What counts as a historical Jesus?

[maximara]

This is nothing but disingenuous babble. If anything is clear from the previous 70 odd pages, it is that those who oppose the HJ are simply convinced that there is not sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that there ever was such a character. If you want to include a new category of opposition ( “we actually agree there was a Jesus, but he’s not the one etc. etc.”), go right ahead, but that isn’t what has been argued here.

As I have pointed out before the Christ Myth theory has MANY definitions.

"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." (Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (1982) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company)

Please note that this says NOTHING about Jesus the man not existing but that the story of him is "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes."


There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few.

King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.

Remsburg the darling of the armchair Christ myther stated it clear as day in 1909: "Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist."

You may not like it but that are the cards you have been dealt regardless of it being 1909 or 1982

 

[maximara]

Moreover we still have the issue of the 100 BCE Jesus:

"More astonishing still is the widespread Jewish and Jewish-Christian tradition, attested in Epiphanius, the Talmud, and the Toledoth Jeschu (dependent on second-century Jewish-Christian gospel), that Jesus was born about 100 BCE and was crucified under Alexander Jannaeus! " Price, Robert (2003) Incredible Shrinking Son of Man pg 40)

Again if Jesus was such a well known person why and more importantly how were people saying that he lived at the time of Alexander Jannaeus as early as the 2nd century?

 

[Craig B]

Moreover we still have the issue of the 100 BCE Jesus:

"More astonishing still is the widespread Jewish and Jewish-Christian tradition, attested in Epiphanius, the Talmud, and the Toledoth Jeschu (dependent on second-century Jewish-Christian gospel), that Jesus was born about 100 BCE and was crucified under Alexander Jannaeus! " Price, Robert (2003) Incredible Shrinking Son of Man pg 40)

Again if Jesus was such a well known person why and more importantly how were people saying that he lived at the time of Alexander Jannaeus as early as the 2nd century?

Maximara. No. Are we going to have to go through all this again?

 

[tsig]

True end-timers don't scam people b/c, first, they don't believe there's going to be a future in which to enjoy the spoils of their scam, and in most cases they believe that there's something they have to do to prove their status to whoever is coming to save them.

As we'll see, Paul is concerned about having enough funds for the missionary work, but is he getting rich off this?

Also, when we take a look at the scene he describes, and the arguments he documents, there's no hint that this is some kind of organized hoax. In fact, everyone seems to be scrambling around trying to figure out exactly what Jesus's death really meant and how exactly it plays into the end-time scenario.

So it certainly doesn't appear to be a group who decided on a story and then went out to pull the wool over people's eyes with it. Rather, this appears to be a group who really believes the world is about to end.

We'll see as we go how the religion changes as the end of the world continues to not arrive.

They could have just been mistaken.

Were the worshipers of Osiris pulling the wool over peoples' eyes, were they mistaken or was there a historical Osiris?

 

[JaysonR]

OK folks,
I'm moving through the responses as quickly as I can.
There's a few folks to discuss with, and I will try my best to keep up.

I think you have either bought hook sinker and line into piggy's "mythicist" diatrib, or you did not bother reading the thread's poster.

Many of us are simply saying they *ALSO* tend toward thinking the probability that Jesus existed is higher, but the presented evidence do not warrant the certainty piggy and some other in this thread seems to hold there is.

See that is the diffference between "Jesus existed" and "Jesus most probably existed" (thus people like you "leaning" , like somebody saying 60/40, me 55/45).

I do not think anybody in this thread ever said they are sure 100% that Jesus never existed.

The problem , and is shown again with your quote, is that again , the existence of the cult and the story are known, as reported to be believed by the folk, but not the existence of the person. There are no direct independent witness reporting. People are always reporting what they heard from secondary or even tertiary source, half a century to many century later.

Oh and by the way the letter : "Mara's letter to his son begins with: "Mara, son of Serapion, to Serapion, my son: peace." The letter was composed sometime between 73 AD and the 3rd century." That is a wide wide wide gap. Through I will give you that most say it is probably first century , it is not a certainty either ().

