Comments on: That’s You Told Mr. Darwin

By: Mr. X

Mr. X — Thu, 21 May 2009 11:08:38 +0000

I don’t think so. At least, I didn’t.

By: The 57th Franz Kafka

The 57th Franz Kafka — Wed, 20 May 2009 18:13:39 +0000

Sorry I’m late. Did I hear someone say ‘some of us believe in God’?

By: That Vicar Bloke off Zulu

That Vicar Bloke off Zulu — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:16:58 +0000

Yoy are all going to DIE!!You have made a covenant with death, and with hell you are in agreement! Death awaits you all! You’re all going to DIE!

By: Bakugam Battle Set

Bakugam Battle Set — Mon, 18 May 2009 07:51:25 +0000

Nice site and interesting post, will return soon, have taken the feed as well.

By: Mim

Mim — Sat, 16 May 2009 18:09:35 +0000

I meant modern historians, not classical sources. As a lapsed classicist I have encountered enough of the latter not to be inclined to believe them overmuch, and they’re not even as fun as mediaeval ones.

By: Mr. X

Mr. X — Sat, 16 May 2009 17:18:28 +0000

“That said, historians aren’t “quite happy” to use later sources so much as stuck with it.”

Stuck with, quite happy, whatever. The point is that it seems rather inconsistent to claim that sources written between forty and seventy years after the events they describe are too late to be admissable, whereas other sources written four hundred years after the events they describe are used quite a bit.

“And frankly the fact that they don’t have an agenda involving proving that Alexander was the son of God is a point in their favour.”

All sources have agendas, especially ancient ones. I don’t see why an agenda involving proving that Jesus was the son of God is any worse than an agenda proving that Alexander was the greatest Greek general or whatever.

By: millie

millie — Sat, 16 May 2009 10:29:31 +0000

I liked Jesus best when he appeared in the form of Willem Dafoe. Now there’s a cult I would have followed.

By: Mim

Mim — Sat, 16 May 2009 09:46:52 +0000

I hate getting bogged down in the Jesus-may-well-have-been-a-real-bloke bit of the argument given that our basic actual point of disagreement – Was He Magic Or Not? – means it is practically impossible for said bit of argument ever to remain calm and given that to the non-believing side it really doesn’t enormously matter.

That said, historians aren’t “quite happy” to use later sources so much as stuck with it. And frankly the fact that they don’t have an agenda involving proving that Alexander was the son of God is a point in their favour.

By: Mr. X

Mr. X — Sat, 16 May 2009 08:45:13 +0000

“You have not cited contemporary historical evidence. Wonder why.”

Probably because there isn’t any, given (a) the fact that relatively low levels of literacy in ancient Judaea would have meant that there would have been few books written in the first place, and (b) very few of the books which were written have survived. Mind you, we have some near-contemporary evidence in the form of the gospels and (possibly) Josephus. Historians are quite happy to use works dating hundreds of years after the lives of historical figures when writing about those figured (one of our main sources on the life of Alexander the Great, for example, is written by Plutarch of Chaeronea, who lived from AD 46 to about AD 122), so I’m not sure why something written forty or fifty years after the events it describes should be considered too old.

By: Ed

Ed — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:55:45 +0000

Mr X, you should read the "rationalresponders" thread cited above. Here is a reference to it. You have not cited contemporary historical evidence. Wonder why.