Jesus was Myth

[outhouse]

if we had as much evidence for Jesus as we have for Pontius Pilate, which isn't much, this thread would not exist.

Which has only been known about for what 20 ish years? when the inscription was found?

 

[steeltoes]

Which has only been known about for what 20 ish years? when the inscription was found?

Philo, a contemporary, wrote about Pilate.

 

[outhouse]

Philo, a contemporary, wrote about Pilate.

Pilate a well known Roman political figure, being written about by a Hellenist from Egypt.


Who would really know about a Galilean teacher, and why would a Hellenist know about Jesus?


Jesus only action known to Hellenist was his actions in the temple, in which Hellenist made him famous for. Much more famous then Pilate ever amounted to be.

 

[steeltoes]

Pilate a well known Roman political figure, being written about by a Hellenist from Egypt.


Who would really know about a Galilean teacher, and why would a Hellenist know about Jesus?


Jesus only action known to Hellenist was his actions in the temple, in which Hellenist made him famous for. Much more famous then Pilate ever amounted to be.

Almost every last word we have on Jesus is written in Greek so you tell me what a Hellenist would know about Jesus.

However, that is neither here nor there, the point is that we have a contemporary that wrote about Pilate, a non biblical reference to Pilate from the first century, a writing that tells us when Pilate was Prefect.

As for famous here is an opinion, Pilate is most famous for the fictitious role he played at Jesus' trial, a trial that could not have taken place as written.

 

[nash8]

Almost every last word we have on Jesus is written in Greek so you tell me what a Hellenist would know about Jesus.

However, that is neither here nor there, the point is that we have a contemporary that wrote about Pilate, a non biblical reference to Pilate from the first century, a writing that tells us when Pilate was Prefect.

As for famous here is an opinion, Pilate is most famous for the fictitious role he played at Jesus' trial, a trial that could not have taken place as written.

Why could the trial have not taken place?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The mods have specifically warned about personal attacks in this thread, Legion, so I'm not going to respond to you.

How about we go one-on-one? I would love nothing more than to get you alone in a thread so we can hash some things out.

How about it. The (non)historical Jesus. You and me.

Do you think you might be ready for that?

Sure. Providing you actually answer questions I ask with something more than your personal experiences unless you can relate these to evidence from antiquity.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Almost every last word we have on Jesus is written in Greek

...that clearly shows a substratum of Aramaic (although I think that those like Casey who go from clear evidence to trying to reconstruct the Aramaic is reaching, to put it mildly).

However, that is neither here nor there, the point is that we have a contemporary that wrote about Pilate

And we do with Jesus. We know Paul was a contemporary and we don't know if the author of Mark was but he could be. What we do know is that while Philo was writing not only religiously biased texts but that we don't know what his source was. Also, instead of just copies of copies of copies, we have little more than a dozen manuscripts the earliest of which is from the 11th century, 1000+ years after Philo. We also know that the only other non-Christian from that time period was also writing biased religious texts in which Pilate's name came up. And the two accounts don't agree (nor do we have better manuscript evidence for Josephus, as is regularly pointed out by mythicists because unlike Philo Josephus mentions Jesus twice (once as an aside virtually no specialists thinks interpolated, and once in a clearly altered and, although the majority of scholars do not think so, possibly entirely interpolated passage).

But suddenly the fact that Philo wrote politico-treatises which don't match up with our other evidence and which survive in a handful of manuscripts from the late medieval and early modern period become "evidence", while 7000+ NT manuscripts that date from as early as the first half of the 2nd century are untrustworthy because they are "copies of copies".

It's amazing how credulous mythicists become when it suits them.

a non biblical reference to Pilate from the first century

"It is clear that Philo's description of Pilate is not a personalized attack but a patchwork of set words and expressions regularly used by this writer to describe the enemies of the Jews"
"Philo's characterization of Pilate has been shaped by his theological outlook, in which, in a similar way to other Jewish theological-histories of his period, he depicts the prefect in stereotyped language reserved for those who act against the Jewish Law: he is inflexible, stubborn, spiteful and cowardly by disposition; his rule is characterized by corruption - bribery, violence, thefts, assaults, the condemnation of untried prisoners and continuous executions. Further references in the narrative can be accounted for by Philo's political rhetoric: the character of Pilate has to be denigrated to contrast unfavourably with Tiberius and the Herodians"
p. 32 & 36

Bond, H. K. (1998) Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation (Cambridge University Press).