Yes, I am not offering any evidence that is conclusive.
I am only offering two pieces of material that I didn't see entered into review yet.


Regarding the Mara Letter:
The Mara letter is often considered to be within the first century due to the circumstances of the letter.
I cannot remove all possibility of the letter being later, but the standard view (which I happen to think is reasonable) is that it is a letter written within the first century under duress.

The reason for this early date is related to:

Thou hast heard, moreover, concerning our companions, that, when they were leaving Samosata, they were distressed about it, and, as if complaining of the time in which their lot was cast, said thus: “We are now far removed from our home, and we cannot return again to our city, or behold our people, or offer to our gods the greeting of praise.”

And this section:

And, although we had heard that their former companions were proceeding to Seleucia, we clandestinely set out, and proceeded on the way towards them, and united our own misery with theirs.

Seleucia was, essentially, abandoned after 165 CE.

There's no reason to refer to going there to meet with anyone after this period, as it would not exist.


Now, Samosata (North and slightly East of Antioch) was annexed by the Romans in 72 CE.

The annexation was not pleasant, and was gained through a surrender.
Some people who had lived there for their whole lives fled their homeland.

The notation in the letter discusses their shared acquaintances being in very low spirits about having to leave their home due to being forced into a position of leaving their homes.

Also worth noting is that Emperor Trajan burned Seleucia practically completely down in 117 CE, so I would personally even venture that our timeline is even smaller; between 72 and 117 CE.

So this places the most likely dates of this letter between these two marks of 72 and 117 CE.

While it cannot be removed as a possibility completely that the letter was not from later, it is not as likely that anyone would refer to these places by these names and these events after this period of time.


The third century CE dating is a forgiveness range that produces what historians consider to be an absolute minimum threshold as reasonable for someone to use these names and contextual references.
The third century CE dating is not commonly considered to be the range the letter is from.
This is not uncommon in historical dating; to produce a minimum threshold that simply cannot be passed, and reflects the absolute boundary if stretched thin.
For instance, the historical range for Jesus that the field gives is rather wide if you give the full listing; which is anywhere between 4 c BCE to 1 c CE. However, most do not go beyond 1 c BCE and 1 c CE ranges. The other timeline is the minimum threshold for stretching the considerations to the maximum limit.

The above reasons are why most in the field of history consider this letter to be written within the first century and not after; because the context of the letter's constituent references align best with the events that are known to occur in Samosata after 72, and that Seleucia was not a viable option of reference after 165 CE, and one could even push to 117 CE due to the city being in ruins heavily and unsustainable after those damages (which caused the final abandonment by around 165 CE).

 

[catsmate]

Yeah, it is irrational to refuse to give any credence to the consensus of the experts - just like in the case of collapsing skyscrapers...

This disrespect of specialists usually occurs when their findings are in conflict with the critic's deeply, even passionately held convictions. On this forum, I think some "sceptics" might have a tiny blind spot... It's not sceptical to be irrationally attached to your own amateur conclusions and convictions.

Anyway, on this thread it is not the historical Jesus that is on trial but the study of antiquity which to my mind has been mindbogglingly brilliant and incredibly painstaking in finding methods to extract information and reasonable and testable conclusions from very meagre source material. I don't know how these methods could be challenged without any thorough understanding of them. Of course the study of history is not a natural science, but it is nevertheless a securely established and rigorous discipline very far from any postmodern nonsense and relativism.

Rubbish. If the supposed consensus of supposed experts was based on proper scientific practice there'd be no difficulty with supplying the evidence on which the consensus is based. However this is not forthcoming, what is produced tends to be flawed mish-mashes of pseudo-scholarship like Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist.

1. There is an overwhelming consensus among experts in all relevant fields that Jesus existed. That's a fact.

Then why is the request to supply the evidence on which this consensus should rest constantly ignored and those who ask for it insulted?

