Did Pontius Pilate exist?

[Shiranui117]

Constantine invested both money and time and reputation in "Regularising" the new church.
I hardly think he would have done that if he had thought the other displaced religions could disprove Jesus existence. Romans were far from stupid.

If Jesus' existence could have been disproven, then it would have been done while Christianity was verboten. Nero would have slammed this argument against Christians as he blamed them for the Great Fire of Rome. Every emperor who persecuted the Christians would have ordered this "fact" spread around the Empire to ridicule the Christians, discourage conversions to the religion, and encourage apostasy from it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Constantine invested both money and time and reputation in "Regularising" the new church.

That's nice, but can you provide any evidence supporting the implied claim that "Rome would have been keen to establish Christs credentials."?

 

[steeltoes]

This has been discussed ad nauseam.

Do we have proof of historicity? No. Congratulations.

Do we have evidence compelling an overwhelming majority of scholars to embrace historicity as inference to best explanation. Absolutely. Sorry.

Yes, scholars believe, and when historical method is not enough invent criteria to achieve desired results. What else we got?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, scholars believe, and when historical method is not enough invent criteria to achieve desired results. What else we got?

Well, for one thing we have your contempt for scholars and for the scholarship that you've never taken the time to study. What precisely is the source of your understanding of historical method?

 

[maxfreakout]

Why would people be worshipping a fictional mythos character that soon after the crucifixion"?

this question doesn't make sense, if jesus is mythic, then there was no actual crucifixion. Mythic characters and events have always been the centrepiece of religions

 

[maxfreakout]

do we have evidence compelling an overwhelming majority of scholars to embrace historicity as inference to best explanation. Absolutely. Sorry.

we definitely don't have any such thing


what we have, is a vast majority of scholars who have never seriously and explicitly looked at the question of jesus` historicity, and who have no idea what the mythicist alternative actually entails. Uncritical assumption is not the same thing as critical evaluation of competing hypotheses. The vast majority of scholars have no idea about the mythicist view of jesus, even Ehrman who is the only modern scholar to critically ask "did jesus exist?" admits that he had no idea there was an established mythicist literature until he actually started researching for his book.

 

[maxfreakout]

History doesnt just blindly attribute historicity.

except in the case of Jesus

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

we definitely don't have any such thing.

How would you know?

Furthermore, your answer to what we have is reducible to one long ad hominem ...

Paul the liar fabricated the epistles, its intended audience, the Judaizers, the Jerusalem sect, the tension with members of that sect ... everything. Luke the liar perpetuates and embellished Paul the liar. Stupid Jews in the diaspora were hoodwinked and or incompetent. Some simply accepted the nonexistent cult leader while others, like their pagan counterparts (with some percentage of both having ties to Jerusalem), never even considered challenging the historicity of the Jerusalem. Josephus was duped. Suetonius and Tacitus were confused. The early movement from the death of Paul to the writing of the Gospels was little more than a conspiracy of ignorance.

Sorry: I'll take the scholarship over such adolescent nonsense any day of the week.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

That's nice, but can you provide any evidence supporting the implied claim that "Rome would have been keen to establish Christs credentials."?

Not with out time travel....

But human nature suggests that we do not accept "New Gods" or new Religions lightly. Accepting Christianity meant that many very powerful roman gods and their acolytes were disenfranchised. I am sure they would have tried very hard to disprove the new religion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But human nature suggests that we do not accept "New Gods" or new Religions lightly. Accepting Christianity meant that many very powerful roman gods and their acolytes were disenfranchised. I am sure they would have tried very hard to disprove the new religion.

You might benefit from reading Religions of Rome by Beard, North, and Price.

 

[maxfreakout]

How would you know?

I can see it for myself, if im wrong, please correct me with examples

Furthermore, your answer to what we have is reducible to one long ad hominem ...

