Did Pontius Pilate exist?

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have began something I might soon regret. How have you verified that you are the most sincere seeker of God on earth through out history?

Hey, if I need to explain that to you, you can never understand it. How does any prophet of God know that he is the one.

Have you secluded yourself away from people in a cave with all the texts you could find for 30 years as the early saints did?

I don't worship texts. Those are just the words of other men. I worship God.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Because I want to know if the historical-Jesus crowd is involved in special pleading, as it seems to me.

How so? Let's say (for the sake of argument), that not only are there no parallels we know of (which isn't saying much, given how little remains), but also that there were never any cases of close to identical instances of plagairism. Why on earth would that tell us anything, given that literature in general has countless cases of "firsts" in that there are any number of novel exemplars, trends, twists, etc., in the history of texts in which we see something we couldn't before? Here we have a unique cultural/religious situation (a Jewish sect which is quickly become something else). If we didn't have literature which was at least somewhat unique, we should be suspicious. Actually, this is a criterion often invoked in historical Jesus studies about Jesus himself. If some portrayal of Jesus involves something which is unusual for a first century Jewish teacher/prophet/sect leader, and is not something we see as part of Christian tradition (the way that, for instance, the passion narrative is), then it's more likely to come from Jesus (and less likely to be something that early Christians read back into the Jesus tradition or invented). Given novel situations, we expect novelty.

This is all so vague that I can't find anything useful in it. Can you point to three books, from any time or any culture, which claim to be independent accounts but which share so much parallel language as the synoptics?

1) The gospels aren't books (and they weren't "published").
2) They don't claim to be independent. They don't claim much of anything (other than Luke). That in and of itself is telling. Most works, from the preface to Herodotus onward (and, actually, even myth) begin with claims about what the author/composer intends. But the gospels (with the exception of Luke) do not.
3) The Talmud and the Mishnah involve similar plagairism

This seems off-point but I'm curious. You're saying that you don't believe in Q?

No, I am not saying that.

Really, Legion, doesn't such talk seem like an attempt at distraction from my point? I'm asking about language-tracking in different published texts, and you are arguing that all published texts are different. Not clean logic, is it?

You're asking about "language-tracking" in "published texts" in a time where this (publishing) has an entirely different meaning and regarding languages you can't read, and this is logical how?

Ah, here's a bit of possible meat. You are saying that books are published which contain chunks of text copied verbatim from Herodotus' work? And these books purport to be (and are accepted as) independent accounts of various events?

How to Write History, Thucydides' work, and others all alluded to Herodotus without doing so directly. Herodotus begins with a lengthy account taken largely from Homer, but without citing it. The problem is, again, that most of the histories which survive have two problems which make relating these to the gospels useless in the way you wish:
1) There are no parallel accounts of events
2) The authors are well-known, highly literature, and upper class.

The gospels belong to a unique literary tradition in part simply because that most such works (those composed in fairly poor, or very poor, Greek by rather or very poor anonymous authors) don't survive. Of course, few works survive in general, but we know more about most works from "known" authors (including many known only by references in other texts) than we do about the countless unknown authors or little read works. Again, this is simply an accident of history: the early Christians preserved certain texts, and then became the majority. As a result, we have so much textual evidence for the N.T. that no other ancient work before or after (until many centuries later) is so well documented or preserved.

OK. So you're saying that Matthew and Luke knew that they were not writing independent accounts of Jesus' life? Instead, they were building a theological basis for a new religion?

What's independent? Try taking a look at how oral cultures tend to work. Even today, witnesses to an event tend to spread the word quickly, but in oral cultures not only do teachers (from the ancient Greeks to Jesus to the Rabbis to homilies in modern illiterate communities) tend to make their teachings easily remembered, formulaic, and/or such that someone else repeats them in an easily remembered way, but the transmission of such teachins becomes relatively fixed early on. Q may never have been written, and like Mark, it certainly represents a pre-textual tradition. Matthew and Luke were doing something unusual: setting in writing a largely oral tradition for a largely illiterate community. This was required mainly because of the spread of the churches and the increasingly lack of a "home base". We see the same in the rabbinic traditions and texts. They weren't trying to create a new religion, but set in writing traditions which were well-known to be distributed to the growing sect/religion that was and to recount the history/biography of Jesus.

