Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by aelf, Mar 2, 2009.
Well, with what people learn in schools and simple books, I'm not surprised.
Suetonis seems to think that the 'Chrestus' character he mentions is actually in Rome. Hrmph. It is completely beyond me how anybody could take this as independent evidence for Jesus apart from maybe apologists. It is garbled, and dependent.
Tacitus mentions 'Christ.' IOW, the reference is not what passes as indenpendent confirmation.
Josephus might be independent, but has other problems.
And the Talmud is a mystery.
(I think the Pauline corpus might be a better source for information than all this stuff taken together.)
They were in the business of Hellenization because it was the foundation of their empires...kind of like how the Teutonic Order, Poland, and Hungary brought German peasants eastward to provide technical expertise and a military foundation for their armies, so too did the Hellenistic monarchs. Save for Demetrios Aniketos, the Alexandrine ideal of a commonwealth of man, as Tarn puts it, was really kind of ignored by the Diadochoi.
Probably. Keep the idea in mind and in a few months you can bring it up again, and nobody but Godwynn will remember.
Roman historians of the early Empire. Plus, the Talmud is a series of commentaries on Jewish law, written by a helluva lot of rabbis over the last two thousand odd years and incorporating oral legal tradition from before then.
Possibly, but how many contemporary or near-contemporary historians mention the existence of vampires as a serious problem or event in society? Whether Jesus was the Son of God is neither here nor there as far as this thread is concerned; the fact is, the existence of the man as at least a semi-important figure is attested in non-Biblical historical documents, in some (Josephus) quite explicitly. Historical consensus right now is that the man Jesus - Yeshua, whatever you will - was around for awhile in the Levant, did some stuff, and died, possibly as a result of execution. His historicity is roughly as assured as that of Alexandros, in any event.
And I disagree.
Yeah, Suetonius is kinda screwy. Fair enough: I don't like his history much anyway.
That's a rather selective interpretation. AFAIK scholarly consensus is that it's a reference to Jesus but that since the source is unknown it may or may not be viable.
The second Testimonium mention seems pretty conclusive to me.
Seems to correlate well enough.
Not looking for information, but instead non-Biblical confirmation. Because clearly nothing in the Bible can be trusted whatsoever.
Son of God probably.
Since when is "Who is greater: Alexander or Jesus" a sophisticated question?
Alexander was son of Ammon
Beats yours. Ha.
I never said I required a sophisticated answer. And clearly I did not get one.
Jesus by far.....
Clearly I was hedging my bets.
I think the usage of Christ, over a proper name gives a good clue that he is reliant on gossip, or on whatever he makes of what the Christians are saying (Compare with Suetonis, who indubitably does that).
The second mention of Jesus is very, very small and critics will toss about he term 'marginal gloss.' I think, in any case though, that both the refenrences Josephus are by far the best of what you listed.
I don't know. Nobody, IMO, seems to know exactly what in the Talmud is this Jesus, or what exactly is up with those stories anyway.
Yeah, things like these seem to be tossed about often enough, and seem completely oblivious of the very ... hmmm ... varied nature of bibilical texts.
Be nice to have Plotinus about right now. He's pretty good with the Pauline texts.
Question: How much information does it take to confirm the existence of someone in South East Asia?
Answer: A single reference in a Chinese source is usually good enough to confirm or at least provide significant evidence of the existence of say a King of Srivijaya.
Point: A large number of significant historical figures have got maybe a single line in a tangentially related text to help confirm or corroborate their existence. It is fair to say that Jesus as a historical figure did exist, 'might' just doesn't cut it, why would all those folks want to lie? You can say what you like about the historical figure of Jesus but to say he 'might' have existed is really quite poor form.
You should have asked about Saul(us), not Jesus.
Well Jesus (as a historical character) had little to do with becoming the figurehead of the largest religion. If not him, then a preacher like him would be known as the son of God today.
Alexander lead his armies through thousands of miles and many battles - a less ambitious leader would have stayed at home.
I think Jesus has more merchandise sales than the other contestants combined.
Why would they lie?
Well, maybe they did not lie, but write down what they honestly believed. Remember that there is no contemporaneous text that claims he existed, and that there is no text from outside his interest group - i.e. from outside the group of people who WANT him to have existed roughly one or two generations before their time.
So yes, his existence as a historical figure is likely, but not to the level that a remark 'Received tribute 2.000 bars of gold from King such-and-such' in an ancient Chinese bookkeeping document indicates the existence of said king.
Sadly, Alexander does not come close. How hellenized is Persia or Egypt today? Or how hellenized were they 1000 years ago?
Christianity is still pretty influential.
He didn't have an an all powerful dad pulling the strings.
Joe the plumber. Did any of the other two get so much mention in the previous election for the leader of the free world. Clearly Joe is the man for all seasons. Vote Joe number one.
Did Joe run for president of the EU? I missed that.
Separate names with a comma.