Paul the liar fabricated the epistles, its intended audience, the Judaizers, the Jerusalem sect, the tension with members of that sect ... everything. Luke the liar perpetuates and embellished Paul the liar. Stupid Jews in the diaspora were hoodwinked and or incompetent. Some simply accepted the nonexistent cult leader while others, like their pagan counterparts (with some percentage of both having ties to Jerusalem), never even considered challenging the historicity of the Jerusalem. Josephus was duped. Suetonius and Tacitus were confused. The early movement from the death of Paul to the writing of the Gospels was little more than a conspiracy of ignorance.

im not saying anything even remotely similar to this ^. My point is about modern Jesus scholarship, and how it collectively assumes that Jesus was a historical man, largely on the basis of circular logic (the historicist claim is justified by scholarly consensus, even by the scholars themselves). Ehrman's recent book is a glaring example of what i mean, with its predominant emphasis on appeal to scholarly consensus.

Sorry: I'll take the scholarship over such adolescent nonsense any day of the week.

This ^ is an ad hominem

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

im not saying anything even remotely similar to this ^.

Actually, that is exactly what you imply. Whether you understand that or nor is precisely your problem.

My point is about modern Jesus scholarship, and how it collectively assumes ...

Again, how would you know? How much of this scholarship have you studied? On what basis do you claim the authority to denigrate a rather large number of acclaimed historians and have that preposterous attack viewed as being in any way credible or responsible? You simply puff up your chest and stomp your feet in precisely the same dismissive display that characterizes creationists when confronted with a wide spread opposing consensus.

This ^ is an ad hominem

No - it is a characterization of the position.

 

[outhouse]

except in the case of Jesus

There is nothing blind here at all.

This is a matter of education.

I started out like you two years ago. I studied in depth, my mind changed soon after I began to gain knowledge on the subject.



Why would Romans create a deity out of one of their oppressed peasants if it was only in mythology? They could create anything.

 

[maxfreakout]

Actually, that is exactly what you imply. Whether you understand that or nor is precisely your problem

im not implying anything even remotely similar to what you said, my point was just about modern scholarship.

Again, how would you know? How much of this scholarship have you studied? On what basis do you claim the authority to denigrate a rather large number of acclaimed historians and have that preposterous attack viewed as being in any way credible or responsible? You simply puff up your chest and stomp your feet in precisely the same dismissive display that characterizes creationists when confronted with a wide spread opposing consensus.

please correct me with examples if i am wrong, but afaik Ehrman is the only modern scholar to directly, explicitly address the question of Jesus' ahistoricity. Apart from that one book, scholars simply assume uncritically that Jesus was a historical person

No - it is a characterization of the position.

The expression "adolescent nonsense" is an ad hominem, especially since the ideas you are referring to dont come from adolescents. As you exemplify, pro historical Jesus advocates typically use ad hominem attacks when they discuss this subject, and they also typically falsely accuse their mythicist opponents of using ad hominems. Even Ehrman the 'professional scholar' does this in his book. Apparently the normal rules of academic decency don't apply when discussing Jesus' historicity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

please correct me with examples if i am wrong, ...

You make a claim based on pervasive ignorance. That is wrong.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Josephus was duped. Suetonius and Tacitus were confused.

I agree. It seems obvious.

 

[Desert Snake]

I agree. It seems obvious.

It's doubtful IMO. Highly doubtful.

I'm not unfamiliar with various mythology btw.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

please correct me with examples if i am wrong, but afaik Ehrman is the only modern scholar to directly, explicitly address the question of Jesus' ahistoricity.

A former mythicist now pseudo-mythicist (G.A. Wells) changed his position in response to Dunn's argument. Dunn repeats part of this argument again in Jesus Remembered. Ehrman is one of the few scholars to write a book addressing mythicism that a bookstore is likely to sell rather than either 1) a work of scholarship or 2) a comprehensive, yet readable without much if any background in the subject, book or set of books on the historical Jesus.