4. Evidence has been provided here for many, many points. And the process is ongoing. No one has refused to ever provide evidence.

This is blatantly untrue.

What has been refused is a request by people who call the scholarship "argument from authority" and demand to be given the raw evidence to come to conclusions for themselves which they would not be able to come to (because they're unqualified) even if access could be granted to the actual core evidence.

And now you try and divert attention from your failure to support the purported supporting evidence for your argument by claiming people would be unable to understand it.

 

[Belz...]

So instead of evidence we now get accused of being like truthers... interesting.

 

[JaysonR]

Eight Bits;
Regarding Chrestus:
Suetonius does not give names without social context elsewhere.
In each case where a name occurs that is not a widely known name, their social station, or relation to another more recognized individual, is given.

It would be atypical (to the point of singular instance) for Suetonius to write down a name that is unknown by default stance (as opposed to, for example, Cossutia) and not then list a reference to the context of the person's social status by proxy of someone else known (for example, "and married Cornelia, daughter of that Cinna", which refers to Lucius Cornelius Cinna).

As such, we either accept "Chrestus" as the only entry in all sections of Suetonius as a name that does not give us an understanding of the events described, or we accept Suetonius to be referring to Jesus who is known to be contentious as a sectarian figure in Jewish communities and requires no social proxy relation for contextual placement of the entry of the name/title.

Given these considerations, the textual habits of Suetonius are more suited to support the latter consideration than the former.


Regarding the Mara Letter:
Yes, Jews had been leaving for a while.
However, the citation does not indicate a simple event of people leaving.
It discusses the complete downfall of their nation.

Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them?

There is only one "King" who was "murdered"; no literal Kings were recorded as "murdered", and the alleged time of this event is shortly before the destruction of the second Temple, which would place the event as within 1 CE to 70 CE (this murder of a King).

The only other figure so named in the Jewish community was King Solomon, who was not murdered, nor looked down upon by the Jews (or really any Hebrew peoples in general), but instead was praised as the the wisest in their legends of their Kings; they record this alleged King of theirs as dying of natural causes far long before any loss of the Jewish lands.

Solomon neither is held in their legends as a King who introduced new laws, but instead unified the land with strong rule.
And if he had even introduced new laws, he was certainly not thought of as introducing laws that were contentious and required his death.

Jesus, on the other hand, is accounted for as being murdered (euphemistically), is accounted for as sarcastically being titled the "King of Jews", is accounted for as being wise, is accounted for as introducing new Laws that caused contention, and is accounted for having been put to death a few decades prior to the destruction of the second Temple which would bring about the finality of the Jewish lands (as opposed to being ruled by other nations).

For these reasons, it is most often seen that this citation refers to Jesus; as it is the figure that makes the most sense to attribute in a list of known figures.
To remove Jesus as the reference causes this single citation (Wise King of the Jews) to be the only entry to not be well known without need of explanation, as there are no literal Kings (or legendary) that fit the description given.


Taking that the letter refers to Jesus; does it prove that Jesus or Pythagoras existed?
No.
It gives us a sample of what was a common belief by those who were not followers of Jesus regarding the assumed existence of him.

Could this individual's assumption of the Wise King's existence be wrong?
Yes.

I cannot remove that possibility.

 

[JaysonR]

"Wise King" and "Chrestus", respectively, you mean ?

Yes.

 

[JaysonR]

JaysonR…you are a sterling example of Alaskin equanimity.

Thank you; I hope to always retain respectable composure.
If I ever slip, I encourage anyone to remind me of my community debt and respect.

 

[pakeha]

I think Paul is likely setting off your scammer buttons because his words are used by holy rollers today.

As we go, we'll see whether he appears to be running a scam (with dozens of other scammers) or if he appears to be an end-timer.

If it quacks like a duck...
Anyway, Piggy, I see no reason for that either/or choice.
One of the more entertaining scams I've come across was that of pet 'insurance', feeding off of those who believe they'd experience the Rapture and were concerned about the survival care of their household animals.
For a modest fee, a believer could insure that Fido and Fluffy would be well cared for after the Rapture. The scammers blandly claimed they'd have Jews and atheists come forward as pet care takers.

