Eunus is a Myth? Part I

[drumdude]

So, are ancient historians wrong to treat Eunus as a real person? Is Eunus a myth?

Historians, as far as I know, are well familiar with the nuance of evidence. I can't imagine their beliefs are completely binary, "he exists" or "he did not exist." Instead, they would likely frame the question in the context of the lack of evidence for most people's historicity that long ago.

Christ is special in this regard because of all the notable people of antiquity, he is has the best quality of evidence for his existence. At least that's what I've heard from historians.

[sock puppet]

If it doesn't matter, why the question about myth or real person?

No, I am asking you a question. Why does it matter to you? Why do you think it is important?

I think that if the course of history was changed, and could thus have an impact on people present day, the question is more pertinent. Why the resistance to answering my question about whether there was any impact on the course of history?

[Bought Yahoo]

Eunus was a real person. Was the slave revolt imaginary? And his imprisonment in Rome?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Eunus was a real person. Was the slave revolt imaginary? And his imprisonment in Rome?

Well, I’m certainly convinced now. Thanks Bought for your persuasive and meticulous research.

[Kishkumen]

I think that if the course of history was changed, and could thus have an impact on people present day, the question is more pertinent. Why the resistance to answering my question about whether there was any impact on the course of history?

Pertinent to what? I am curious about your reaction because it suggests that the question of historicity is only a concern if a lot is perceived to be riding on the answer. It is difficult to say what the impact of Eunus was, aside from his leadership of a major rebellion against Roman power in the early stages of Roman Empire.

[sock puppet]

It is difficult to say what the impact of Eunus was, aside from his leadership of a major rebellion against Roman power in the early stages of Roman Empire.

In your opinion, did it bump the trajectory of the Roman Empire, even to a slight degree?

[sock puppet]

Pertinent to what? I am curious about your reaction because it suggests that the question of historicity is only a concern if a lot is perceived to be riding on the answer.

For me, we have now, and possibly tomorrow. The past can teach us who and why we are the way we are, and how to avoid what we do not want to happen or become. For me, the pertinence lies in the current and perhaps the future. That is why I ask.

[Nomomo]

What information am I missing here that ties this topic to Mormonism.

ETA - Above comment was made before this thread was moved here from the Terrestrial forum. I didn't really care if this topic was originally posted in the wrong forum, but was actually curious if I was missing something that tied it to Mormonism.

[Kishkumen]

What information am I missing here that ties this topic to Mormonism.

ETA - Above comment was made before this thread was moved here from the Terrestrial forum. I didn't really care if this topic was originally posted in the wrong forum, but was actually curious if I was missing something that tied it to Mormonism.

Well, it is intended, or was intended, to be a part of the historical Jesus discussion. I don't care that it was moved here. I doubt it will get the same amount of attention it might have and for the same reasons, but it was kind of a flop anyway.

Oh, and I am completely responsible for it having flopped. I don't blame anyone else.

[Kishkumen]

In your opinion, did it bump the trajectory of the Roman Empire, even to a slight degree?

It is part of a pattern of interactions between Romans and non-Romans within their sphere of influence, where charismatic resistance to slavery and Roman oppression managed to catch the Romans off guard and move them to double or triple down on their involvement in the governance of the places they had essentially conquered and claimed to "rule." Sicily had been taken from Greeks and Carthaginians, but the Romans up to that point had very minimal involvement in everything except economic exploitation of the "province." Events and people such as these were important in shaping the nature of Roman governance of the places they had taken from other rulers. They also tell us a lot about how such agents of resistance were viewed by those supportive of Roman rule.

Jesus fits this pattern to some extent. The Jewish rulers with whom he fell into conflict were often those who were cooperating with Roman rule. His demonstration and/or occupation of the Temple was a standard move for agents of resistance in his era. It is no mystery why he was executed for sedition, but the interesting thing is that his image was tweaked just enough to take the anti-Roman edge off of his movement.