4 ms·

> And yet, no one disputes that, say, Heraclitus, Hesiod, Plautus, or some of the Ten Thousand’s generals existed From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus

> And yet, no one disputes that, say, Heraclitus, Hesiod, Plautus, or some of the Ten Thousand’s generals existed From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Life: "The main source for the life of Heraclitus is Diogenes Laërtius, although some have questioned the validity of his account as "a tissue of Hellenistic anecdotes, most of them obviously fabricated on the basis of statements in the preserved fragments"." Obviously some people do dispute the existence of these figures. If there is no proof that someone existed, it's safe to say their existence should be disputed.

Mediterraneo10 8y ago
You misunderstand the debate around Heraclitus. Scholars dispute the biography attributed to him. Yet virtually no one disputes that the author of the fragments existed. Heraclitus in this regard is little different from e.g. Jaufre Rudel, to whom is also ascribed a biography that is probably largely fictional in spite of historians’ certainty that the poet himself existed.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  Of course not all of these figures have the same amount of historical evidence to back them up. Jesus in particular has literally no evidence for existing other than from people with very vested interests in promoting his existence as the basis for their religion. If you can point to some evidence that suggests he actually did exist, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
  - ZanyProgrammer 8y ago
    The burden is actually on you to go against the virtual entirety of professional historians.
    - dorchadas 8y ago
      Not to mention that Jesus has more evidence to back up his historicity than most. Unless, of course, you just dismiss all of the Gospels and Pauline letters as not being evidence. And even then there still is quite a bit of evidence, really.
      - owens99 8y ago
        Actually, nowhere in the Gospels or Pauline letters does it say Jesus was a living person. These documents are written in the same way as the stories of Hercules or any other mythological figure.
        dorchadas 8y ago
        Except Paul explicitly states he met James, brother of Jesus. And there's plenty of differences between how those documents are written and the ways myths are told. Try actually reading an introductory New Testament text, like Ehrman's (who himself is agnostic, and went through an atheist period), and you'll see.
        owens99 8y ago
        I have read many translations and interpretations of the actual text. There is significant debate about whether Paul is saying James is Jesus's biological brother. So this passage is far from rock solid evidence. Many experts believe Paul is referring to James's name/tagline as a preacher, "Brother of the Lord." Meaning James was not Jesus's biological brother, but metaphorical. Any priest today could say he is the brother of the lord in a metaphorical sense. The idea that Jesus had siblings does not make sense in and of itself. Overall, the evidence supporting Jesus as a historical person is very sparse and all evidence is contested (Josephus and Tacitus being forgeries, this example not mentioning James as a biological brother). One would think if he was living there would be many more examples to support it.
        dorchadas 8y ago
        > The idea that Jesus had siblings does not make sense in and of itself. How does it not? Nowhere does it say Jesus was Mary and Joseph's only child. It merely said he was born while she was a virgin, not that she ever had kids after. Even if you take the Roman Catholic approach, Joseph was older and easily could have had children from a previous marriage, which is what they contend. > Josephus and Tacitus being forgeries this example not mentioning James as a biological brother These are all minority views in scholarship, as I'm sure you're well aware; it's much easier to assume Paul meant Jesus's literal brother, since he used the term the Greeks often used for brothers. But, seeing as you refuse to accept any scholarship done by Christians, even if peer-reviewed and unbiased, it's not surprising; and, of course, it easily allows you to ignore sources that disagree with you simply because they were written by Christians, regardless of the quality of the scholarship. Your own dogmatic beliefs that Christians can't produce unbiased scholarship clearly inhibits you from seeing what you don't want to see. There's really no further point arguing with you since you'll only accept the evidence you agree with (Carrier, despite his minority views and often wrong claims) and ignore the ones you don't, often under the guise of it being "dogmatic", which is incredibly ironic.
    - owens99 8y ago
      The case is not as clear cut as you suggest. This article explains well why the current consensus should be questioned: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Actually, he has people without those vested interests, even against them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
    - owens99 8y ago
      FYI, these passages are far from rock solid. Both the words Christianos and Christus are shown to be forgeries. Among other issues.

Mediterraneo10 8y ago

You misunderstand the debate around Heraclitus. Scholars dispute the biography attributed to him. Yet virtually no one disputes that the author of the fragments existed. Heraclitus in this regard is little different from e.g. Jaufre Rudel, to whom is also ascribed a biography that is probably largely fictional in spite of historians’ certainty that the poet himself existed.

malvosenior 8y ago
Of course not all of these figures have the same amount of historical evidence to back them up. Jesus in particular has literally no evidence for existing other than from people with very vested interests in promoting his existence as the basis for their religion. If you can point to some evidence that suggests he actually did exist, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
- ZanyProgrammer 8y ago
  The burden is actually on you to go against the virtual entirety of professional historians.
  - dorchadas 8y ago
    Not to mention that Jesus has more evidence to back up his historicity than most. Unless, of course, you just dismiss all of the Gospels and Pauline letters as not being evidence. And even then there still is quite a bit of evidence, really.
    - owens99 8y ago
      Actually, nowhere in the Gospels or Pauline letters does it say Jesus was a living person. These documents are written in the same way as the stories of Hercules or any other mythological figure.
      - dorchadas 8y ago
        Except Paul explicitly states he met James, brother of Jesus. And there's plenty of differences between how those documents are written and the ways myths are told. Try actually reading an introductory New Testament text, like Ehrman's (who himself is agnostic, and went through an atheist period), and you'll see.
        owens99 8y ago
        I have read many translations and interpretations of the actual text. There is significant debate about whether Paul is saying James is Jesus's biological brother. So this passage is far from rock solid evidence. Many experts believe Paul is referring to James's name/tagline as a preacher, "Brother of the Lord." Meaning James was not Jesus's biological brother, but metaphorical. Any priest today could say he is the brother of the lord in a metaphorical sense. The idea that Jesus had siblings does not make sense in and of itself. Overall, the evidence supporting Jesus as a historical person is very sparse and all evidence is contested (Josephus and Tacitus being forgeries, this example not mentioning James as a biological brother). One would think if he was living there would be many more examples to support it.
        dorchadas 8y ago
        > The idea that Jesus had siblings does not make sense in and of itself. How does it not? Nowhere does it say Jesus was Mary and Joseph's only child. It merely said he was born while she was a virgin, not that she ever had kids after. Even if you take the Roman Catholic approach, Joseph was older and easily could have had children from a previous marriage, which is what they contend. > Josephus and Tacitus being forgeries this example not mentioning James as a biological brother These are all minority views in scholarship, as I'm sure you're well aware; it's much easier to assume Paul meant Jesus's literal brother, since he used the term the Greeks often used for brothers. But, seeing as you refuse to accept any scholarship done by Christians, even if peer-reviewed and unbiased, it's not surprising; and, of course, it easily allows you to ignore sources that disagree with you simply because they were written by Christians, regardless of the quality of the scholarship. Your own dogmatic beliefs that Christians can't produce unbiased scholarship clearly inhibits you from seeing what you don't want to see. There's really no further point arguing with you since you'll only accept the evidence you agree with (Carrier, despite his minority views and often wrong claims) and ignore the ones you don't, often under the guise of it being "dogmatic", which is incredibly ironic.
  - owens99 8y ago
    The case is not as clear cut as you suggest. This article explains well why the current consensus should be questioned: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553
- coldtea 8y ago
  Actually, he has people without those vested interests, even against them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
  - owens99 8y ago
    FYI, these passages are far from rock solid. Both the words Christianos and Christus are shown to be forgeries. Among other issues.