Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

You appear to be arguing against a Historical CHRIST, not Jesus.

Do you not understand the difference?

Please, please!!! You seem not to even understand or remember that you are actively arguing your HJ was the CHRIST in Josephus and CHRISTUS in Tacitus.

This is precisely your problem.

Every time I expose the absurdity of the HJ argument you change your story and contradict yourself.

At one time you claim your HJ is an itinerant preacher and at another convenient time he "TRANSFIGURES" and becomes the one called the CHRIST in Josephus.


You obviously do not know the difference between an itinerant preacher and the CHRIST.

If you knew the different between an itinerant preacher and the CHRIST you would not say that Jesus called the Christ in Josephus was your HJ.

1. Jesus called the Christ [the Anointed] in AJ 20.9.1 was ALIVE c 62 CE or when Albinus was procurator of Judea.

2. James the Lord's brother was ALIVE c 67-69 CE or after the death of Peter in the Recognitions.

Your HJ the itinerant preacher is NOT a Plausible option for the start of the Jesus cult of Christians if there are AUTHENTIC Pauline writings.

It was the Pauline Hallucination Jesus which was the IMPETUS for the Jesus cult if Pauline authenticity is accepted

Hallucination Jesus was extremely Plausible and that is precisely why Christians accepted the Pauline writings if they are authentic.

ONLY Hallucination Jesus can resurrect--without the resurrection the Christian Faith would be worthless.

 

[Brainache]

Please, please!!! You seem not to even understand or remember that you are actively arguing your HJ was the CHRIST in Josephus and CHRISTUS in Tacitus.

This is precisely your problem.

Every time I expose the absurdity of the HJ argument you change your story and contradict yourself.

At one time you claim your HJ is an itinerant preacher and at another convenient time he "TRANSFIGURES" and becomes the one called the CHRIST in Josephus.


You obviously do not know the difference between an itinerant preacher and the CHRIST.

If you knew the different between an itinerant preacher and the CHRIST you would not say that Jesus called the Christ in Josephus was your HJ.

1. Jesus called the Christ [the Anointed] in AJ 20.9.1 was ALIVE c 62 CE or when Albinus was procurator of Judea.

2. James the Lord's brother was ALIVE c 67-69 CE or after the death of Peter in the Recognitions.

Your HJ the itinerant preacher is NOT a Plausible option for the start of the Jesus cult of Christians if there are AUTHENTIC Pauline writings.

It was the Pauline Hallucination Jesus which was the IMPETUS for the Jesus cult if Pauline authenticity is accepted

Hallucination Jesus was extremely Plausible and that is precisely why Christians accepted the Pauline writings if they are authentic.

ONLY Hallucination Jesus can resurrect--without the resurrection the Christian Faith would be worthless.

This has always been and shall always remain a stupid argument.

It is possible to be a human being and to also have people call you by the title "Christ". In fact it is impossible in that time and place for a "Christ" to be anything else than a human being.

Just because hundreds of years later the word meant something else in a different culture proves nothing.

 

[maximara]

So what was Origen talking about all those years before Christian Scribes had a chance to tamper with Josephus?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen162.html

Please note that Origen doesn't provided a reference to where this is in Josephus but note what it also says:


"But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes dear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God."

To paraphrase Conan Doyle's creation "you see but you do not observe."

The bolded part points to a 69 CE death date for James the Just which is NOT supported by the 20.9.1 passage in Antiquities of the Jews. More over Origen states that Josephus directly stated that the destruction of Jerusalem was on account of James the Just not only here but in Against Celsus 1.47:

"For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice."

Please tell us where in Antiquities of the Jews Josephus says that the death of James the Just was the reason for the fall of Jerusalem or the Temple because it sure is NOT in the 20.9.1 passage:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was put upon the road; so he [Ananus, the Jewish high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, him called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

Please tell us wise ones, where in that is there anything about Josephus saying that the destruction of Jerusalem of the Temple was the punishment for the death of James the Just? Remember, Origen in two separate places in the same work claimed that Josephus wrote such a statement and in one he told us that it was in Antiquities of the Jews. So WHERE is that passage if not in 20.9.1, hmmm?