But that concedes my point, doesn't it? My point is that the Jesus stories are revisions, not independent accounts.

If two eyewitnesses talk to each other, it's no longer "independent". That's why detectives/police try to seperate witnesses (so that accounts aren't tainted). But that's the judicial system. From reporters to historians to ancient historians, things worked differently. We're told long before the gospels existed that historians should seek either to report what they see or that which they are told by eyewitnesses if possible. Before Mark existed there were no "independent" accounts. That's not the way oral cultures work. While Jesus was living, there were no "independent" accounts. This term is meaningless.

Copying scripture?? So Matthew and Luke were not writing about the life of Jesus?

They were writing about a Jew who was supposed to be a figure foreseen by Jewish prophecy. Which meant reinterpreting Jesus in light of Jewish scripture and Jesus' life. For the Rabbis, it means much the same, only without a single figure at the nexus.

So are you agreeing with me? Matthew and Luke are not independent accounts

I'm saying that the term "independent accounts" is a meaningless one; an anachronism and a cultural misunderstanding as well.

Q is a sayings' source. So why do you assume that Jesus was being quoted in Q, rather than it being a collection of graffiti from the temple wall? (Serious question. Upon what evidence do you accept the sayings as having come from a man named Jesus?)

Because his name is given frequently. In fact, it's not entirely clear that it is purely a sayings source. Dunn has a nice analysis of an event, not a saying, which is too close grammatically/lexically in Matthew and Luke to be the result a coincidence, yet is not in Mark. Further, have you actually studied graffiti from ancient Greece or Rome? A professor I had did this for her living (or specialty). And I've read plenty (it's awful; those of us who are used to reading ancient Greek and Latin in modern typeface have enough problems reading actual ancient copies of manuscripts, let alone worn scratches on Pompei walls or inscriptions), thankfully most of which have captions with modern ancient greek scripts so that I didn't have to actually decipher the inscriptions or scrawls themselves. There is no way that these are examples of such material. And they have far too much in common to simply be random collections of sayings (which would be likewise without parallel).

In fact, as long as we're talking about a lack of parallels, there is no parallel for numerous authors to write about various events in known historical places in recent times which are mythological or fictional. There is far more in common between the gospels an other ancient histories than there is between such a situation and any actual situation we know of. This would be a truly unparalleled first.

set against the massive evidence for a mythical Jesus

Which is what, exactly? Some Jungian hero archetype and an argument from silence?

If you care to debate the Paul-met-James business, though, I'll be glad to examine it with you. It's probably time for me to form an informed opinion about it.

It involves a close look at ancient greek.

 

[steeltoes]

Oral tradition? Matthew and Luke provide entirely different birth stories while Mark and John didn't provide one at all. The post resurrection stories vary as well. The epistles say nothing of Galilee, disciples, Judas, Mary, an empty tomb etc. Paul drew from his ancient scriptures combined with his "visions" of a resurrected Christ that he claimed to communicate with. That does not reflect oral tradition. If anything Christianity appears to be based on a written tradition. Sure, some oral no doubt, but as a pre-existing tradition, I wouldn't put money on it, not that any of this can ever be resolved.

All we have is literature believed to be true by people joining a religion. A subjective exercise, mere opinions and very little in the way of facts if any at all, after all, this Jesus is a religious figure, and oh so mysterious.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

How so? Let's say (for the sake of argument), that not only are there no parallels we know of (which isn't saying much, given how little remains), but also that there were never any cases of close to identical instances of plagairism. Why on earth would that tell us anything, given that literature in general has countless cases of "firsts" in that there are any number of novel exemplars, trends, twists, etc., in the history of texts in which we see something we couldn't before?

So gospel plagiarism can be explained away as 'a first'? OK, where are all the seconds? Can you list a few of them for me?

