Oldest(?) Quran fragments found in Birmingham.

[Valmy]

Why would it be insane to doubt the historicity of a figure if you have evidence to support your case exactly? Why is all of history dependent on Atilla the Hun existing?

All pre-modern history is based on accepting the sort of records CC pretends to be highly skeptical of.  If one were to apply the sort of criticism to the rest history that CC applies figures in extant religions then history, particularly ancient history, rapidly becomes devoid of people and events.  To apply this sort of criticism in a biased way (at Muhammad but not Spartacus), is either hypocritical, dishonest or ignorant.  Because he caught on about Roland, but not about the others then I think he's simply ignorant.  The sad truth is that most historical personages do not have photo IDs.  The people we accept as real have remarkably little primary sources to back them up.  Our knowledge of say a Roman Emperor's reign may rely on only two or three sources which disagree.  This is pretty standard.

Ah yes this. Well I disagree that there is any kind of double standard conspiracy theory here that Jesus or Mohammed are getting singled out like you imply.

Alot of those Roman Emperors DO have their existence doubted. This is the joy of the 3rd Century Roman History after all. Skepticism and careful consideration of events is how we get better history not have it disappear like you imply. Simply bringing up an inquiry does not make it gospel anyway. Just because somebody thought to examine if Mohammed really existed does not make him vanish.

[jimmy olsen]

Roland is a very bad example for your argument Raz

Mentioned by Charlemagne's biographer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland#History

While he was vigorously pursuing the Saxon war, almost without a break, and after he had placed garrisons at selected points along the border, [Charles] marched into Spain [in 778] with as large a force as he could mount. His army passed through the Pyrenees and [Charles] received the surrender of all the towns and fortified places he encountered. He was returning [to Francia] with his army safe and intact, but high in the Pyrenees on that return trip he briefly experienced the Basques. That place is so thoroughly covered with thick forest that it is the perfect spot for an ambush. [Charles's] army was forced by the narrow terrain to proceed in a long line and [it was at that spot], high on the mountain, that the Basques set their ambush. [...] The Basques had the advantage in this skirmish because of the lightness of their weapons and the nature of the terrain, whereas the Franks were disadvantaged by the heaviness of their arms and the unevenness of the land. Eggihard, the overseer of the king's table, Anselm, the count of the palace, and Roland, the lord of the Breton March, along with many others died in that skirmish. But this deed could not be avenged at that time, because the enemy had so dispersed after the attack that there was no indication as to where they could be found.[3]

[jimmy olsen]

Jesus did not claim divine status in the synoptic gospels.  Without getting deep into the detail, bottom line is that his followers appear to have claimed that he was the Jewish Messiah and that Jesus either was ambiguous about the claim or did not discourage it. 

Or he was safely dead and/or the fact that he didn't exist was safely forgotten by the time such claims were made.

Given the non-centrality of Jesus to Christianity, I suppose it doesn't matter all that much the Jesus himself may not have existed.  I don't think you can quite say that about Muhammad.

How is Jesus not central to Christianity?

[Razgovory]

Why would it be insane to doubt the historicity of a figure if you have evidence to support your case exactly? Why is all of history dependent on Atilla the Hun existing?

All pre-modern history is based on accepting the sort of records CC pretends to be highly skeptical of.  If one were to apply the sort of criticism to the rest history that CC applies figures in extant religions then history, particularly ancient history, rapidly becomes devoid of people and events.  To apply this sort of criticism in a biased way (at Muhammad but not Spartacus), is either hypocritical, dishonest or ignorant.  Because he caught on about Roland, but not about the others then I think he's simply ignorant.  The sad truth is that most historical personages do not have photo IDs.  The people we accept as real have remarkably little primary sources to back them up.  Our knowledge of say a Roman Emperor's reign may rely on only two or three sources which disagree.  This is pretty standard.

Ah yes this. Well I disagree that there is any kind of double standard conspiracy theory here that Jesus or Mohammed are getting singled out like you imply.

Alot of those Roman Emperors DO have their existence doubted. This is the joy of the 3rd Century Roman History after all. Skepticism and careful consideration of events is how we get better history not have it disappear like you imply. Simply bringing up an inquiry does not make it gospel anyway. Just because somebody thought to examine if Mohammed really existed does not make him vanish.

