There is a single inscription referring to someone whom archaeologists identify as Pontius Pilate and that *appears* to be authentic, as well as a few coins that could have been faked (that kind of thing has happened before). In light of the number of fake artifacts that have popped up in Palestine over the years, it's hardly a given that a few artifacts are 100% proof of his existence, let alone that he is anything like the character described in the New Testament. Try again.
Weird. I've no idea what you're trying to argue - certainly nothing apropos what I said. I never sought to claim that Pilate was anything like the character described in the New Testament; I merely noted that there's fairly solid evidence, both literary and archaeological, that he existed.
In contrast, there are *numerous* writings and artifacts that have been reliably dated back to the first and second centuries that confirm Christians existed at this time and that they firmly believed Christ existed. There are even some who were contemporaneous with him. You can't disprove them all.
Such as?
Delusional conspiracy theorists and atheists with axes to grind are not mainstream.
Christian fundamentalists say much the same thing about modern science, i.e. evolution, common descent, abiogenesis, global warming, etc. It doesn't much matter what they think.
In anyone's hands, it's a fallacious argument.
By the way, I've had an actual university course on the NT and no, the teacher did not try to claim that Christ didn't exist based on the reality that the Gospels were not eyewitness histories.
Well, there's a shift in the goalposts if ever there was one!
All I said was that university courses explode the believers' notion that the gospels are eyewitness accounts, period. This was specifically with reference to appeals to "general consensus."
In fact, if you had taken such a course that was any good--and had paid attention--you would have learned that the Gospels were never intended to be histories, but were, quite literally, intended as Christian propaganda, "good news" about Jesus...
Whatever the intent, it still offers nothing concrete in evidence for the existence of Jesus.
...and had a strongly oral element of stories passed around before any of them were written down.
'Oral tradition' is something that has been proposed (largely by conservative scholars attempting to bridge the decades-to-a-century-long gap between the ostensible time of Jesus and when the gospels were composed or manuscript fragments dated), but cannot be demonstrated. It is always an unevidenced form of special pleading.
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_place.htmIf the only evidence remaining of Alcoholics Anonymous two thousand years from now were the testimonials people gave of how AA helped them get clean, that still wouldn't be a good argument that AA did *not* exist.
An inappropriate comparison, since AA is a group, not a supposed person of whom fabulous supernatural tales are averred.
I'm sure you won't mind citing those "critical studies," then.
Sure thing.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/2000_detering_synoptic-apocalypse.pdfhttp://michaelturton2.blogspot.com/2005/05/was-detering-right-about-date-of-mark_22.htmlhttp://vridar.org/2007/02/10/little-apocalypse-and-the-bar-kochba-revolt/And I'm sure you'll have a perfectly good explanation for why our surviving manuscripts of Tacitus and Josephus should get a free pass when they are much later and could easily have been glossed or even completely made up in parts.
Where have I offered that "our surviving manuscripts of Tacitus and Josephus should get a free pass"?
As it happens, they
were glossed and even completely made up in parts.
Also, while Mark is considered the earliest of the surviving canonical Gospels, the lost "Q" Gospel is considered to be another source for the other two Synoptic Gospels, and some have argued that the heretical Gospel of Thomas was created even earlier.
Many scholars no longer rely upon a postulated "Q" gospel to explain the non-Markan Synoptic material. As for Thomas, it's generally dated to the mid-second century.
This, of course, is a complete load of handwaving codswallop and obfuscation. The Gospels first appear in fragmentary form, and as quotations, in the early 2nd century, and are dated to the 1st century. We know for a fact they exist that early on, as well as a bunch of Gospels now rejected as heretical, because early 2nd century Christian writers like Irenaeus talk about both and quote from them.
I should have said that the earliest
complete New Testament manuscript date to the 4th century. Tiny fragments of some NT texts have been dated to the mid-to-late 2nd century, although as always, believing scholars would like to make out that they're earlier.