Here we have a unique cultural/religious situation (a Jewish sect which is quickly become something else). If we didn't have literature which was at least somewhat unique, we should be suspicious.

Legion, I know that you are educated, with many academic pursuits, but I have to say that I just don't find our thinking skills to be compatible.

Often when I object to some specific item (plagiarism), you change my objection into something way more general (uniqueness) and then you demonstrate how uniqueness is just fine. You argue for 'uniqueness' as if I have objected to uniqueness, when actually uniqueness has nothing to do with anything I've said. Maybe it's you and maybe it's me, but I feel like I'm wasting my time. This doesn't mean that I won't exchange messages with you, but I'm going to be passing over or condensing much of the material.

How to Write History, Thucydides' work, and others all alluded to Herodotus without doing so directly.

I find this to be another example of your style of argumentation. 1) You seemed to imply that other writers copied blocks of texts from Herodotus. 2) I asked you for the names of those books. 3) Now you answer that other books 'alluded to' Herodotus.

OK. Whatever.

The gospels belong to a unique literary tradition in part simply because that most such works (those composed in fairly poor, or very poor, Greek by rather or very poor anonymous authors) don't survive. Of course, few works survive in general, but we know more about most works from "known" author (including many known only by references in other texts) than we do about the countless unknown authors or little read works. Again, this is simply an accident of history: the early Christians preserved certain texts, and then became the majority. As a result, we have so much textual evidence for the N.T. that no other ancient work before or after (until many centuries later) is so well documented or preserved.

If I understand your paragraph, I have no idea how it relates to our dialogue. All writings are unique, and the NT survived because it is theology rather than history. So... what is your point here?

Matthew and Luke were doing something unusual: setting in writing a largely oral tradition for a largely illiterate community. This was required mainly because of the spread of the churches and the increasingly lack of a "home base". We see the same in the rabbinic traditions and texts. They weren't trying to create a new religion, but set in writing traditions which were well-known to be distributed to the growing sect/religion that was and to recount the history/biography of Jesus.

Really, I think our debate is done. If you agree with me that M&L were not independent recountings of Jesus' life, then I'm not sure what we are debating. You seem to agree that they are revisions of older material, but most Christians don't see it that way. They tend to think of the four gospelers as four different guys telling the Jesus story.

I myself see the four canonical gospels as I see the Book of Mormon or Anne Rice's vampire tales. Some character (Jesus/vampires) is used by a new writer to tell a different story, from a different angle. Rice and Smith probably used old texts, oral stories, 'eyewitnesses', and all the sources which you seem to agree were used by the gospelers.

Before Mark existed there were no "independent" accounts. That's not the way oral cultures work. While Jesus was living, there were no "independent" accounts. This term is meaningless.

It may be meaningless to you, but it's not meaningless to others. Most people reckon that if four guys witness the same events, those four guys can go home and each write an independent story about what happened. I'm pretty sure that's how many or most Christians think about the gospels.

Regarding the 'oral' business: You're thinking that even though Jesus made no mark on the cultural consciousness during his lifetime, probably went unnoticed by virtually everyone, still there were oral stories created about him and fixed in stone within 30-40 years of his life?

Why would you believe that?

[Matthew&Luke] were writing about a Jew who was supposed to be a figure foreseen by Jewish prophecy. Which meant reinterpreting Jesus in light of Jewish scripture and Jesus' life.

OK. To me it sounds like straight theology and nothing to do with any acurate portrayal of an historical person.

I'm saying that the term "independent accounts" is a meaningless one; an anachronism and a cultural misunderstanding as well.

That's a fine opinion. I can see how viewing the term that way would make you feel more comfortable with your position.

Because his name is given frequently.

OK. I have no problem imagining that 'Mithras' (or another godman) was replaced with 'Jesus' on a list of fancy sayings when the new religion was beginning. So I don't see Q or Thomas as any sort of good evidence for an historical Jesus.

Further, have you actually studied graffiti from ancient Greece or Rome?

Forgive me. I forgot what a literalist you can be. I will try my best to adjust myself to you if we continue talking. Next time I will say 'special sayings' instead of the shortcut term 'graffiti.'