And while I respect him for at least having the integrity to alienate most of his readers for the sake of intellectual honesty, the book is still worth about as much as anything else he writes for the general public: not much. More importantly, this question has been raised and addressed in various ways by modern scholars in recent years. In fact, perhaps the only piece that mythicist R. M. Price wrote which was published in a work written for researchers & students and published by an academic press was The Historical Jesus: Five Views. Not only did all four other authors show the flaws in his argument and therefore address mythicism, but the only reason he was asked to contribute was he was the only one around. While guys like Mack or Crossan believe that the N.T. (and Christianity for the most part) has corrupted Jesus' message, and there exist plenty of radical views among a minority of N.T./early Christian/etc. scholars about Jesus, everybody in the field recognizes that it is impossible to plausibly explain our evidence without a historical Jesus. Price is the only exception I know of, which apparently meant that in order to get the complete range of scholarly opinion, they asked him to contribute.

Apart from that one book, scholars simply assume uncritically that Jesus was a historical person

All of the books below do not assume this but are either designed to show that it is true in their entirety, or devote time to the question:

Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus)
The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ
Jesus of Nazareth: An independent historian's account of his life and teaching
Jesus Legend, The: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition

There are more as well.

Even Ehrman the 'professional scholar' does this in his book.

His book, as he says himself, is not professional scholarhip, but intended to inform those who rely solely on websites or sensationalist sources for information.

Apparently the normal rules of academic decency don't apply when discussing Jesus' historicity.

Some of the foremost authorities and leading experts on climate change don't believe that humans are causing any dangerous warming (usually, they either believe that the cause is mainly something else, or that the models are wrong, or both). Yet they are in the minority. And they are mocked by the mainstream and called "deniers", a term designed to equate their stance with the ignorance of holocaust deniers.

And as for holocaust deniers (moving out of science) almost nobody cares about what they have to say, in or outside of academia (and rightly so).

Unlike climate science or any field in which there is a significant minority of specialists challenging the majority view, here instead the consensus is challenged by perhaps 2 or 3 people who are specialists in something related to Jesus studies, and a vast majority of amateurs who have familiar with any scholarship on the subject but instead rely on websites and sensationalist junk. Is it any wonder that those who have spent years and years and written monographs, volumes, and/or papers on this subject have little respect for those who repeat arguments raised 150 years ago and repeatedly addressed since then? Especially when those making the current arguments have no conception of the history of the "quest" itself, and why most scholars don't bother to address questions which were settled a century ago?

 

[outhouse]

Also

If one carries a conspiracy therorist mindset, nothing can exist in history.


At what point do we except quality methodology, education and knowledge????????????


When something exist that is 99% probable, but not factual, there will always be those injecting imagination into that 1% claiming they alone have the answer.



In mythiscism and Jesus, there is not only no consensus, but no replacement hypothesis that doesnt generate more questions then it answers. You add that to the fact 99% of mythers are nothing more then internet bloggers lacking the education in historical methods to even be considered. Your two champions Carrier and Price do not agree. There are a few more credible scholars out there, but they cannot build a decent case either.

 

[steeltoes]

Some of the foremost authorities and leading experts on climate change don't believe that humans are causing any dangerous warming (usually, they either believe that the cause is mainly something else, or that the models are wrong, or both). Yet they are in the minority. And they are mocked by the mainstream and called "deniers", a term designed to equate their stance with the ignorance of holocaust deniers.

And as for holocaust deniers (moving out of science) almost nobody cares about what they have to say, in or outside of academia (and rightly so).

Unlike climate science or any field in which there is a significant minority of specialists challenging the majority view, here instead the consensus is challenged by perhaps 2 or 3 people who are specialists in something related to Jesus studies, and a vast majority of amateurs who have familiar with any scholarship on the subject but instead rely on websites and sensationalist junk. Is it any wonder that those who have spent years and years and written monographs, volumes, and/or papers on this subject have little respect for those who repeat arguments raised 150 years ago and repeatedly addressed since then? Especially when those making the current arguments have no conception of the history of the "quest" itself, and why most scholars don't bother to address questions which were settled a century ago?

It appears that little has changed in two thousand years. Those that didn't believe that Christ was on earth were called the anti-Christ, and those that so much as question Jesus' existence are now compared with holocaust deniers and climate change deniers. These writings haven't lost their effect.