The problem with citing Irenaeus or other early patristic sources is that those works generally do not independently survive except as quotations, usually in Eusebius, who constitutes the bottleneck for pretty much all pre-Nicene works. And the manuscripts of Eusebius are 10th century and later, leaving plenty of room for doubt that even his works are untampered. A lot of traditionalist or conservative scholars like to cite Irenaeus, Clement, Justin, Polycarp, etc., etc., without ever realizing the issues with transmission and reliability of these works. Conclusions can only tentatively be drawn from them, depending upon the purported author; patristic sources are not all equal, with certain of them (like Ignatius of Antioch) being entirely fabricated from whole cloth and worthless as testimony.
So, what? For all we know, neither Tacitus nor Josephus wrote the works attributed to them, either. The works still exist... This can apply to a lot of non-Christian sources of the time as well, like Josephus.
It makes a difference what was added and when. The two Christian references in the works of Josephus do not antedate the 4th century, and current scholarship holds that they were added by Eusebius. The relevant volume of Tacitus's Annals, 15:44, was unknown and unattested prior to the 16th century, when a single pair of Medicean manuscripts turned up in the Laurentian Library in Florence, Italy, dating to the 11th century.
Again, so what? The argument here is whether or not Jesus existed, not what kind of person he was.
Right. There's no relevant evidence that he did.
It is hardly earthshaking news to mainstream biblical scholars that Christians had major early debates about Jesus and his true nature, whether or not he was the Son of God, whether he was human or divine, who was the Son of Man, and so on.
Sure, from the 2nd century onward. It seriously picked up in the 4th century.
It does not change the fact that Roman writers discussed the persecution of Christians (i.e., followers of Christ) quite matter-of-factly as early as Nero's persecution shortly after Rome burned in 64 CE, a mere 34 years after Jesus' crucifixion, and to those hostile sources, the question of whether Jesus existed was a non-issue.
There are issues with those Roman authors, with specific texts. The problem is mainly exclusive Christian transmission, and the fact that they're unattested, even by Eusebius who, had such been available in his time, would have abundantly commented on them.
As cfwente points out, claiming he never existed would have been an easy way to seek to discredit the Christians, but writers like Tacitus and Suetonius and Josephus didn't even bother.
Poor cfwente - he seems to labor under the misimpression that Tacitus and Josephus actually made "potent argument against the faith they so despised," when the best evidence suggests they did not. Josephus neither knew nor heard of Christians - both passages in
Antiquities are 4th century Christian interpolations. The same would appear to be the case with Tacitus Annals 15:44, but from even later.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm § "Precisely the point of a
lonnnng dinin' table."
reply
share
cfwente
8 years ago
A short response from "poor" me:
I haven't the energy (or patience) to provide details beyond that which I've already posted on this thread. Suffice it to say, then, that re Grazie's final paragraph -- he's simply wrong (beside his having quoted me wrong), as he is elsewhere earlier in the post.
First, what he calls "critical studies" do not include the arguments of Hermann Detering (which he links), who has resurrected the late 19th century positions of the Dutch school of radical criticism re the canonical Gospels and the authorship of Paul of Tarsus of much of it, among other things. This is interesting stuff and worth a look but clearly out of the mainstream of both Biblical and historical scholarly criticism.
Second, to find out what is generally regarded as extra-biblical affirmation of the historicity of Jesus, I would recommend:
Robert Van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament. This huge collection includes the writings (with expert translations) of exra-biblical offerings from Tacitus, Josephus (including commentaries re later additions and/or forgeries to the original texts acknowledged to be by Josephus himself), Pliny the Younger, Celsus, Suetonius, Thallos, Serapon, Lucian of Samosata, and several Rabbinic traditions. The book is HEAVILY documented and also includes much information re source materials for the canonical gospels.
Additionally, I'd suggest Steve Mason's (prof. of history & Canada Research Chair in Greco-Roman Cultural Interaction @ York University, Toronto) Josephus and the New Testament if you want to know more about the entire catalogue of Josephus' output (necessary to understanding individual passages and their "logical" connection with one another and the historical Jesus). Prof. Mason is the General Editor of the twelve volume series -- Flavius Josephus - Translation and Commentary.
reply
share
Grazie_Noel_63
8 years ago
A short response from "poor" me:
I haven't the energy (or patience) to provide details beyond that which I've already posted on this thread. Suffice it to say, then, that re Grazie's final paragraph -- he's simply wrong (beside his having quoted me wrong), as he is elsewhere earlier in the post.
