(September 30, 2016 at 3:32 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:(September 29, 2016 at 9:02 pm)Mudhammam Wrote: Agreed, as well as bearing in mind that a Jewish prophet and a king or emperor are likely to differ in the sheer volume of records or artifacts they inspire.
Thing is though, we've plenty of evidence of the first three, we've no untainted evidence of Yeshua (the two "best" sources Josephus and Tacitus show enough tampering that any honest historian won't accept them). We should be treating him as we do other characters who could've existed but are probably largely or completely fictional, like Conchobar MacNessa.
The major problem, with biblical history though is that it's not left to historians, but to theologians for the most part. The section which is left to proper experts arcaeology has stopped looking for Yeshua because of the impossibility of success.
This is interesting, I was just reading a response from Erhman to Carrier, last night in which the subject of Tacitus. He seems that there isn't much dispute, and that most consider it genuine. Josephus is a little different. There is some dispute, but many consider most of the passage in question, to be true... aside from the part that many consider an addition. However, in either case, it doesn't matter who or how many people ascribe to a view but why?
