"Ducks in a row"?

Submitted by iasius (India), Nov 7, 2005 at 03:08

To Genghis Gandhi…

Indeed they did "keep very good records" – a necessity if one wishes to run an Empire. But, unless the Romans had gone so global as to use Greek in official records, it is hard to believe that "Jesus" could have been mentioned AS SUCH, simply because it is the Greek rendering of ‘Yehoshua', the character receiving mention in the Dead Sea Scrolls, that most resembles the hero of Pauline myth.

And, just for the record, the same meticulous Roman records pertaining to the period apparently do not mention a "Nazareth" at all; it seems the place did not exist at the time. The suffix "of Nazareth" for Jesus is more likely to be an incorrect rendering of ‘Nasorean', the name by which Qumranian Essenes were also known (even today, Christians are also known as ‘nasrani'). Given the wile that is a natural adjunct of the Church, the use seems to be more deliberate than otherwise.

Before we miss the point completely, let me reiterate: What I was trying to get across is the difficult-to-accept fact that the person touted by Christianity as historical has no tenability in fact. There could be a thousand ‘Jesuses' mentioned in Roman or other meticulous and reliable records, but that does not change the disheartening reality that the Church's ‘Jesus Christ' can be anything more than a clever fabrication.

BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed the inherent contradiction of the pseudonym "Genghis Gandhi"!

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".