As for famous here is an opinion, Pilate is most famous for the fictitious role he played at Jesus' trial, a trial that could not have taken place as written.

You might have bothered to read Embassy before talking about how this differs from what Philo does. Instead you take it as gospel (pun intended) and assert we have clear evidence or Pilate while the gospels can't be trusted. You didn't read Philo, you didn't apply the same standards, and you don't even know what you would get if you did as you have no idea concerning things like manuscript/textual critical issues. But Philo doesn't mention Jesus, so unlike Josephus he gets a pass. So much of a pass, you don't actually have to read what he wrote to determine it is evidence.

 

[outhouse]

Why could the trial have not taken place?

Because temple guards could have went out and stopped the trouble maker on their own.

Pilate and Caiaphas would have been way to busy to deal with some peasant trouble maker.

 

[steeltoes]

...that clearly shows a substratum of Aramaic (although I think that those like Casey who go from clear evidence to trying to reconstruct the Aramaic is reaching, to put it mildly).

Clearly.

And we do with Jesus. We know Paul was a contemporary and we don't know if the author of Mark was but he could be. What we do know is that while Philo was writing not only religiously biased texts but that we don't know what his source was. Also, instead of just copies of copies of copies, we have little more than a dozen manuscripts the earliest of which is from the 11th century, 1000+ years after Philo. We also know that the only other non-Christian from that time period was also writing biased religious texts in which Pilate's name came up. And the two accounts don't agree (nor do we have better manuscript evidence for Josephus, as is regularly pointed out by mythicists because unlike Philo Josephus mentions Jesus twice (once as an aside virtually no specialists thinks interpolated, and once in a clearly altered and, although the majority of scholars do not think so, possibly entirely interpolated passage).

But suddenly the fact that Philo wrote politico-treatises which don't match up with our other evidence and which survive in a handful of manuscripts from the late medieval and early modern period become "evidence", while 7000+ NT manuscripts that date from as early as the first half of the 2nd century are untrustworthy because they are "copies of copies".

It's amazing how credulous mythicists become when it suits them.

Mythicists, who said anything about mythicists?

Copies of copies? Who said anything about copies of copies? You must live in a fantasy world, making up arguments about copies of copies when it suits you.

"It is clear that Philo's description of Pilate is not a personalized attack but a patchwork of set words and expressions regularly used by this writer to describe the enemies of the Jews"
"Philo's characterization of Pilate has been shaped by his theological outlook, in which, in a similar way to other Jewish theological-histories of his period, he depicts the prefect in stereotyped language reserved for those who act against the Jewish Law: he is inflexible, stubborn, spiteful and cowardly by disposition; his rule is characterized by corruption - bribery, violence, thefts, assaults, the condemnation of untried prisoners and continuous executions. Further references in the narrative can be accounted for by Philo's political rhetoric: the character of Pilate has to be denigrated to contrast unfavourably with Tiberius and the Herodians"
p. 32 & 36

Bond, H. K. (1998) Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation (Cambridge University Press).

You might have bothered to read Embassy before talking about how this differs from what Philo does. Instead you take it as gospel (pun intended) and assert we have clear evidence or Pilate while the gospels can't be trusted. You didn't read Philo, you didn't apply the same standards, and you don't even know what you would get if you did as you have no idea concerning things like manuscript/textual critical issues. But Philo doesn't mention Jesus, so unlike Josephus he gets a pass. So much of a pass, you don't actually have to read what he wrote to determine it is evidence.

I didn't read Philo? Oh well, this is the internet after all.

The Gospels can't be trusted? I trust the gospels tell a fine story, one that has mesmerized people going on two millennium.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Sure. Providing you actually answer questions I ask with something more than your personal experiences unless you can relate these to evidence from antiquity.

I have to say that I have some difficulty even tracking your syntax at times, Legion, so I can't really give an answer to your condtion above.

It'll be fun to examine our use and understanding of language together, along with the historical Jesus. I'll ask the mods to set up our one-on-one debate.