Which is what, exactly? Some Jungian hero archetype and an argument from silence?

I find it so curious how you seem unable to divorce yourself from things academic. 'Jungian hero archetype' made me giggle.

If you'd ever like to know how I feel about academia, you're welcome to ask.

It involves a close look at ancient greek.

No, it only involves reviewing the major arguments by those who have specialized in studying the ancient Greek and who have formed opinions about the word 'brother.' I'd trust an opinion formed in that way much more than I would trust an opinion formed by studying the Greek myself. Too much possible bias in the latter method.

It's like the legitimacy of Israel. I don't have to become an expert in that particular history in order to form a good opinion. In fact, I probably wouldn't undertake such a study unless I already had a self-interest (bias) to spur me to it.

No, the best way is to listen to the experts argue and to ask them questions.

Of course, each expert (both pro and con) is likely to try and assert his dominance over me by making brute appeals to his own authority and my lack of a history PhD in Middle-Eastern studies... but I don't take that sort of argument seriously.

 

[1robin]

Hey, if I need to explain that to you, you can never understand it. How does any prophet of God know that he is the one.

I did not ask for an explanation for a prophet. I asked how you know this:

No one seeks God more sincerely than I do. It's just not possible.

You could not possibly know that whether it was true or not.

I don't worship texts. Those are just the words of other men. I worship God.

I never said they worshiped texts either, nor did I say that is all they relied upon. Some of them are claimed to have done miracles but that is not the point. You claimed you seek God more than anyone else. You can't know that so I see the only escape for that is to simply declare anything anyone does more than you do an invalid action. That is like saying I am the fastest man in the world if everyone faster than me is ignored for some arbitrary reason that I will make up as needed.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I did not ask for an explanation for a prophet. I asked how you know this: You could not possibly know that whether it was true or not.

Then no prophet can ever know that he is a prophet. And so none of us can ever know that anyone else was ever a prophet.

Hmmm... it almost sounds like each one of us can do no more than form a personal opinion about truth and God. Does that make you uncomfortable, such a truth?

Some of them are claimed to have done miracles but that is not the point.

Well, it means that something was wrong with their claims. Prophets don't do miracles, after all.

You claimed you seek God more than anyone else.

No. I didn't. I claimed that no one seeks God more (sincerely) than me. That would be impossible.

You can't know that....

Then no one can know anything.

... so I see the only escape for that is to simply declare anything anyone does more than you do an invalid action. That is like saying I am the fastest man in the world if everyone faster than me is ignored for some arbitrary reason that I will make up as needed.

Bring me a man who is faster than me. If he beats me in a race, I will acknowledge him as faster.

Bring me a man who seeks God more truly than I do. If he does seeks God more truly than I do, I will acknowledge him as a better God seeker than I am.

Let's run the test.

 

[outhouse]

Legion, I know that you are educated, with many academic pursuits, but I have to say that I just don't find our thinking skills to be compatible.

.

Isnt this kind of a cop out?

You claimed the same with me.



When opposed with a question you dont like the answer too, the above statement shows up.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Isnt this kind of a cop out?

You claimed the same with me.

When opposed with a question you dont like the answer too, the above statement shows up.

No, you're mistaken. In your case, I don't understand very many of your positions and questions. In Legion's case, I was just trying to be polite. I understood his thinking and his position. I just didn't admire it.

 

[1robin]

Then no prophet can ever know that he is a prophet. And so none of us can ever know that anyone else was ever a prophet.

I am afraid I have wondered into the ambiguous forest where right is wrong and up is down. I did not ask anything at all about a prophet. Forget prophet. You said you seek God more than anyone on Earth. I do not care about a prophet here. Prove how you know you seek God harder than anyone else?

Hmmm... it almost sounds like each one of us can do no more than form a personal opinion about truth and God. Does that make you uncomfortable, such a truth?

Being a prophet may result from X ( i do not think so but for the sake of arguement) however I want proof you did X more than anyone else.

Well, it means that something was wrong with their claims. Prophets don't do miracles, after all.