Yes, "poor" you. (Whatever happened to your older "cwente" identity?)
In replying to me, you speak of me in the second person, as if to someone else. If that was intended to be thesnowleopard, you should have clicked 'reply' on his post, not mine.
You said this to me back on June 26:
Not to mention, the principle critics of that religion (Tacitus, Josephus), and from a time which would have had access to official documents, never claimed the man himself never existed, which would have been their most potent argument against the faith they so despised.
Of this statement I said, "Poor cfwente - he seems to labor under the misimpression that Tacitus and Josephus actually made "potent argument against the faith they so despised," when the best evidence suggests they did not. Josephus neither knew nor heard of Christians - both passages in Antiquities are 4th century Christian interpolations. The same would appear to be the case with Tacitus Annals 15:44, but from even later."
I didn't quote you wrong, or misunderstand you.
First, what he calls "critical studies" do not include the arguments of Hermann Detering (which he links), who has resurrected the late 19th century positions of the Dutch school of radical criticism re the canonical Gospels and the authorship of Paul of Tarsus of much of it, among other things. This is interesting stuff and worth a look but clearly out of the mainstream of both Biblical and historical scholarly criticism.
Yes, Hermann Detering and the Dutch Radicals constitute "critical studies," as opposed to
apologetical studies intended for the consumption of believers and the edification of their faith (like theologian Robert Van Voorst's output). The work of the Tübingen school of higher criticism, along with the Dutch Radicals, was never answered by the more recent "mainstream of both Biblical and historical scholarly criticism," as you term it. Rather, the "mainstream" scholars have largely preferred to do with them precisely as you've done with the sources I offered on the dating of Mark - brush it aside as being too old (like your own reference to the 19th century - funny, that: German higher criticism is too old to be considered, but not nearly as old as the biblical texts and traditional Church positions maximalists prefer to support), or the self-serving argument that it's not what the majority have decided to settle upon.
I don't think that Steve Mason's
Josephus and the New Testament, originally published in 1992, would offer much bearing on the issue of the Testimonia Flaviana that hasn't been superceded by more recent scholarship by Ken Olson and others (although I suspect Mason's work isn't as helpful to the apologetical position as you suppose).
http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5871 § "Precisely the point of a
lonnnng dinin' table."
reply
share
cfwente
8 years ago
A couple of points:
Re your "second person" remarks -- sometimes I get confused as to who I'm actually talking to on these threads. Generally, my comments are intended to make a point to anyone glancing through the array of comments available. Thus, the second person. Apparently, you got the gist, so ... Anyway, thanks for the reminder about how to work the system here.
Re Tacitus and Josephus, the material passages are not among those considered to be the ones tampered with by latter day Christian translators. They don't sound at all like other passages which may have been (rather obviously) tampered with according to an overwhelming majority of scholars. Yes, a "majority" doesn't make for the "right" interpretation. But, since we're concerned about probabilities (via language, style, and sentiment) rather than certainties in such examinations, the number who believe A rather than B has a bearing. Eg., if you invite four qualified doctors to examine a pain in your stomach and three of them tell you you have a tumor and the fourth says you merely have indigestion, do you simply say "thanks" and rush out to buy a bottle of Tums?
I never brush anything aside for its being old. I didn't do that here. I merely pointed out that it's been around a long time -- but that it's worth a look.
"Despised" is more accurately applied to Tacitus than Josephus, true. But, given Josephus' long-term advocacy for the philosophies and wisdom of Judaism among the Romans, it's unlikely he was a fan of Christianity -- whatever he knew about it. And, he probably did know of its existence as demonstrated by his incidental comments relating to the "James" he discusses in Book 20 of Antiquities.
Btw, what is this "best evidence" that provides you with the 'certainty' that Josephus "never knew or heard of Christians", or that Tacitus didn't make an argument against them? Tacitus does so in his biography of Nero in Annals, translated from the Latin by Van Voorst. It's written in Tacitus' precise and unambiguous style and rife with contempt for those this most careful of Rome's historians called "Chrestians".
How do you know that the conclusions of Van Voorst and others are based upon a preconceived agenda -- and the minimalists' are not?
Finally, are you suggesting that Mason's Josephus is "old" and, therefore, should be "brushed aside"?
reply
share