Toto

Elijah - you asked for a link to a previous thread on this very question, and I gave it to you. If you had read it, you would know the answers to some of your questions. Then we could discuss the exact parameters of the silence in question and what it might mean, instead of getting repetitious questions about Philo.

GakuseiDon

Yes, I'd be interested in answers to that, as well. Nearly always the Remsberg list (or something similar) is offered, with little to no analysis done on why Jesus should be mentioned. I'd like to see a case made for this, based on the texts themselves rather than just the list. Iasion's list has very broad information on the author, but doesn't look at the texts. Has anyone actually done that, or seen a link to where that has been done?

It might also be useful to list non-Christian references to Christianity itself, and try to compare when the earliest references were against when it was thought Christianity started. If no-one was interested in Christianity, then they (probably) wouldn't be interested in Jesus either.

Elijah

Thanks for the link again Toto. But simple answers to my questions when asked would also be appreciated instead of dodging.

What answer do you think that thread would provide me and for what question?

We are discussing the parameters of the silence. We are trying to establish who was silent on him and look at the text they provided to see if that silence is expected due to the work they left. You provided a list and called it a day in having to validate that list as actually having anyone that supports the argument from silence. I have no idea why you are so apprehensive towards examining the evidence. I don't even know who/what you really consider evidence for the silence argument, you're so reluctant to answer any of my questions.

spin

Forum members are encouraged to deal directly with available evidence, rather than looking to have their hand held.


spin

Toto

Oh - questions like this:

I provided a list and naively thought that you might start to read it so we could discuss the details with some common background. But all of your responses seem to involve either an outright distortion of what I typed, or an insult.

Perhaps I need to clarify that I do not think that there are any simple answers here, and the argument from silence is interesting but not conclusive. You seem to expect that there is either a smoking gun, like a census survey of Nazareth that doesn't list Jesus, or else the whole topic is worthless. If that is your expectation, I can see why you might think that I an avoiding an answer, but it is your expectations that are wrong.

The previous thread at least gives you a framework for starting to discuss the matter, if you really want a discussion, which I have yet to see any evidence of.

Elijah

I looked at the list... obviously. I didn't see anyone that stood out as having an unexpected silence regarding Jesus that we could examine. I asked you who you thought should have mentioned Jesus and the text they should have mentioned him in and all I get is defensive responses to my very very simple questions.

Sorry for whatever insult you perceived from me, it was unintentional.

Toto

"Defensive?" like your insults are "unintentional."

Why don't you go through the list and show why the silences are not unexpected?

Why did Josephus describe a nobody like Jesus son of Ananais but not Jesus of Nazareth? Why do the writings about Apollonius of Tyana not mention Jesus? Why was Lucian the first Roman satirist to mock Christians - why did Juvenal and Martial not find some material there?

Philo wrote about a neoplatonist version of Hellenistic Judaism while Paul was allegedly traipsing around the Roman Empire preaching something very similar. Philo never mentions Paul or points out why he is right or wrong. Philo also wrote about a political clash in Alexandria that bears some amazing similarities to the description of Jesus' trial in the gospels, including some similar personnel, a betrayal, and crucifixions. What is the likelihood that he might have mentioned Pilate's treatment of Jesus as an aside, if he knew about it? What is the likelihood that he would have known about it?

Do these questions even interest you?

Iasion has provided his own rating of the signficance of these silences, from insignficant to 4 on a scale of 5. Would you agree with his assessment?

Elijah

They truly are. You are offended rather easily so I’m not even sure what you are talking about. You had a problem with the term “myther” so it could be anything. We should move away from this area of discussion so I don’t get another warning though.
Do you think I really should? Should I start a new thread? GakuseiDon is curious as well and Ben C Smith seems to have researched this already and has an opinion so maybe he’d be interested to.

It seems more rational to approach what the most likely and most suspicious absences are then just going through every name from the time.
I don’t know why Josephus is used when he has a reference for Jesus. I realize the actual reference it’s not credible and has been tampered with but I don’t understand how the work can be used as evidence for him not mentioning him. I have to be missing something here.

The writings about Apollonius of Tyana doesn't mention Jesus because they are about Apollonius of Tyana seems like the obvious answer. Is there some connection to Jesus that Apollonius has that I don’t know of?

So your argument is that Lucian mocks Christians so it’s expected out of other satirists and Poets like Juvenal and Martial to? Writers not writing history of the area or the culture in question you expect to mention Jesus. Martial appears to be writing about Roman life and Juvenal doesn’t seem any more likely. They aren’t historians or part of the culture in question. Why do you expect them to mention Jesus? Which text do you think he is missing from that they left?
Knowing about it and writing about it are two different things. He is first and foremost a philosopher not a historian. Unrealistic expectations with the type of writings he left. Yes he was the most likely of the people in question to have been aware of the situation but there isn’t any certainty that he would. It isn’t certain and from the text he left that area and conflict would have been something he needed to write about. He was busy amalgamating Plato into Judaism.
The question of why Philo didn’t write about him? Philo interest me but I think it just wasn’t in his area of what he was talking about… if he even knew what was going on. Which is a big if.
No I don’t agree with any of those ratings or the concept behind adding it all up to prove a silence. Philo tops the list with “should have” and I don’t agree with the roman writers as “probably should” have. And that’s the best the list has to offer. Where are the Jewish historians from the time and area that are silent on Jesus?

Toto

The Jewish historians are Josephus and Justus.

As you might have known if you had read the thread more carefully.

Have a nice Thanksgiving.

Elijah

Which you we have already discussed why they aren't good evidence for the case.

Is that it? Shouldn't the real absence be that there are no historians from the time and area not that the historians of the time and area don't mention Jesus?

You have a good one to.