In any case, I'm looking forward to reading more about your take on Brer Paul.

Richard Dawkins directly refers to it in his 2006 book God Delusion:

"It is fascinating to guess that the cult of Christianity almost certainly began in very much the same way, and spread initially at the same high speed."

"In particular, they suggest four lessons about the origin of religions generally, and I'll set them out briefly here.

First is the amazing speed with which a cult can spring up.

Second is the speed with which the origination process covers its tracks. John Frum, if he existed at all, did so within living memory. Yet, even for so recent a possibility, it is not certain whether he lived at all.

The third lesson springs from the independent emergence of similar cults on different islands. The systematic study of these similarities can tell us something about human psychology and its susceptibility to religion.

Fourth, the cargo cults are similar, not just to each other but to older religions.

Christianity and other ancient religions that have spread worldwide presumably began as local cults like that of John Frum. Indeed, scholars such as Geza Vermes, Professor of Jewish Studies at Oxford University, have suggested that Jesus was one of many such charismatic figures who emerged in Palestine around his time, surrounded by similar legends. Most of those cults died away. The one that survived, on this view, is the one that we encounter today."


"Belief in Christ is no more or less rational than belief in John Frum." Worsley, Peter (1957) "The trumpet shall sound: a study of cargo cults in Melanesia"

It may be because John Frum got connected with the whole ancient astronaut nonsense but the information is there.

Thanks for that, maximara.

True end-timers don't scam people b/c, first, they don't believe there's going to be a future in which to enjoy the spoils of their scam, and in most cases they believe that there's something they have to do to prove their status to whoever is coming to save them.

As we'll see, Paul is concerned about having enough funds for the missionary work, but is he getting rich off this?

Also, when we take a look at the scene he describes, and the arguments he documents, there's no hint that this is some kind of organized hoax. In fact, everyone seems to be scrambling around trying to figure out exactly what Jesus's death really meant and how exactly it plays into the end-time scenario.

So it certainly doesn't appear to be a group who decided on a story and then went out to pull the wool over people's eyes with it. Rather, this appears to be a group who really believes the world is about to end.

We'll see as we go how the religion changes as the end of the world continues to not arrive.

A scam doesn't have to be highly organised, you know, but rather roll with events and the perceived desires of the marks as time goes by.
And believe me, scammers are capable spouting of any number of self-righteous justifications for their predatory activity.
Back to Paul's letters!

 

[JaysonR]

IanS;

For the timeline of the Mara Letter:
Rather than pollute the thread with redundant text, I'll link to the post where I discussed this matter with Aepervius: Post #2865

Regarding the earliest copy of the letter: it is around the 6th or 7th c CE.
I cannot rule out the possibility of forgery, as I am not equipped to establish that and have to therefore defer to specialists in the field who verify authenticity and trust their findings that the letter is authentic.

If you do not, I cannot fault you for such, but if I doubted the authenticity verification, then I would personally be in debt to use the standard authenticity methods to disprove the authenticity granted to this letter.

I cannot disprove the authenticity validation of this letter, and the only conclusion that I receive on the authenticity of this letter is a generalized stance that there has been no evidence in the text to suggest that the letter is a forgery.

Regarding the dating on Suetonius:
Suetonius' text existed in regular manual copy after copy with a near unbroken stream until the printing press age in the 1500's where it became a regular printed text until it began its English translations in the 1700's.
Suetonius actually has a better track record than most documents from ancient times, and has been used nearly always as the chief text that historians in nearly all ages since have used to account for the majority of Nero's reign.


Regarding Personal Witness:
I cannot claim either of these texts as personal witness accounts; nor did I offer them as material evidence for such an assertion.
To my knowledge, we have no such (non-bias) text or archaeological scratching by anyone who personally witnessed Jesus.