 

[Brainache]

Please note that Origen doesn't provided a reference to where this is in Josephus but note what it also says:


"But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes dear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God."

To paraphrase Conan Doyle's creation "you see but you do not observe."

The bolded part points to a 69 CE death date for James the Just which is NOT supported by the 20.9.1 passage in Antiquities of the Jews. More over Origen states that Josephus directly stated that the destruction of Jerusalem was on account of James the Just. Please tell us where in Antiquities of the Jews Josephus says such a thing because it sure is NOT in the the 20.9.1 passage.

It does no such thing, if you are familiar with Josephus. Josephus puts James' death at 64 CE and says that the later calamities of the war, siege and destruction of the Temple, could all be traced back to that event.

He never says that the Romans started invading the minute James died. Later misinterpreters of Origen thought that, because they didn't know their Josephus.

Once again we see an MJ argument that only works if you don't know the bigger picture.

 

[dejudge]

This has always been and shall always remain a stupid argument.

It is possible to be a human being and to also have people call you by the title "Christ". In fact it is impossible in that time and place for a "Christ" to be anything else than a human being.

Just because hundreds of years later the word meant something else in a different culture proves nothing.

Your argument will always make no logical sense because you have no evidence for what you assert.

And again, you have forgotten that you said there was NO Christ.

You have forgotten that it is claimed that TACITUS used Roman RECORDS of Christus in the 2nd century--80 years AFTER Jesus was supposedly crucified.

You have forgotten that Paul called Jesus the Christ and Son of God since 37-41 CE.

You FORGET that the Christ did NOT come up to 70 CE.

Do you remember the War of the Jews c 66-70 CE and the reason for the War??

Do you remember Vespasian?

You forget that the CHRIST did NOT come even up to 133 CE

Do you remember Simon Barchocebas?

If your Itinerant was NOT the Christ when he was ALIVE then it is virtually impossible for him to called the Christ after he was dead.

If one was NOT the Emperor of Rome when he was ALIVE SURELY he can't be after he is dead.

You do not understand that your itinerant preacher is NOT a plausible explanation for the Jesus cult of Christians. You have no evidence whatsoever.

It does not matter what you say because Jesus called the Christ in AJ 20.9.1 was ALIVE c 62 CE and James the Lord's brother was ALIVE c 67-69 CE in the Recognitions.

HJ the itinerant Jewish preacher is NOT Plausible if there are authentic Pauline writings.

It was the Hallucination Jesus which was Plausible and that is precisely why people believe in the Pauline Hallucinations.

 

[Brainache]

Your argument will always make no logical sense because you have no evidence for what you assert.

And again, you have forgotten that you said there was NO Christ.

You have forgotten that it is claimed that TACITUS used Roman RECORDS of Christus in the 2nd century--80 years AFTER Jesus was supposedly crucified.

You have forgotten that Paul called Jesus the Christ and Son of God since 37-41 CE.

You FORGET that the Christ did NOT come up to 70 CE.

Do you remember the War of the Jews c 66-70 CE and the reason for the War??

Do you remember Vespasian?

You forget that the CHRIST did NOT come even up to 133 CE

Do you remember Simon Barchocebas?

If your Itinerant was NOT the Christ when he was ALIVE then it is virtually impossible for him to called the Christ after he was dead.

If one was NOT the Emperor of Rome when he was ALIVE SURELY he can't be after he is dead.

You do not understand that your itinerant preacher is NOT a plausible explanation for the Jesus cult of Christians. You have no evidence whatsoever.

It does not matter what you say because Jesus called the Christ in AJ 20.9.1 was ALIVE c 62 CE and James the Lord's brother was ALIVE c 67-69 CE in the Recognitions.

HJ the itinerant Jewish preacher is NOT Plausible if there are authentic Pauline writings.

It was the Hallucination Jesus which was Plausible and that is precisely why people believe in the Pauline Hallucinations.

If you think you are making a valid point, you are mistaken.

 

[Craig B]

The character or name Satan does not first appear in Job. Satan appears in 1 Chronicles.

In my previous post I said that Satan

first appears making trouble for people (Job and his family) with God's full approval.

The Satan of 1 Chronicles is God, as you may read in 2 Samuel, where the same event is related.