I don't mind going first with an opening position statement. OK?

(Jayhawker? Are you ready to engage me in a parallel thread on the historical Jesus?)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't mind going first with an opening position statement. OK?

Sure.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Clearly.

Interesting choice of emoticon given that you can't possibly have any idea whatsoever regarding the influences of one language you can't read on another you can't read.

Mythicists, who said anything about mythicists?

Nobody needs to. One does not need to say "I'm a mythicist" in order for it to be blatantly obvious. For example, reciting ad nauseum the standard lines quote-mined from the standard sources without even a passing familiarity with either historical Jesus scholarship or antiquity in general, the ubiquitous double standards, the anti-historical approach which seeks not to explain anything but to explain things away, etc., are plenty. One can identify themselves as Christian, but if they don't believe in Christ, God, the bible, and have not only been initiated but have an role as priestess in a Gardnerian coven, then their self-labeling is meaningless.

Copies of copies? Who said anything about copies of copies?

Lots of people you've responded to with some form of affirmation.

I didn't read Philo? Oh well, this is the internet after all.

What on earth does this being the internet have to do with your comparison between the trustworthiness of Pilate vs. the gospels? What criteria do you apply consistently such that your assertion about the evidence we have for Pilate holds?

The Gospels can't be trusted? I trust the gospels tell a fine story, one that has mesmerized people going on two millennium.

And the stories about Socrates go back even more. Your little dodge notwithstanding (ditto for your façade of objectivity betrayed by the fact that the only sources you are familiar with are amateurs or the non-technical writing of a tiny number of specialists), you made a historical claim about Pilate and used Philo to support this. Then you described an account in the gospels that cannot have been accurately reported, yet this is true of Philo. It's mythicist tactics 101: pretend to be an objective observer while accusing biblical scholars of biases in their works you haven't read and using flexible criteria for historicity whenever you feel like it.

 

[steeltoes]

Interesting choice of emoticon given that you can't possibly have any idea whatsoever regarding the influences of one language you can't read on another you can't read.

If you believe in the clear sub stratum of Aramaic I say go for it, whatever floats your boat.

Nobody needs to. One does not need to say "I'm a mythicist" in order for it to be blatantly obvious. For example, reciting ad nauseum the standard lines quote-mined from the standard sources without even a passing familiarity with either historical Jesus scholarship or antiquity in general, the ubiquitous double standards, the anti-historical approach which seeks not to explain anything but to explain things away, etc., are plenty. One can identify themselves as Christian, but if they don't believe in Christ, God, the bible, and have not only been initiated but have an role as priestess in a Gardnerian coven, then their self-labeling is meaningless.

[re: copies of copies] Lots of people you've responded to with some form of affirmation.

staff edit

What on earth does this being the internet have to do with your comparison between the trustworthiness of Pilate vs. the gospels? What criteria do you apply consistently such that your assertion about the evidence we have for Pilate holds?


And the stories about Socrates go back even more. Your little dodge notwithstanding (ditto for your façade of objectivity betrayed by the fact that the only sources you are familiar with are amateurs or the non-technical writing of a tiny number of specialists), you made a historical claim about Pilate and used Philo to support this. Then you described an account in the gospels that cannot have been accurately reported, yet this is true of Philo. It's mythicist tactics 101: pretend to be an objective observer while accusing biblical scholars of biases in their works you haven't read and using flexible criteria for historicity whenever you feel like it.

Baseless accusations on your part. You are boring me with your mythicist nonsense, it's not worth responding to.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you believe in the clear sub stratum of Aramaic I say go for it, whatever floats your boat.

Ah, the mythicist dodge and deceive. Portray an assertion by someone who is capable of evaluating evidence you cannot as if you had any idea what is involved in such evaluation and as if you know anything about the results of evaluations. Do you guys have a manual or do you just pick these methods up while mining google for "evidence" to support a view you had to start with and were never going to change?

Now you are just resorting to lies.

Right. Just like you had any basis for your comparison for our evidence of Pilate vs. Jesus, or any capacity to even understand the sources on the Aramaic substratum if you did bother to actually research.

Oh, and that was yet another post where you dodged defending your claim about our evidence for Pilate. You don't have a dog in this fight, so you don't do research you just search for facts that support your view, and that is unbiased. Sort of like when, in one post, one both talks about their evaluation of Ehrman and then states they aren't familiar with his work.

