In post #29 in this threaddon’t ask related his recollection of hearing a historian talking on the radio mention that, “for instance, there is far better evidence, closer to his lifetime, that Jesus existed than there is that Julius Caesar existed. However people accept as fact that Caesar was real and many doubt that Jesus was.”
Could this possibly be true? Didn’t the Roman emperors coin money bearing their names and likenesses, inscribe their names and exploits on various buildings, get mentioned in various records?
That is actually silly. We have busts of Gaius Iulius Caesar from his life. Writings of his and his contemporaries and the recorded (written down) speeches of Cicero.
I have heard the same analogy given with Socrates, however, and that holds up pretty well. Most of what we “know” about Socrates comes from Plato, who was well known for making things (like Atlantis) up.
wiki "Details about Socrates derive from three contemporary sources: the dialogues of Plato and Xenophon (both devotees of Socrates), and the plays of Aristophanes."
This is a statement that has be bandied for a while (I remember being taught this as a statment of fact at our church youth group). Its simply a ridiculous claim, there is FAR FAR more evidence for the existence of Caesar than Jesus.
If we’re gonna keep this in GQ I’d be interested in know who first made this claim, and how they justified it.