1 Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. 2 And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beer-sheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it ... 7  And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel. 8 And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

Now who is it who provokes David to number Israel in the other account?

2 Sam 24:1 And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah ... 10 And David’s heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

Here we see Satan evolving before our very eyes. First God does the bad things, then he tells Satan to do them, as in Job. Finally Satan is made into the evil being, enemy of God, and some of the previous material is rewritten to incorporate this new idea. So much for the inerrancy of the Bible. Tells us God has done something, then says, oh by the way it was Satan who did it. And you happily believe all this stuff. Do believers never examine and analyse what they read, and compare one statement with another?

 

[dejudge]

HJ an obscure itinerant preacher explains NOTHING about the start of the Jesus cult of Christians and that is precisely why no itinerant preacher is in the Gospel but the Christ and Son of God, the Logos and God Creator

We have writings attributed to Philo and it is seen that Jews did NOT worship Men as Gods--Not even the Emperor of Rome.

We have writings attributed to Tacitus and he too will corroborate Philo--that Jews do NOT worship men as Gods.

GOD is a mental concept to the Jews.

Tacitus' Histories 5

......the Jews have purely mental conceptions of Deity, as one in essence.

They call those profane who make representations of God in human shape out of perishable materials.

They believe that Being to be supreme and eternal, neither capable of representation, nor of decay.

They therefore do not allow any images to stand in their cities, much less in their temples. This flattery is not paid to their kings, nor this honour to our Emperors.

HJ the unknown dead Jewish itinerant preacher is NOT Plausible because Jews and Romans would NOT worship him as a God since 37-41 CE.

You do not even know what your itinerant man preached.

Based on Tacitus, YOUR HJ is NOT Plausible.

Hallucination Jesus was plausible.

 

[Brainache]

HJ an obscure itinerant preacher explains NOTHING about the start of the Jesus cult of Christians and that is precisely why no itinerant preacher is in the Gospel but the Christ and Son of God, the Logos and God Creator

We have writings attributed to Philo and it is seen that Jews did NOT worship Men as Gods--Not even the Emperor of Rome.

We have writings attributed to Tacitus and he too will corroborate Philo--that Jews do NOT worship men as Gods.

GOD is a mental concept to the Jews.

Tacitus' Hiustories 5

HJ the unknown dead Jewish itinerant preacher is NOT Plausible because Jews and Romans would NOT worship him as a God since 37-41 CE.

You do not even know what your itinerant man preached.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html

Who were these guys?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

 

[Craig B]

Actually, the character in Job isn't Satan. Rather, he is ha satan, Hebrew for "the adversary" or "the accuser," ha being the definite article in Hebrew. He is not so much the devil as the devil's advocate, i.e. he's God's prosecutor. Ha satan isn't a name; it's a title. Unfortunately, most Christian Bibles are a bit sloppy about this. If you read a Jewish bible, you will find him identified as either "the accuser" or "the adversary."

I wrote my last post before I noticed this from you. Yes I agree, but I think that Satan had evolved into an independent evil personality by the time the story of David's census was rewritten in 1 Chronicles. I am not sure, but I think this is the only place where Satan appears in this form in the Tanakh.

 

[Craig B]

... HJ the unknown dead Jewish itinerant preacher is NOT Plausible because Jews and Romans would NOT worship him as a God since 37-41 CE.

Nobody has suggested that more than a few Jews or Romans had even heard of him in 37 - 41 CE. that's what "unknown" and "obscure " mean. Those few who had heard of him didn't worship him as a god either. That was a later development. The first source which more or less identifies him with God is John which is the latest of the gospels, dating to the early second century, in all probability. No HJ proponent here claims that Jesus was regarded by the general populace as a god during the reign of Gaius. What a ludicrous idea! You have no reason to refute this absurdity, which nobody but yourself has stated.

 

[dejudge]

It is the myther's stock in trade to deliberately confound the human Jesus of history with the fanciful Christ of Christian faith. I have come to the conclusion that that stock in trade is not applied out of real confusion but from an intent to confuse others. Despicable, of course.

Stone

What?? You are completely mistaken. It is HJers who argue that there are TWO separate characters in the NT.

In the NT, Jesus Christ is ONE single character--GOD in the Flesh.

There is NO human Jesus Christ of Nazareth in history.

Don't you conveniently use CHRISTUS in Tacitus to argue for YOUR Jesus?

Why?

Don't you use AJ 20.9.1 where a character called Jesus the Christ who was ALIVE in 62 CE to argue for YOUR Jesus who was dead since 33 CE?

Why?

Your HJ argument is confusing.

HJ does not make sense and is not a Plausible.

The Pauline Hallucination Jesus was Plausible that is why the NT contains 13 letters under the name of PAUL.

Hallucination Jesus resurrected--a prerequisite for Remission of Sins and the Christian Faith.

Your HJ was NOT Plausible and could not have met the required standard by the Pauline writers for the Christian Faith and Remission of Sins.

 

[Brainache]

What?? You are completely mistaken. It is HJers who argue that there are TWO separate characters in the NT.

In the NT, Jesus Christ is ONE single character--GOD in the Flesh.

There is NO human Jesus Christ of Nazareth in history.

Don't you conveniently use CHRISTUS in Tacitus to argue for YOUR Jesus?

Why?

Don't you use AJ 20.9.1 where a character called Jesus the Christ who was ALIVE in 62 CE to argue for YOUR Jesus who was dead since 33 CE?

Why?

Your HJ argument is confusing.

HJ does not make sense and is not a Plausible.

The Pauline Hallucination Jesus was Plausible that is why the NT contains 13 letters under the name of PAUL.

Hallucination Jesus resurrected--a prerequisite for Remission of Sins and the Christian Faith.

Your HJ was NOT Plausible and could not have met the required standard by the Pauline writers for the Christian Faith and Remission of Sins.

The discipline known as Textual Analysis is a very real thing.

Please try to learn a little bit about it before you attempt to analyse any more texts.

 

[eight bits]

Craig B

He first appears making trouble for people (Job and his family) with God's full approval.

True enough, but I've never encountered the English adjective satanic used in the sense of a faithful servant honorably performing a disagreeable or dodgy task. By the time the English language came into being, the Christian retrojection of its perspective onto "salvation history" was well along. By these pious lights, Satan first appears in Genesis, chatting up the Woman. As to order of composition, the beginning and ending of Job is a fine candidate for being among the earliest pieces anthologized into the canon.


zugzwang

Yes, there is a kind of equivocation over scientific evidence, legal evidence, and evidence as used in historical method. They seem to be quite different,

No, actually, the notion of evidence is nearly the same. The different domains pursue different objectives, which is reflected in the different heuristics each applies to the evidence avaialble.

As we have already seen in these threads, all users of evidence can choose heuristics to shape their error characteristic. So, for example, some rules of law reflect a conscious choice to be wrong more often than necessary, provided that the excess error falls disproportionately on the moving party. This is especially obvious in British-rooted civilian criminal proceedings.

Historians, we are told here, prefer completeness over accuracy (that is, better that everything that is true be said than that everything that is said be true), and seem to adopt a pre-systematic posture of certainty, rather than to present their estimation of the prospects for error.

Ironically, American medicine used to be like that until the law, especially personal injury law, brought external accountability (as opposed to self- and peer-assessed aherence to professional standards) to the field. "Doctor knows best" has been replaced by more realistic approaches to uncertain inference and decision making.

I am an optimist. In time, "historian knows best" will similarly be replaced by something more in keeping with domain-independent norms of rationality. In fact, as I have said before, I am sceptical that the actual practice of history is as benighted as it has been portrayed by the profession's "asvocates."

For example, I think that ancient historians do look at hearsay stuff, partly because there is so little material to utilize.

But mostly because, like every other thing whatsoever that can be observed, and which might be more likely to be observed under some uncertain situations than others, it is competent to serve as evidence.

 

[dejudge]

It is most laughable that the same people who vehemently argue that THEIR Jesus was NOT the Christ use forgeries in Tacitus and Josephus with characters called Christus and Christ for THEIR HJ THE ITINERANT Preacher.

The history of HJ is a product of forgeries and fiction.

1. HJ was NOT the Christ.

2. Tacitus did NOT write Annals with Christus.

3. Jesus called the Christ was ALIVE c 62 CE.

HJ the Jewish itinerant preacher is NOT a plausible explanation for the start of Christianity.

We know what was Plausible in antiquity.

The NT was Plausible.

In the NT Jesus was the Son of God, the Logos and God Creator.

Jesus, the Son of God, born of a Ghost, the Logos and God Creator was extremely Plausible. No wonder there are hundreds of books about Jesus who was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

 

[IanS]

By that BIZARRE definition, all history is hearsay. You've just discounted all history, lock, stock and barrel. Many historians NEVER witness any of the things they chronicle. They go to earlier sources. Hearsay in the real world of ancient historiography, IanS, indicates just what the historian garners. It's his perspective that determines the hearsay, not the reader's! Sheesh! By the reader's perspective, all history is often hearsay -- if we go by your ignorant definition here.

Tacitus specifies up-front that everything he takes is from first-hand sources for him, unless otherwise specified (and it happens that he does so specify numerous times). He doesn't so specify for the execution of this one rabbi during the Tiberius years. So the logical conclusion is that this account doesn't come from hearsay. Tacitus had a first-hand source for him for umpteen different data points including this execution during Tiberius. If you jump up and down over Tacitus's birth date(!!!), you've just discounted 99.9% of all chronicles that have ever survived from the ancient world! That's sheer ignorance.

Stone

That is what ” Hearsay" is (ie by definition). That is why it's rarely admissible as evidence in legal cases (it's not reliable).

However it’s NOT true that we rely on hearsay throughout all of ancient history.

For all the non-religious figures in ancient history, what is vital to historians is not the individuals existence itself, but the ideas and the actions associated with their names. And those ideas and acts etc., are NOT known only from hearsay.

For example - someone here raised the case of Pythagoras (from way back in 500BC!) saying we did not have good evidence for him either, but saying everyone believes he existed. But what is historically important for Pythagoras is that we do know that around that time the philosophical and mathematical ideas that bear his name were produced ... it's the philosophical theories and the mathematical ideas that are essential to history, not whether Pythagoras was actually the person who produced it all (or whether he even existed at all). And that history of the Pythagorean school of philosophy is NOT known only from unsupported hearsay; those philosophical theories and their proponents are known from all manner of contemporary non-hearsay evidence.

The same applies to Julius Caesar and other early Roman emperors - whether Julius Caesar actually existed and whether or not he did all the things claimed in his name, is NOT the crucial factor for the study of ancient history. What is important to the history of that period is that the actions and events associated with the name “Julius Caesar” as the emperor, are known from absolutely mountains of contemporary evidence inc. all sorts of physically existing artefacts, buildings, remains of military invasions etc etc. … none of which is mere hearsay.

So whether the name itself is correct, ie Caesar or Pythagoras etc., and whether people of that name really existed as the person responsible for the events, what is certain is that the events really did occur and human people were responsible, whatever their names, and that is fully established from all manner of genuine evidence, and it does not rely only on mere hearsay.

However, that is emphatically NOT the case with Jesus.

In the case of entirely religious figures like Jesus, it is the existence of the figure himself that is crucial. If Jesus does not exist, then the entire basis of the Christian belief system is bogus.

Unlike Pythagoras or Julius Caesar, Jesus is not known from definite clear evidence of his actions and his discoveries etc. Jesus is only known from the hearsay of the biblical writers. And in fact in the case of the gospels, that hearsay is itself entirely anonymous too! That’s not merely bad and inadmissible, it’s actually far below even that unacceptably hopeless standard.

So in summary - that is why it is NOT true that ancient history depends mostly or entirely on just hearsay.

But in the case of Jesus, his claimed existence does depend entirely, not just on hearsay, but on multiply anonymous hearsay. And even that is known only from religious devotional copying anonymously produced centuries later.

 

[Craig B]

Craig B ... By these pious lights, Satan first appears in Genesis, chatting up the Woman. As to order of composition, the beginning and ending of Job is a fine candidate for being among the earliest pieces anthologized into the canon.