Double conspiracy theory?  Explain.  I would say that a book that Jesus never existed would sell much better then a book centered around the historicity of Domitanus.  Shoddy scholarship, bias, sensational scandal, and smug New Atheism are more then enough to explain why such works exist.  In the case of CCs book on Muhammad not existing there is a large public appetite for this kind of Muslim baiting, from angry members of the American Religious right who believe we are fighting a holy war, to the stay at home hero who wants to persevere freedom of speech from ISIS terrorists who might be hiding between the shelves of the local Barnes and Noble.

[Valmy]

Are you saying CC is a Muslim baiter, an angry member of the religious right, believes we are fighting a holy war, and is a stay at home hero who wants to fight ISIS in Barnes and Noble? Because the conspiracy is you writing all this off kind of depends on that being true. Generally I do not see him aligning with those people. I was not aware he was a New Atheist type either.

The fact of the matter is that there is scholarship around the historicity of Domitanus and all sorts of other facts about Roman History that for a very long time were just taken for granted. I think what you are claiming is biased is in fact the standard. Like the current doubt the first siege of Constantinople by the Arabs in the 7th century actually happened.

[The Minsky Moment]

Close.  The Gospel of Marc ends right after the resurrection.  They find an empty tomb then freak out.

There's ambiguity.
Mark is great it's like a postmodern mystery novel.  If you can set aside all your preconceptions and prior understandings about the various participants its a very interesting read.

[The Minsky Moment]

How is Jesus not central to Christianity?

Whatever he was teaching and doing has little to do with what Christianity became as a religion. 

[crazy canuck]

The problem for Jesus is more acute because he is said to have existed in the context of a highly literate society. 

I wouldn't call the Galilee "highly literate" at the time.  The evidence for the existence of Jesus is actually pretty decent; applying a higher standard I think fairly leads to Raz's critique that lots of historical figures whose existence was generally accepted would fail.  To be clear it certainly can be questioned whether Jesus did all the things attributed to them in the Gospels (literally impossible given the contradictions) and thus it could be said that the existence of the "Jesus of the Bible" cannot be demonstrated.  But denial of the existence of any historical Jesus is, IMO, not a very strong argument.

I don't think you get to have it both ways.  We only know about Jesus because of Greek writings from that area.  Why didn't anyone bother to write about him in prior to that?  There is an obvious answer.  This Quran fragment tells us at least that there was someone named Mohammad identified as the Prophet from the earliest Islamic period and was not a creation of later writers.

[viper37]

How is Jesus not central to Christianity?

Whatever he was teaching and doing has little to do with what Christianity became as a religion. 

but Christianity is about believing in Jesus, the Son of God, in the litteral sense.
If you don't believe Jesus is the Son of God (or one manifestation of God), then you can't be a Christian.  The rest of the stuff varies depending on wich Church you pray to and how honest you are with yourself.  I suppose it is the same for other big monotheist religion.

[Razgovory]

Are you saying CC is a Muslim baiter, an angry member of the religious right, believes we are fighting a holy war, and is a stay at home hero who wants to fight ISIS in Barnes and Noble? Because the conspiracy is you writing all this off kind of depends on that being true. Generally I do not see him aligning with those people. I was not aware he was a New Atheist type either.

The fact of the matter is that there is scholarship around the historicity of Domitanus and all sorts of other facts about Roman History that for a very long time were just taken for granted. I think what you are claiming is biased is in fact the standard. Like the current doubt the first siege of Constantinople by the Arabs in the 7th century actually happened.

I still don't understand the conspiracy thing.  I'm saying there is a public appetite for this sort of nonsense.  There is a reason why Dan Brown novels sell well and the History Channel has had like five seasons of Ancient Aliens.  People like it.  I gave a range of reasons why someone might like read this particular type of bullshit, but it is no means exhaustive.  In this thread I asked CC several times why he is attracted to fringe theories concerning religion.  He never gave me an answer.  Were I to guess I would suggest that he is an atheist, and he likes works that reinforce his views.  I think there's something exciting about "secret knowledge".  Some information that you know, that the rest of the public doesn't, particularly when it's about something as salacious as religion.  It's entirely possible that his bullshit detector is off, he did mistake a novel for a work of non-fiction once.  As I have stated it's not the first time he pushed books with bizarre religious fringe theories before.