Actually in the most accepted religous text in human history that is exactly how you are to know a prophet from someoen who claims to be one. Even in Islam the people told Muhammad to do a miracle like the old prophets did to prove his commission. That accounts for 50% of humans and most religious people. Judaism is the same. However I do not care about prophets I care about you proving what you claimed and the word prophet does not even appear in your statement. Let me give it to you again: No one seeks God more sincerely than I do. It's just not possible.

In fact prove either one of those statements.

No. I didn't. I claimed that no one seeks God more (sincerely) than me. That would be impossible.

I am not saying you don't I am saying how do you know this.

Then no one can know anything.

That makes no sense what so ever. Of course my expecting it to make sense does not make any sense either.

Bring me a man who is faster than me. If he beats me in a race, I will acknowledge him as faster.

That has nothing to do with anything. You said you were the most X. There fore you have the burden of proof. I do not have to dissprove you.

Bring me a man who seeks God more truly than I do. If he does seeks God more truly than I do, I will acknowledge him as a better God seeker than I am.

No

Let's run the test.

NO. Your claim, your burden. You would gain more or any at all credability if you simply said you made an innacurate statement and asked to clarify it. There is no need for red hearings and burden of proof shifting.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Actually in the most accepted religous text in human history that is exactly how you are to know a prophet from someoen who claims to be one. Even in Islam the people told Muhammad to do a miracle like the old prophets did to prove his commission.

Yes, I'm aware of how the old religions worked.

I am not saying you don't I am saying how do you know this.

How do you know that you love to dance in the moonlight?

Beats me. Some things we just know.

Anyway, we've gotten a long way from Pontius Pilate. I'll be glad to have this conversation with you in a new thread, though, if you feel passionate enough about it to create one.

 

[1robin]

Yes, I'm aware of how the old religions worked.

What makes a religion still more active today than any other old?

How do you know that you love to dance in the moonlight?

You actually have access to what you love. You do not have access to knowing that you are more sincere than anybody else.

Beats me. Some things we just know.

That is not one of them. That is one of the things you just make up and when you can't justify it you will not alter what you said,you simply make up more stuff and dig the grave deeper.

Anyway, we've gotten a long way from Pontius Pilate. I'll be glad to have this conversation with you in a new thread, though, if you feel passionate enough about it to create one.

Do not worry about it. The fact of the matter is I know very well you have no idea if you are more sincere than any one else or not and you can supply no reason what so ever to indicate why I would think you to be a prophet of anything. However you are still entertaining so rock on.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The fact of the matter is I know very well you have no idea if you are more sincere than any one else or not and you can supply no reason what so ever to indicate why I would think you to be a prophet of anything.

Start a new thread. One-on-one if you like.

 

[starlite]

I ask because discussing how we know Jesus existed appears to be more than some can bear. So, did Pontius Pilate exist and how do we know?

The Bible writer Luke in his account tells us that Pontious Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea during Jesus’ earthly ministry. (Lu 3:1) After Herod the Great’s son Archelaus was removed from being king over Judea, provincial governors were appointed by the emperor to rule the province, Pilate evidently being the fifth of these. Tiberius appointed him in 26 C.E., and his rule lasted ten years.

The only period of his life to receive historical notice is his Judean governorship. The one inscription known bearing his name was found in 1961 at Caesarea. It also refers to the “Tiberieum,” a building Pilate dedicated in honor of Tiberius.

Pilate’s tenure of office was not a peaceful one. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Pilate made a bad start as to his relations with his Jewish subjects. He sent Roman soldiers bearing standards with images of the emperor on them into Jerusalem at night. This move provoked great resentment; a delegation of Jews traveled to Caesarea to protest the presence of the standards and call for their removal. After five days of discussion, Pilate sought to frighten the petitioners with the threat of execution by his soldiers, but their determined refusal to yield caused him to accede to their request.—Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 55-59 (iii, 1).

