Corpus-Paul

["David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>]

Zeba Crook says:

>>This [i.e., an explanation that takes into consideration a known
historical context is better than one that does not do so] is true to a
certain extent, but it has no probative value when it comes to the question
of Jesus' existence.  The fact that we can't explain such a profoundly
complex phenomenon as the origins of Christian belief does lead logically to
the conclusion that Jesus must [not?] have existed.<<

I had purposely tried to avoid the question of the evidence for his
existence, and there is some (even outside the NT), as I did not think that
was the main thrust of the thread. Still, the evidence for his existence is
very tenuous, all of it hearsay, and it is difficult to determine the extent
which the evidence from non-Christian sources is independent of the
Christian tradition (e.g., "I, a non-Christian Roman with connections, have
read, or heard from the imperial household, that the acta on file from
prefect X records show Jesus was this or that") or just mirrors what they
had heard from Christians, or is even really about Jesus at all (e.g., "The
Jews of Rome were expelled because of tumults at the instigation of
Chrestus").

Then again, I was not trying to make a logical case, but was speaking of
probabilities. The closer an explanation correlates with processes or events
or reactions that are known in history of the period and region, the higher
the probability that it is correct (or at least on the right track).

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA