[lbo-talk] Karl Kautsky on Christianity

[John Thornton]

C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> The evidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth is about 
> as good as that for Julius Caesar or Cicero -- although it's certainly 
> true that, were it not for the existence of a movement that kept his 
> memory alive, he probably would have been forgotten: Jesus' life and 
> death did not have the historical significance of Caesar's -- or of, 
> say, Patrice Lumumba's -- as any Christian would admit (at least on 
> reflection).
>
> Of course there's always the view of the 19th century German scholar who 
> held that all of classical antiquity was a myth, a story made up by 
> monks in the 8th and 9th centuries CE.  His evidence was that all our 
> documents from the first centuries are written in Carolingian minuscule 
> -- copies, it was claimed, but originals, according to him... --CGE
>   

This is quite untrue. The historical existence for an actually existing 
Julius Caesar is thousands of times greater than for a historic Jesus 
what with there being only fabricated evidence for the later.
You are either misinformed about the nature of secondary and primary 
evidence that exists or you choose to ignore the huge real differences 
between the evidence available.
I am well aware that statements like yours are common and very few 
historians are willing to go on record saying the evidence for a mythic 
christ in nonexistent, there is no real gain for them for doing so and 
the howls of protest would make any such statements detrimental to ones 
career.
One cannot prove there was no Jesus (Which is technically a title rather 
than a name) just as one cannot prove there was no Horus.
This is really the tactic that fundamentalists tend to take, as if any 
and all evidence were of equal value. I'm always surprised to see it here.

 From Estabrook's previous postings he demonstrates more than a passing 
knowledge of the studies of antiquity so it's even more sad to see if 
from someone who should know better.
If you wish to accept the argument that it is all fabricated so be it 
but to pretend the quality and kind of evidence for Julius Caesar and 
Jesus Christ are even remotely similar is to allow the existence of 
Isis, Hercules, Paul Bunyon, satyrs, cyclops, griffins, etc.
If one is willing to accept the existence of evidence for Jesus Christ 
as being roughly comparable in value to that for Julius Caesar then one 
MUST also admit the evidence for the existence of griffins is greater 
than for Jesus Christ.

John Thornton