Philo, a Jewish writer of the first century C.E. in Alexandria, Egypt, describes a somewhat similar act by Pilate evoking protest, this time involving gold shields bearing the names of Pilate and Tiberius, which shields Pilate placed in his quarters at Jerusalem. A Jewish appeal went to the emperor at Rome, and Pilate was ordered to remove the shields to Caesarea.—The Embassy to Gaius, XXXVIII, 299-305.

Josephus lists yet another disturbance. To construct an aqueduct to bring water into Jerusalem from a distance of about 40 km (25 mi), Pilate used money from the temple treasury at Jerusalem. Large crowds clamored against this act when Pilate made a visit to the city. Pilate sent disguised soldiers to mix in with the multitude and, at a signal, to attack them, resulting in Jews’ being injured and some being killed. (Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 60-62 [iii, 2]; The Jewish War, II, 175-177 [ix, 4])

Jewish writers, such as Philo, paint Pilate as an inflexible, self-willed man. (The Embassy to Gaius, XXXVIII, 301) He was concerned primarily with his position, what his superiors would say if they heard of further disturbances in his province, fearful of appearing to be overly lenient toward those accused of sedition.

Josephus reports that Pilate’s later removal from office resulted from complaints lodged by the Samaritans with Pilate’s immediate superior, the governor of Syria, Vitellius. The complaint was about Pilate’s slaughter of a number of Samaritans who were deluded by an impostor into assembling at Mount Gerizim in hopes of uncovering sacred treasures supposedly hidden there by Moses. Vitellius ordered Pilate to Rome to appear before Tiberius, and he put Marcellus in his place. Tiberius died in 37 C.E. while Pilate was still on his way to Rome. (Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 85-87 [iv, 1]; XVIII, 88, 89 [iv, 2]) History gives no reliable data as to the ultimate results of his trial. The historian Eusebius of the late third and early fourth centuries claims that Pilate was obliged to commit suicide during the reign of Tiberius’ successor Gaius (Caligula).—The Ecclesiastical History, II, VII, 1.

 

[steeltoes]

The Bible writer Luke in his account tells us that Pontious Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea during Jesus’ earthly ministry. (Lu 3:1) After Herod the Great’s son Archelaus was removed from being king over Judea, provincial governors were appointed by the emperor to rule the province, Pilate evidently being the fifth of these. Tiberius appointed him in 26 C.E., and his rule lasted ten years.

The only period of his life to receive historical notice is his Judean governorship. The one inscription known bearing his name was found in 1961 at Caesarea. It also refers to the “Tiberieum,” a building Pilate dedicated in honor of Tiberius.

Pilate’s tenure of office was not a peaceful one. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Pilate made a bad start as to his relations with his Jewish subjects. He sent Roman soldiers bearing standards with images of the emperor on them into Jerusalem at night. This move provoked great resentment; a delegation of Jews traveled to Caesarea to protest the presence of the standards and call for their removal. After five days of discussion, Pilate sought to frighten the petitioners with the threat of execution by his soldiers, but their determined refusal to yield caused him to accede to their request.—Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 55-59 (iii, 1).

Philo, a Jewish writer of the first century C.E. in Alexandria, Egypt, describes a somewhat similar act by Pilate evoking protest, this time involving gold shields bearing the names of Pilate and Tiberius, which shields Pilate placed in his quarters at Jerusalem. A Jewish appeal went to the emperor at Rome, and Pilate was ordered to remove the shields to Caesarea.—The Embassy to Gaius, XXXVIII, 299-305.

Josephus lists yet another disturbance. To construct an aqueduct to bring water into Jerusalem from a distance of about 40 km (25 mi), Pilate used money from the temple treasury at Jerusalem. Large crowds clamored against this act when Pilate made a visit to the city. Pilate sent disguised soldiers to mix in with the multitude and, at a signal, to attack them, resulting in Jews’ being injured and some being killed. (Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 60-62 [iii, 2]; The Jewish War, II, 175-177 [ix, 4])

Jewish writers, such as Philo, paint Pilate as an inflexible, self-willed man. (The Embassy to Gaius, XXXVIII, 301) He was concerned primarily with his position, what his superiors would say if they heard of further disturbances in his province, fearful of appearing to be overly lenient toward those accused of sedition.

