(March 13, 2015 at 8:45 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote:(March 13, 2015 at 8:06 pm)TimOneill Wrote: I'm using both. As I keep pointing out, the mere fact that elements in the story may not be historical is not good enough reason to reject them.Fair enough, but it's good reason to be agnostic about them.
What does "be agnostic about them" mean here? Because if it means "don't try to assess anything based on them at all" then we would have to "be agnostic" about most ancient sources. And the whole enterprise of ancient historical study would be totally untenable. Does that strike you as reasonable?
Quote:Quote:And the references in Josephus and Tacitus to Pilate and in Josephus to James, the Baptist and Caiaphas all make the chronological setting pretty likely. It also fits with some of what Paul says about the timing of his conversion.What is the oldest copy we have of Pauline writings and does it come after the oldest copies of these other sources? Don't have dog in this fight, I'm just interested now.
The oldest manuscripts we have of the Pauline material are older than any manuscripts of Josephus or Tacitus by about 700 years. Why?