alt.education

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:29:42 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

>Al Klein wrote:
>>On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:27:17 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Such books aren't about proving that there was a "historical Jesus"
>>>since few scholars even question the existence of such a person.
>>
>>But not in the direction you seem to imply.
>>
>>>The subject of a book about "historical Jesus" is
>>>to identify what things about the man CAN be ascertained through
>>>historical methods
>>
>>You mean things like he COULDN'T HAVE come from Nazareth. because
>>"Nazareth" didn't exist in the 1st century?
>
>We don't know whether Nazareth existed in the 1st century. The place
>was certainly inhabited then, but we do not know what it was called.

Actually we do know. It was the cemetery of a nearby village.
>
>>Like the fact that the very first mention we have of a human Jesus is
>>from over 100 years after he supposedly died?
>
>No.

So where are earlier mentions?
>
>>Like the fact that the Council of Nicea, 300 years after the fact,
>>chose which writings from 200 years earlier were "right" and which
>>were "wrong"?
>
>So?

So how would they know what had happened 300 years earlier in
Palestine? History and archeology weren't exactly polished sciences
in Palestine in the 1st century. They didn't - they chose books that
agreed with their beliefs. It's just as likely that the ones they
rejected were the correct ones.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan