Stein wrote:Archibald has asked for figures whose levels of notoriety and documentation are roughly equivalent to that of Jesus the human rabbi.
Er, not quite.
Stein wrote:....and these names submitted here are strictly a start just to show how clueless those readers are who imagine that the documentation on Jesus the human rabbi is atypically sparse. It isn't.
You're right. It isn't. And I'm not sure who said it might be.
Stein wrote:Draco - lived during the late seventh century BCE, the earliest surviving mention seems to be Andocides who lived during the late fifth century BCE
Eilmer of Malmsbury - earliest source is William of Malmsbury writing in the early twelfth century, he likely never knew Eilmer but knew people who did
Nicholas of Myra - earliest surviving source is Michael the Archmandrite writing his hagiography several centuries later
Thales of Miletus - earliest surviving source is Herodotus, who lived more than half a century later
Stein
Rushing out here. I'll give you the list again and maybe you can help me tick them off.
Quickly doing Eilmer, I think he would tick 1-8, though not sure about 6 (astrological charts?) which would leave 9-17......
1. It's generally agreed that Ancient History doesn't provide strong evidence compared to either current events or more recent history. This has gotta bring the assessment down, for everyone from ancient history.
2. No archaeology. Down another tad.
3. No original texts. down a tad.
4. No primary sources. Down a tad.
5. No secondary sources. Down a tad.
6. No writings by the figure. Down a tad.
7. No contemporaneous references. Down a smidgeon.
8. Most of the evidence not from independent or disinterested sources.
9. Most of the evidence from theologically motivated individuals.
10. Same individuals largely, if not entirely, anonymous to history, and undated. Forgeries commonplace.
11. Earliest independent source has been tampered with and is not contemporary anyway.
12. Figure described as supernatural from the get go.
13. Earliest source contains an odd lack of historical detail.
14. Figure dripping in mythology and supernatural claims.
15. Evidence contains other made up figures and events.
16. Plausible hypotheses that a lot of the texts are allegorical
17. Evidence that texts were routinely amended.
Try this thought experiment in relation to, say, only no. 12 alone. Instead of a story about how a figure in a text built a glider, jumped off a tower and went 20 furlongs (as is the story of Eilmer), imagine the earliest story says he (Eilmer) generally flew about the place, without a glider. Would that sort of thing, of itself, add to his likely historicity, or slightly take away from it?
by 
). Do you see where having works 
