MrStakhanovite wrote: I think his theology is reformed. I'm almost certain he is a Calvinist.
He is. I was being circumspect because I couldn't recall whether he admitted the truth of this heinous charge on the old MADBoard or via private correspondence. So, I looked: It was a public admission.
Milesius wrote:All of these men were upper class. Cicero held several offices, including consul, and was a senator. Caesar and Alexander the Great lead famous empires. Jesus was at most middle class. He said "My kingdom is not of this world" and Jerusalem was destroyed not once, but twice within 100 years of his crucifixion (and resurrection).
In fine, you are comparing apples and oranges, professor, and I shouldn't have to point this out to you.
No, I am not. All you are doing is stating the obvious: less important provincials, even relatively elevated ones, left less of a footprint than Roman magistrates, governors, and emperors, Hellenistic kings, etc. In other words, the evidence for others is sparse, not that we need to change the standard of evidence to provide less noteables their own category. It is unfortunate that no non-Christian source close to the time of Jesus (same decade as his ministry) mentioned him as far as we know. Acknowledging the practical reasons why this is so does not improve the quantity or quality of the evidence.
Professor, much of the history of Antiquity was written after the events transpired. How many decades exist between Herodotus' Histories and the events told therein? A contemporary account would be nice but is not strictly necessary. (A text written by Jesus would be even nicer, but again, not strictly necessary. We don't have any texts written by Socrates or Siddhartha Gautama either.)
Milesius wrote:Professor, much of the history of Antiquity was written after the events transpired. How many decades exist between Herodotus' Histories and the events told therein? A contemporary account would be nice but is not strictly necessary. (A text written by Jesus would be even nicer, but again, not strictly necessary. We don't have any texts written by Socrates or Siddhartha Gautama either.)
You have heard, I take it, of archaeology and epigraphy. Yes? No? How many events in the life of Christ are attested in either archaeological remains or the epigraphic record? Also, remember that it was Thucydides who criticized Herodotus for telling entertaining stories, and, no, Herodotus is not viewed as equally reliable as others who wrote of events they witnessed. Also, one has to deal with the question of authorship. Many of the New Testament epistles are the subject of long debates about the identity of the author. That being the case, I am less likely to question Plato on basic details of Socrates' trial and conviction than I would be to question certain New Testament epistles. In other words, I am talking about degrees of reliability. I do not take an all or nothing approach, but I would not be so arrogant as to say that epistle x was absolutely written by Paul when there is a big, ongoing debate on the subject.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
The second link is a philosophy of religion text, which I explicitly excepted since virtually all arguments for the existence of God are treated as a legitimate dispute within that field. The first link shows no evidence of the argument being viewed as a realm of legitimate academic controversy like there is with, say, neutral theory vs. selectionism in evolutionary biology or realism vs. antirealism in ethics. Rather, it simply takes the argument a part. I was careful to point out the argument gets more attention and inspires more reaction. You see creationism get replied to, on occasion, in phil of science journals too. That's because it's a topic that can be useful for hashing phil of science issues and has a notable lay and apologetic following. It's not because there is a pervading view that it is a respectable minority view with compelling, if not entirely persuasive arguments. Did you even read my post before replying?
Yes, of course Hamblin and the Mopologists have gotten what they deserved. That said, I wonder if Hamblin's post was meant as a kind of retaliation against folks like Michael Coe and Craig Criddle. I mean, try heading over to the ironically named Mormon Dialogue board and posting in a similar vein: "Hey, I thought you guys would like to know what the scholarly community thinks about Book of Mormon historicity." Just imagine the mirth and frivolity that would ensue!
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