People who don't have a dog in this either don't care enough to do any research, or they care about history in general and want to know what happened as far as is possible. People who know virtually nothing about antiquity yet who make comments about the Aramaic substratum of a text in a language they can't read are dealing with a level of detail that takes years of study of historical methods, linguistics, etc., yet they haven't done any of that.

There are hundreds and hundreds of active members on this cite. I participate in threads where I know the subject matter and read those which I don't, so I have some idea who I can expect to show up given some topic. And when it comes to the historical Jesus, you are always there. You don't study history, you don't reference or use anything other than what one could get from 10 minutes using google, but you think anybody but a fellow mythicist would buy your "I'm objective" shtick?

Baseless accusations on your part. You are boring me with your mythicist nonsense, it's not worth responding to.

And the closing dodge. Thus we've gone from your baseless assertions about evidence for Pilate to Philo to an excuse for why you don't have to defend this. Typical.

 

[steeltoes]

Ah, the mythicist dodge and deceive. Portray an assertion by someone who is capable of evaluating evidence you cannot as if you had any idea what is involved in such evaluation and as if you know anything about the results of evaluations. Do you guys have a manual or do you just pick these methods up while mining google for "evidence" to support a view you had to start with and were never going to change?

I am not the one making such claims about an Aramaic sub stratum. You're the dodger here, all I said was that you should go for it if it floats your boat, besides, what's another opinion among opinions?

Right. Just like you had any basis for your comparison for our evidence of Pilate vs. Jesus, or any capacity to even understand the sources on the Aramaic substratum if you did bother to actually research.

Oh, and that was yet another post where you dodged defending your claim about our evidence for Pilate. You don't have a dog in this fight, so you don't do research you just search for facts that support your view, and that is unbiased. Sort of like when, in one post, one both talks about their evaluation of Ehrman and then states they aren't familiar with his work.

People who don't have a dog in this either don't care enough to do any research, or they care about history in general and want to know what happened as far as is possible. People who know virtually nothing about antiquity yet who make comments about the Aramaic substratum of a text in a language they can't read are dealing with a level of detail that takes years of study of historical methods, linguistics, etc., yet they haven't done any of that.

There are hundreds and hundreds of active members on this cite. I participate in threads where I know the subject matter and read those which I don't, so I have some idea who I can expect to show up given some topic. And when it comes to the historical Jesus, you are always there. You don't study history, you don't reference or use anything other than what one could get from 10 minutes using google, but you think anybody but a fellow mythicist would buy your "I'm objective" shtick?

I call you a BSer regarding the "copies of copies" argument you associate with me and you come back with this?

You make up a lot of BS and then pile on a gish gallop of bull **** in order to cover up your BS, nice tactic.

And the closing dodge. Thus we've gone from your baseless assertions about evidence for Pilate to Philo to an excuse for why you don't have to defend this. Typical.

Philo wrote about Pilate, staff edit.

 

[nash8]

Because temple guards could have went out and stopped the trouble maker on their own.

Pilate and Caiaphas would have been way to busy to deal with some peasant trouble maker.

Really?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I've posted my first message to Legion for our one-on-one debate about the (non)historical Jesus.

Don't forget your popcorn.

 

[outhouse]

Really?

yes really.

Pilates and Caiaphas job was keeping peace with 400,000 people in attendance paying tithes.

Their job was to keep the money flowing to Rome or their lives were also at stake.

A peasant trouble maker would not need a trial or even a nod from either of these two.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

yes really.

Pilates and Caiaphas job was keeping peace with 400,000 people in attendance paying tithes.

Their job was to keep the money flowing to Rome or their lives were also at stake.

A peasant trouble maker would not need a trial or even a nod from either of these two.

True story. Exactly why I don't buy the crucifixion story.

 

[outhouse]

True story. Exactly why I don't buy the crucifixion story.

The reason I buy the crucufixion is that it was a sign, a example for the large crowds of exactly what not to do.

It was also a very embarrassing way to die, there would be no reason to make up such a terrible way to go.

Trial, no way, but the crucifixion is almost considered a fact by consensus