Agreed. Of course the Genesis story has nothing to do with any Satan. The serpent clearly represents a serpent in a mythical tale about how death came into the world. Snakes are pretty horrible, but they appear to live forever (by sloughing their skins and emerging seemingly rejuvenated) while humans live for a short time and die. Surely some serpentine evil must be responsible for this unsatisfactory state of things. In an earlier Mesopotamian version of the tale, the hero obtains a "herb of life" from the gods, but while he's on his way home a snake steals it. Snakes live, people die.

Thus the Genesis tale may have been incorporated into the canon later than Job, but it is a pre-existing myth. Job's composition probably doesn't much predate its canonisation, for it has the appearance of a literary work.

 

[Brainache]

That is what ” Hearsay" is (ie by definition). That is why it's rarely admissible as evidence in legal cases (it's not reliable).

However it’s NOT true that we rely on hearsay throughout all of ancient history.

For all the non-religious figures in ancient history, what is vital to historians is not the individuals existence itself, but the ideas and the actions associated with their names. And those ideas and acts etc., are NOT known only from hearsay.

For example - someone here raised the case of Pythagoras (from way back in 500BC!) saying we did not have good evidence for him either, but saying everyone believes he existed. But what is historically important for Pythagoras is that we do know that around that time the philosophical and mathematical ideas that bear his name were produced ... it's the philosophical theories and the mathematical ideas that are essential to history, not whether Pythagoras was actually the person who produced it all (or whether he even existed at all). And that history of the Pythagorean school of philosophy is NOT known only from unsupported hearsay; those philosophical theories and their proponents are known from all manner of contemporary non-hearsay evidence.

The same applies to Julius Caesar and other early Roman emperors - whether Julius Caesar actually existed and whether or not he did all the things claimed in his name, is NOT the crucial factor for the study of ancient history. What is important to the history of that period is that the actions and events associated with the name “Julius Caesar” as the emperor, are known from absolutely mountains of contemporary evidence inc. all sorts of physically existing artefacts, buildings, remains of military invasions etc etc. … none of which is mere hearsay.

So whether the name itself is correct, ie Caesar or Pythagoras etc., and whether people of that name really existed as the person responsible for the events, what is certain is that the events really did occur and human people were responsible, whatever their names, and that is fully established from all manner of genuine evidence, and it does not rely only on mere hearsay.

However, that is emphatically NOT the case with Jesus.

In the case of entirely religious figures like Jesus, it is the existence of the figure himself that is crucial. If Jesus does not exist, then the entire basis of the Christian belief system is bogus.

Unlike Pythagoras or Julius Caesar, Jesus is not known from definite clear evidence of his actions and his discoveries etc. Jesus is only known from the hearsay of the biblical writers. And in fact in the case of the gospels, that hearsay is itself entirely anonymous too! That’s not merely bad and inadmissible, it’s actually far below even that unacceptably hopeless standard.

So in summary - that is why it is NOT true that ancient history depends mostly or entirely on just hearsay.

But in the case of Jesus, his claimed existence does depend entirely, not just on hearsay, but on multiply anonymous hearsay. And even that is known only from religious devotional copying anonymously produced centuries later.

Do you have a source for any of that stuff you say about Pythagoras? Who were these contemporary "non hearsay" sources?

What did Pythagoras discover and how do you know that?

He will not answer any of these questions or provide a valid source.

 

[Belz...]

Your argument will always make no logical sense because you have no evidence for what you assert.

And now you are confusing logic and evidence. No surprise.

And again, you have forgotten

STOP IT.

 

[eight bits]

Craig B

Thus the Genesis tale may have been incorporated into the canon later than Job, but it is a pre-existing myth. Job's composition probably doesn't much predate its canonisation, for it has the appearance of a literary work.

Genesis 3 is hard to date because its content is just about wholly archetypal. The schema has been dreamt anew countless times each night since the ice melted, and projected by many wide-awake fathers onto Daddy's Little Princess growing up (often accompanied by her taking a shine to some shiftless nimrod like Adam; you'd think he was the only man in the world).

Job appears to be a composite work: an older wrapper (which would include the also archetypal Satan-God interaction) with a more recent filling (all that very Jewish talk among the friends and family about how Job must have had it coming).