I do not personally see this as a problem, as I regularly involve in readings that are accounts by those who did not have personal witness to the individuals they are writing about.
For example, Suetonius did not personally witness Nero, as Nero was already dead by the time Suetonius was born, and definitely so before Suetonius wrote anything about him.

Other such examples, to use it again, are those such as Hippocrates, Pilate, Herod, pretty much all of the kings of Hatti, or all accounts of the ruling class of Petra.

So this in and of itself is not something that stops us from formulating historical accounts as a standard.
If we did that, then we would have far less to cover on my tests (Hey, wait a moment...I like that idea! I wonder if I can argue that to the professor this fall? )



When I presented these texts, I offered them as evidence of non-favor-bias sources as representation samples of what others outside of the in-favor-followers considered to be the state regarding the existence of Jesus.

Did they assume he existed, or did they assume no such figure existed?
I offered these two pieces of material as evidence that suggests people outside of the in-favor-bias followers held the opinion that such an individual existed.


Can I rule out a conspiracy to create a Jesus by ancient scattered and non-unified followers that accurately fooled the Mediterranean world at large?
No. I cannot rule that possibility out.

I don't see this as very plausible, and I would be interested in a presentation that shows a tangible means by which that could be the case that produced what we see, as that would be a really marvelous entry into anthropological record and a brilliant talent that should not go without award and notice.
I'm not being coy either; I mean that with all earnestness.

I don't personally care if Jesus existed, so if someone can show how it was a grand conspiracy by a mass of dissimilar people that fooled a massive amount of people, being that my bias is social anthropology (and not individual historicity), I would be absolutely thrilled far more with that being the case as it would really show a level of ingeniousness that I feel should be marveled over; and such a case should absolutely be given its due credit in history if it took place.
I mean, that kind of craft and skill (should that be the case) should really not be overlooked and neglected mention.

 

[davefoc]

...If anything is clear from the previous 70 odd pages, it is that those who oppose the HJ are simply convinced that there is not sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that there ever was such a character. If you want to include a new category of opposition ( “we actually agree there was a Jesus, but he’s not the one etc. etc.”), go right ahead, but that isn’t what has been argued here.

...

I would have said that many of the posters in this thread believe there is insufficient evidence to support a strong belief that the HJ existed. But if I have interpreted the above post correctly I don't disagree with it even if I quibbled with the wording a bit.

As I have pointed out before the Christ Myth theory has MANY definitions. Since it is considered the antithesis of the HJ position you must consider its ENTIRE SCOPE.

...

Yes the Christ Myth theory has many definitions and the definition of what constitutes an HJ is not well defined even in this thread, but I think there is something of a consensus in this thread nonetheless:

The hypothetical HJ is a Jewish man that played a significant role in a first century religious sect and was an associate of the Peter and the James mentioned by Paul. This tends toward the minimal standards for the HJ as most people have used the term in this thread. There are some people that have participated in this thread with a somewhat stricter personal definition.

There may be some other individual that either by himself or in addition to others served as the inspiration for the NT Jesus stories, but most people that have participated in this thread would not consider such an individual to be the HJ because the characteristics of that individual are too far removed from the characteristics described in the NT.

I thought somebody might have been interested in what Richard Carrier has to say about the Jannaeus issue:

The “Other Jesus” Conundrum: Ehrman says the fact that “the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus were recent events” is “the view of all of our sources that deal with the matter at all” (p. 251). This is false. And it’s astonishing that he would not know this, since several other scholars have discussed the sources that place Jesus in the reign of Jannaeus in the 70s B.C. Ehrman seems to think (and represents to his readers) that G.A. Wells just made this up (pp. 247-51). In fact, Wells is discussing a theory defended by others, and based in actual sources: Epiphanius, in Panarion 29, says there was a sect of still-Torah-observant Christians who taught that Jesus lived and died in the time of Jannaeus, and all the Jewish sources on Christianity that we have (from the Talmud to the Toledot Yeshu) report no other view than that Jesus lived during the time of Jannaeus. Though these are all early medieval sources, it nevertheless means there were actual Christians teaching this and that the Jews who composed the Babylonian Talmud knew of no other version of Christianity.
This is indeed a strange curiosity, since it is hard to explain how a religion that taught from its inception a Jesus who lived and died under the Romans, and Pontius Pilate specifically, could ever evolve a sect that placed him a hundred years earlier, or how this sect could become so ubiquitous east of the Roman Empire that the Jews there had not heard of any other. Make of that what you will. My point here is that Ehrman falsely claims no sources say this (when in fact several do) and misleads readers into thinking Wells just made this up, when in fact others have made the same argument, including:

• Alvar Ellegård, Jesus: One Hundred Years before Christ (Overlook 1999)
• Michael Wise, The First Messiah (Harper 1999)
• Frank Zindler, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew (American Atheist 2003)
• John Marco Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth (Prometheus 1984).

These are all arguably “fringe” scholars, and they may well be as wrong as Wells or even more so. I am not defending anything they argue (I do not believe Christianity originated in the 70s B.C.). I am merely pointing out that Ehrman misleads his readers (and demonstrates his shoddy and careless research) by not even mentioning any of this (neither the many other scholars nor the primary sources), but in fact even arrogantly and ignorantly declaring the contrary (that there are no sources that say this), as if he checked (which is what a naive reader will assume he did).

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026

I think a fair summary is that Carrier is making the point that there is some support for the theory that Christianity arose in the time of Janneaus (70BC) and thus Ehrman's claim that there is none isn't correct, but that he (Carrier) doesn't agree that Christianity arose in 70BC.

 

[clayflingythingy]

Until I started lurking these threads a few years ago it always seemed resonable that Jesus existed as some sort of rabble rousing holy man, pissed off the Romans (perhaps by creating a disturbance in the Temple) and got himself whacked.

I based this largely on"James, the lords brother" as reported by Paul. If the guy had a brother then he sure as heck had to exist. I was not aware the "lords brother" was disputed.

Now Piggy admits that the "lords brother" is in dispute and it is not 100% surefire to be the sibling of Jesus. For me, that's a big MINUS in the HJ column.

Now, I do not find Doherty to be a 100% slam dunk the way the Kapyong chap seemed to think a few years back. But Piggy sure as heck hasn't convinced me either.

Right now, I'm kinda leaning 50-50 on the HJ vs. MJ.

If Piggy can't bring anything better to the table it seems "we don't know" is the truthful answer.

 

[JaysonR]

Right now, I'm kinda leaning 50-50 on the HJ vs. MJ.

If Piggy can't bring anything better to the table it seems "we don't know" is the truthful answer.

'Stone' necro-posted in a 2008 thread today, and a jewel in that thread is Post #30 by cj.23.

He does a pretty good job paraphrasing a ton of material and general positions on the subject.
Most of his statements are in line with what I'm familiar with in historical circles at college.

You might find something interesting there perhaps.

 

[maximara]

Eight Bits;
Regarding Chrestus:
Suetonius does not give names without social context elsewhere.
In each case where a name occurs that is not a widely known name, their social station, or relation to another more recognized individual, is given.

The key flaw with this reasoning is the name Chrestus was common at the time, particularly for slaves, meaning good or useful. (R. T. France. The Evidence for Jesus. (2006) Regent College Publishing ISBN 1-57383-370-3. p. 42)

Moreover, while Chrestus was a common name among Roman slaves of the period it was NOT a common Jewish name (William L. Lane in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome edited by Karl Paul Donfried and Peter Richardson (1998) ISBN 0802842658 pp. 204-206)

Given that Chrestus was more commonly used regarding slaves then if it refereed to someone else (aka Jesus) then by the logic presented above Suetonius would have explained that Chrestus here was being used in a non standard way. As it stands the passage basically reads 'There was this slave named Chrestus that stirred up the Jews who we then kicked out of the city'.