[viper37]

Why didn't anyone bother to write about him in prior to that?  There is an obvious answer. 

there are a lot of texts about Jesus, earlier than the Gospels.  Most of them are incomplete, or have different versions of the same text in different languages.

The obvious answer as to why there wasn't a definitive biography of Jesus published in 34 or our era could be explained by various possibilities:

   
• There were some early texts, they were destroyed while the early Christians tried to hide from Jewish and Roman authorities
• There weren't any early texts since being caught with that meant certain death at the hands of the Romans and likely ostracization from fellow Jews, therefore, it was confined to oral tradition.
• Any text about Jesus written by his contemporaies, Jews, Chrisitans, Romans could have been destroyed during one of the numerous rebellion or wars in the area.  It's not like the Roman Empire was totally stable for a 1000 years, after all.
• Roman and Greek Pagans, would not have been really interested in writing about "The Son of God" wich they didn't see as such, wich they considered a weakling for dying like a thief and wich to them looked like some kind of fringe Jewish movement.  The Romans were great in many way, but I wouldn't say they demonstrated openness to other cultures, not int the way we would refer to it in our times, at least.  By the time Romans and Greeks would show interest in Jesus, he would be long dead.  It's not like a Jewish guy preaching in Judea around 33AC would attract attention in Rome's higher circles.  Honestly, if some weird dude started preaching a new form of religion in a remote corner of Africa, and he got executed within a few years of starting his preachings, we would probably not hear about it until there was some form of genocide.  Or until someone convinced a Hollywood producer to make a movie about him and his tragic death.  And then, his life would likely be embellished for the sake of making a good movie.  Kinda like the Gospels...

[Razgovory]

The problem for Jesus is more acute because he is said to have existed in the context of a highly literate society. 

I wouldn't call the Galilee "highly literate" at the time.  The evidence for the existence of Jesus is actually pretty decent; applying a higher standard I think fairly leads to Raz's critique that lots of historical figures whose existence was generally accepted would fail.  To be clear it certainly can be questioned whether Jesus did all the things attributed to them in the Gospels (literally impossible given the contradictions) and thus it could be said that the existence of the "Jesus of the Bible" cannot be demonstrated.  But denial of the existence of any historical Jesus is, IMO, not a very strong argument.

I don't think you get to have it both ways.  We only know about Jesus because of Greek writings from that area.  Why didn't anyone bother to write about him in prior to that?  There is an obvious answer.  This Quran fragment tells us at least that there was someone named Mohammad identified as the Prophet from the earliest Islamic period and was not a creation of later writers.

Have you ever heard of the Elephantine papyri?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantine_papyri  It's a collection of old documents somebody dug out the ground.  Of particular interest is a marriage contract and further contracts dealing with property.  Now it dates back to before Roman rule, but presumably the well to do had similar contracts in Roman times.  Over the centuries hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of such documents were created.  Can you identify one such document from the whole of Judea between 20AD and 40AD?  How about in whole of Greece?  The question is not, "why is there no documents about Christ prior to the Greek ones", the question is "why are there any at all".

[viper37]

he did mistake a novel for a work of non-fiction once. 

what was the novel?

[The Brain]

he did mistake a novel for a work of non-fiction once. 

what was the novel?

Slave Girl of Gor. No wait, that was someone else.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think you get to have it both ways.  We only know about Jesus because of Greek writings from that area. \

No the Greek writings come later, and after the Jesus movement shifts from being a tiny Jewish messianic cult to an organization focused on proselytizing gentiles in the Greek-speaking world.  Paul spoke Greek but he was from Tarsus - a commercial city on the Med where Greek would be widely spoken - and not the Galilee.  The Gospels were not actually written by the evangelists they are ascribed to; thus, e.g., it is extremely unlikely Matthew or any apostle spoke Greek, much less were able to write it.

  Josephus, who was active about a generation after Jesus, could speak and write Greek, but he was unusually well educated and points out in his writings that his knowledge of Greek was rare among his people.