Josephus reports that Pilate’s later removal from office resulted from complaints lodged by the Samaritans with Pilate’s immediate superior, the governor of Syria, Vitellius. The complaint was about Pilate’s slaughter of a number of Samaritans who were deluded by an impostor into assembling at Mount Gerizim in hopes of uncovering sacred treasures supposedly hidden there by Moses. Vitellius ordered Pilate to Rome to appear before Tiberius, and he put Marcellus in his place. Tiberius died in 37 C.E. while Pilate was still on his way to Rome. (Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 85-87 [iv, 1]; XVIII, 88, 89 [iv, 2]) History gives no reliable data as to the ultimate results of his trial. The historian Eusebius of the late third and early fourth centuries claims that Pilate was obliged to commit suicide during the reign of Tiberius’ successor Gaius (Caligula).—The Ecclesiastical History, II, VII, 1.

Yes, Philo had strong opinions regarding Pilate. Thanks for the info. Does the Pilate portrayed in the gospels match that of Philo's? I think not, but it is opinion.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So gospel plagiarism can be explained away as 'a first'? OK, where are all the seconds? Can you list a few of them for me?

You seem to have missed the most important part of my response. Mythicists who are as utterly ignorant of the issue as you are too often seek for that which means so little. Having little to no knowledge of the period, literature, culture, etc., in question, and even less knowledge of historiography and of the philosphy of history, you demand answers but give none. Can you list any ancient works which describe historical places, historical individuals, and events which took place recently, but did so intendending to be mythical? Or fiction? Almost 2000 years before historical fiction is around, you seek it. And you ask for comparisons? Can you offer any? Of your "hero" archetype (which you throw out so casually, as if this were anything more than some dreamt up schema you cannot support any more than you can your understanding of classical texts, nor can show evidence of except in the ramblings of pseudoscience and literary "theory", and, lest we forget, your own "authority")? No. You can't. I know. I've read all that there is to read of the ancient works which might be or would be comparable to the gospels.

You cannot read them, and do not know them. But that does not stop you from making the claims you do, or asking for the comparisons you do, even though you have none to offer.

And this is the bane of mythicists. It is so easy, so simple to spot contradictions or elements of ancient histories riddled with fairy tales. But to offer an explanation of evidence? Like actual historians? This is beyond the mythicist's capability. Because it involves actually explaining the sources (their nature, their origins) in a way that cannot be done by them. Cheap and worthless comparisons with myths that the "mythicists" knows only from summaries and modern culture. English speakers who know of Oedipus only through Freud, having neither read Sophocles in translation, nor the ability to read his works in the original.

Yet ignorance has not dissuaded you from your ability to comment upon that which you do not know. Take comfort in it; it is bliss.

 

[steeltoes]

You seem to have missed the most important part of my response. Mythicists who are as utterly ignorant of the issue as you are too often seek for that which means so little. Having little to no knowledge of the period, literature, culture, etc., in question, and even less knowledge of historiography and of the philosphy of history, you demand answers but give none. Can you list any ancient works which describe historical places, historical individuals, and events which took place recently, but did so intendending to be mythical? Or fiction? Almost 2000 years before historical fiction is around, you seek it. And you ask for comparisons? Can you offer any? Of your "hero" archetype (which you throw out so casually, as if this were anything more than some dreamt up schema you cannot support any more than you can your understanding of classical texts, nor can show evidence of except in the ramblings of pseudoscience and literary "theory", and, lest we forget, your own "authority")? No. You can't. I know. I've read all that there is to read of the ancient works which might be or would be comparable to the gospels.

You cannot read them, and do not know them. But that does not stop you from making the claims you do, or asking for the comparisons you do, even though you have none to offer.

And this is the bane of mythicists. It is so easy, so simple to spot contradictions or elements of ancient histories riddled with fairy tales. But to offer an explanation of evidence? Like actual historians? This is beyond the mythicist's capability. Because it involves actually explaining the sources (their nature, their origins) in a way that cannot be done by them. Cheap and worthless comparisons with myths that the "mythicists" knows only from summaries and modern culture. English speakers who know of Oedipus only through Freud, having neither read Sophocles in translation, nor the ability to read his works in the original.

