(September 29, 2016 at 9:02 pm)Mudhammam Wrote:(September 29, 2016 at 5:43 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: True. The establishment of Yeshua's existence should be held to the same standard of evidence we have for Ashoka or Caesar or Huayna Capac.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.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Home