff all that well.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Carr

I love the tacit assumption that it would be a waste of time looking in the Christian tracts which say that sceptics doubted Pilate's existence until 1961. Roger appears to accept that there will be no reliable documentation from Christian sources.

Toto

I have already scanned through the on line material, including Remsberg and the material in the secweb historical section and what is on earlychristianwritings.com

So you are postulating that a Christian apologist read a German text that claimed Pilate was a myth, and saw fit to refer obliquely that that text but never to identify it? And that no English speaking skeptic referred to that text?

Come on Roger. Why not just admit that this is an urban legend among the sort of Christian apologist who doesn't bother with footnotes or reference checking? Perhaps there's even some understandable source for the legend - perhaps the apologist meant to refer to Pilate's title as Prefect and not his existence being in doubt.

Toto

Well Prof. Montgomery has told us to do our own research

Since the historicity of Pilate does not prove the historicity of Jesus (WHY CAN'T HE SEE THAT??), the gap in logic is too large to be papered over by locking the caps key (to mangle a metaphor.)

Well, let me add some more negative results.

A search of online articles from the Journal of Higher Criticism, some of which are historical, finds no reference to the mythological status of Pilate.

Arthur Drews The Christ Myth does not hint at Pilate being mythological.

Charlotte Allens' The Human Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk) discusses 19th century German freethinking skeptics and would probably poke fun at any who thought Pilate was a mere myth, but makes no mention of the idea.

Googling "Pilate never existed" turns up only hits to apologetic pages, none with footnotes. And we see the story changing - sometimes it is atheists who think that Pilate was a myth up until 1961, sometimes German higher critics of the 19th century. Further, it is claimed that the idea was "widespread" until disproven by archeology. On Metacrock's board, Elder John states: "Until 1961 most of the German higher critics opinion that Pilate never existed were wide spread."

Something that was so widespread should not have disappeared without a trace.

Doctor X

Notice . . . the date . . . JFK . . . JFK!

Anyways, again, this is nothing more than a useless "they-were-wrong-once" Strawman argument--"they must be wrong NOW!!"

Can we not just let it die?

--J.D.

Toto

I'm waiting for Roger to concede.

Roger Pearse

I'm afraid that once the attempts to argue from ignorance began, I wandered off, so I didn't see much more. I see that no more information came to light.

What is it you wish me to concede? That no-one denied that Pilate existed? But you do not know this, and neither do I. Such evidence as there is says that someone did; but is hearsay in my view. You haven't made any serious search, and neither have I. You know no more than you did at the start; neither do I. I'm glad you looked on google; but then, so did I. But I hardly think the body will be found there.

I'm afraid I don't understand why you think you have progressed? [Ad hominem deleted--Celsus] Do you not understand this simple point: that, whatever we say, we must have some basis for it? Agnosticism is the only possible position to take here.

Cordially,

Roger Pearse

Roger, there is no need for your aspersions against a fellow poster --Celsus