Yet ignorance has not dissuaded you from your ability to comment upon that which you do not know. Take comfort in it; it is bliss.

Ad hominems don't make your case for you, in fact, they only prove to expose your bias towards this Jesus. So you've done the research and as you see it, it gives you the green light to go ahead and read your bible as if Jesus is historical. Anyone that opposes you is ignorant, and branded a "mythicist" with disdain, we got that much. There's a real hatred for those that question the status quo, as if it makes some kind of difference as to how this Jesus character is to be understood.

No one that ever wrote about this Jesus ever met the guy, as in no witnesses, so what are we reading and what makes anyone think they know what they are reading with any degree of certainty? Everybody has their own take on what this Jesus is all about because reading the woo and making sense of it is a subjective exercise, we know this because nothing is the same for everyone unless facts are available. I get a real charge out of those that claim to know it all, especially on this topic because there are no known facts. Reading The Bible literally is to read The Bible as if Jesus is historical, so we have to take it from literalistic, what else is new? It appears nothing has changed in two thousand years, and just to demonstrate that, here is what they said back then; 2 John 1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You seem to have missed the most important part of my response. Mythicists who are as utterly ignorant of the issue as you are too often seek for that which means so little. Having little to no knowledge of the period, literature, culture, etc., in question, and even less knowledge of historiography and of the philosphy of history, you demand answers but give none. Can you list any ancient works which describe historical places, historical individuals, and events which took place recently, but did so intendending to be mythical? Or fiction? Almost 2000 years before historical fiction is around, you seek it. And you ask for comparisons? Can you offer any? Of your "hero" archetype (which you throw out so casually, as if this were anything more than some dreamt up schema you cannot support any more than you can your understanding of classical texts, nor can show evidence of except in the ramblings of pseudoscience and literary "theory", and, lest we forget, your own "authority")? No. You can't. I know. I've read all that there is to read of the ancient works which might be or would be comparable to the gospels.

You cannot read them, and do not know them. But that does not stop you from making the claims you do, or asking for the comparisons you do, even though you have none to offer.

And this is the bane of mythicists. It is so easy, so simple to spot contradictions or elements of ancient histories riddled with fairy tales. But to offer an explanation of evidence? Like actual historians? This is beyond the mythicist's capability. Because it involves actually explaining the sources (their nature, their origins) in a way that cannot be done by them. Cheap and worthless comparisons with myths that the "mythicists" knows only from summaries and modern culture. English speakers who know of Oedipus only through Freud, having neither read Sophocles in translation, nor the ability to read his works in the original.

Yet ignorance has not dissuaded you from your ability to comment upon that which you do not know. Take comfort in it; it is bliss.

I'm sorry I've upset you, Legion. In my opinion, such an upset points to a serious insecurity about the issue itself.

For whatever that observation may be worth to you.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No one that ever wrote about this Jesus ever met the guy, as in no witnesses, so what are we reading and what makes anyone think they know what they are reading with any degree of certainty?

Humans lust for certainty, and some of us are unable to resist it.

In this case, many Christians see the historical Jesus as the very foundation of their worldviews, so it's frightening to have him challenged. I believe they're wrong. Their grandchildren will still be Christians even if Jesus becomes as mythical as Adam.

2 John 1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Thanks for posting that. Apparently there were those who falsified the historial Jesus during John's time. People whose parents probably lived as adults in 30 CE Jerusalem. I didn't know that we had evidence of that. Interesting.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Mythicists who are as utterly ignorant of the issue as you are too often seek for that which means so little. Having little to no knowledge of the period, literature, culture, etc., in question, and even less knowledge of historiography and ...

Historiography? Historiography? They don't need no stinkin' historiography. :no:

 

[1robin]

Start a new thread. One-on-one if you like.

No, if I have escaped from this vortex I do not think I will create a new one.