The Nero 16 passage simply describes Christians as "a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition" but De vita Caesarum was written in 121 CE roughly 10 years after Pliny the Younger's letter which shows that even Roman's authority knowledge of Christianity was rising to nil and Pliny gives us more information then Suetonius does and his letter was basically 'I have a bunch of these superstitious weirdos who I know I am supposed to put on trial but I have no idea on the proper procedure and so need your advice'.

 

[davefoc]

'Stone' necro-posted in a 2008 thread today, and a jewel in that thread is Post #30 by cj.23.

He does a pretty good job paraphrasing a ton of material and general positions on the subject.
Most of his statements are in line with what I'm familiar with in historical circles at college.

You might find something interesting there perhaps.

I have a hard time taking anything seriously that begins:

1. Historiography - Jesus is actually better attested than almost any figure from the 1st century who is not owing to say Emperor status commonly represented in the archaeological record by artifacts....

This is patent BS. Anybody that starts out a list of evidence for the HJ like this makes it hard for me to take anything else he says seriously.

 

[JaysonR]

The key flaw with this reasoning is the name Chrestus was common at the time, particularly for slaves, meaning good or useful. (R. T. France. The Evidence for Jesus. (2006) Regent College Publishing ISBN 1-57383-370-3. p. 42)

Moreover, while Chrestus was a common name among Roman slaves of the period it was NOT a common Jewish name (William L. Lane in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome edited by Karl Paul Donfried and Peter Richardson (1998) ISBN 0802842658 pp. 204-206)

This response does not address the reasoning that I outlined; that for this to be a name, it would be an unknown individual that requires contextual explanation as to who this was, since Suetonius does not make any entry in his texts elsewhere of names that do not have marked overt knowledge of who they are unless he also then states a relationship to a known figure in relation for context.

If this was an entry of a name, since it is not an overtly known name, then we should see Suetonius enter it in the same fashion as this: "and married Cornelia, daughter of that Cinna", which refers to Lucius Cornelius Cinna.

If we take Chrestus as a name, then it is not an overtly known individual (unlike all other standalone names in Suetonius' work), and is not given a relationship to any known individual.

Due to the context related to the Jewish community; there then only remains one variation of this entry that would make sense to the entry lacking any of Suetonius' treatment of unknown names; that he assumed this entry was well known.
Since we know Chrestus/Christus Chrestianus/Christianus entries did occur during this time, and because Suetonius considers this to be an obviously identified individual (by not mentioning any reference to another individual for context), and since the context is in regards to an unrest in the Jewish community; it stands reasonable for this to be an entry for the title of Jesus that was well noted to his station in social perception.

The Nero 16 passage simply describes Christians as "a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition" but De vita Caesarum was written in 121 CE roughtly 10 years after Pliny the Younger's letter which shows that even Roman's authority knowledge of Christianity was rising to nil and Pliny gives us more information then Suetonius does and his letter was basically 'I have a bunch of these superstitious weirdos who I know I am supposed to put on trial but I have no idea on the proper procedure and so need your advice'.

I did not cite Nero 16.

 

[JaysonR]

This is patent BS. Anybody that starts out a list of evidence for the HJ makes it hard for me to take anything else he says seriously.

I don't understand; why?

 

[davefoc]

I don't understand; why?

Because if it true, it is true in only the most trivial and misleading way. Only a very tiny percentage of people that lived in the first century to are attested to by name, so since Jesus was attested to by name that makes him better attested to than almost everybody else that lived in the first century.

The issue isn't whether or not the HJ was attested to but rather whether those attestations were reliable enough to sustain a strong belief that the HJ existed.

Not only does the argument imply that its conclusion is more important that it is, it implies that people who are skeptical about the strength of evidence for an HJ would be unaware of such a simplistic notion.

ETA: Or it implies that the NT isn't all that unreliable, which seems to be another nonsense argument that the author of that post makes a little farther down in his mostly bogus list of pro-HJ arguments.