Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Minimalist]

But does that story of Goldilocks have numerous variant attestations? Does it have a historian(s) mentioning any part of it and listing it as an actual event in their history such as what Tacitus and Josephus did?

Do you think it's a fair comparison?

 

Actually, it is an unfair comparison but that is because Goldilocks is far better attested than any of that jesus shit.  We know who wrote it and when and we even know how many alternate versions of the story there were before the final version came out.

Of course the question must be asked why would anyone forge the Goldilocks story into any history?  Unlike the early church propagandists who were trying to sell 10 pounds of bullshit in a five pound bag to a bunch of ignorant peasants they were simply writing what turned out to be a children's story.

But.  If some Anglican asshole in 1820 had decided to make Goldilocks a saint who was ripped apart by three demonic bears because she broke into the house to plant crosses on the wall you can bet that they would be writing all sorts of horseshit about her.... just like all their other "saints."

Was Muhammad a myth? His grace has been a guarded shrine since he died.

That's a fair comparison. Not Goldilocks.

Try reading the Islamic Origins thread.  I don't think mo was any more real than jesus.  But we do have exactly the same kind of "evidence" for him.  The pious blather of later believers separated from events by 70-100 years.  In that sense, yes, mo and jesus are a fair comparison.  Both are bullshit.  But I agree with you that it is fair.

Would it be fair to say that the reason you are dubious now is because of the Bible? My scenario proposes no Bible. Therefore, why would you have any reason to be dubious?

If there was no bible there would have been no monks tampering with either piece.  Tacitus would refer to Chrestus and Chrestianos and Josephus' writing would probably have been allowed to wither into dust just as they did with his contemporary Justus of Tiberias who, as Photius said "did not know Christ." 

But then you have 1 Clement, written either just before or just after Justin,

You probably won't believe this - or maybe you will - but Clement of Rome seems to be another legendary figure.  Perhaps that is because there are too many legends about him?  The letter is usually dated between 70 and 140 AD but they normally try to insist on 95-96 because of the "Persecution of Domitian."  The only problem there is that there was no Persecution of Domitian.  In spite of its allegedly hallowed status an actual "copy" of the letter did not show up until the 1620's.  One of the central themes of the epistle is that the Corinthians should STFU and listen to their elders.  This was a few years after Luther started his shit.  Convenient timing, eh?

For the record we have only one text of Justin, that dated to 1365.  One day when I get the time I'll track down the earliest of some of the other xtian pillars.  For now, let me just say that I have no reason to put any credence in much of anything that early church writers claim.  They had an agenda and they pushed it vigorously.  As I believe you said a day or two ago, it is important to understand the point of view of every author. 

For the record, I don't believe used car salesmen or political ads, either.

It's late.  Manana.