lee_merrill

Not so, if the source is accurate, then (for example) 1% of a math book would still be good math, and so on. And there are ways of verifying accuracy, by cross-checking details and so on.

Now arguing from silence is not a good idea! "Since we have no record of X, then it must have been made up." Yet I do see this argument being used.

jeffevnz

In the case of HJ, the embarassments that people cite are pieces of information which contradict the supernatural claims about Jesus. Yes, Zeus and other mythical characters are portrayed as flawed, but you typically don't see evidence against their existence or various claims about them written into the story.

The idea is that if someone were to fabricate an earthly biography for a previously mythical Jesus, that person would almost certainly be a Christian. And why would a Christian add details to the story that cast doubt on their own beliefs? Examples:

- The people from Jesus's home town thinking he was full of it.
- Jesus saying "My father, why have you forsaken me?" on the cross.
- Failed prophecy. Jesus said he would return in the lifetime of some people in the audience, but nearly all those people would have been dead by the time GMark was written down, and certainly all by the time the other Gospels were written.


Another piece of evidence I find compelling, which sort of falls under this category is that, IMO, Jesus comes off as a very realistic con-artist/cult leader. If someone fabricated the Gospels, they did a good job of writing his character, in otherwise poorly written books.

aa5874

So, it's not a good idea to claim there is nothing on the Jesus of the NT even if nothing can be found?

diana

Interestingly, I've not encountered a group who doesn't use an argument from silence when it seems indicative of the truth of their claim, Christians included.

This is probably because we all realize the argument from silence is a reasonable approach in some situations. Thus, I have no problem with you accusing us of making an argument from silence, but I respectfully request you explain why you believe it is unreasonable in this instance.

d

andrewcriddle

I don't know.

My guess is that the later part of the book was lost by sheer accident.

Is there any evidence as to whether this loss occurred early or late in the course of transmission of the text ?

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

In response to the OP I would say that the strongest evidence for a Historical Jesus are the claims of the early Christian community.

In order to set aside this evidence one probably has to take one or more of the following steps.

a/ Argue that the 'mainstream' dates and authorship of the NT documents are radically wrong eg date all the NT to the 2nd century CE.

b/ Argue that the earliest available Christian texts do not imply belief by their authors in a Historical Jesus and that those early texts that do imply such belief (eg Luke's Gospel) are putting forward something radically different than the earlier sources.
Earl Doherty's argument that the earliest Christian texts such as Paul's letters understand the death of Jesus to have occurred in a non-earthly realm is an example of this approach.

c/ Argue that the Christian community probably proclaimed some sort of reasonably recent Historical Jesus from the beginning but that the claims of religious ideological zealots are bad evidence.

IMO none of these options is particularly likely.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

I have no interest in arguing for or against in this pseudo-debate; my comments were on something more useful, the transmission of texts.

I may be mistaken, but as far as I can see the debate is not between Christian and non-Christian, but between educated and uneducated. No-one is paying me to force an education on fools, and unless we are masochists, who would propose to do it for any other reason?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Minimalist

It is also misused in situations.

For instance, archaeologists have failed to find any remnants of a glorious, 10th century BC city at Jerusalem. What they do find is the remnants of a small village which could never have supported any sort of "Davidic Empire" as claimed in the OT.

The Bible-Thumpers screech that a conclusion that there was no Davidic Empire is an argument from silence because we have found no evidence of it. Yet, this misstates the point. We have found plenty of evidence....it merely does not support their claims. That is a whole other ball game.

The Dead Sea scrolls make no mention of Jesus. Is this an argument from silence or merely compelling evidence that prior to 70 AD there was no great debate brewing in Judaism about him?

Two hundred years of digging in Egypt have failed to find any indication of any number of Hebrew slaves. The consensus among secular archaeologists is that they were never there. This IS an argument from silence but it is not for lack of looking. At some point the ball must be tossed back into the arms of the opposition saying "we give up...you look for evidence if you wish."

Roger Pearse

If so, wouldn't it be best not to draw conclusions? To stick to what has reached us, and not get creative with it? That is more or less my own view.

But I think that you only intend a defence of "history is mostly bunk", and my opinion of those who profess such a view can hardly have escaped you. By all means think so if you wish!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

IMHO I am dubious that we can know anything much for certain about Tacitus source for these comments. People often write all sorts of things about what authors 'must' have known (or not known, if that seems preferable). In view of the loss of 99% of ancient literature (the estimate of Pietro Bembo, endorsed by Nigel Wilson), we need to bear in mind that we weren't there, we don't know, and our best guesses are likely to be poor.

The only point that I would make is that trying to invent a story of how Tacitus came to write something as a reason to ignore what he definitely says seems rather pointless to me. Any of us could do this for anything in any work in the world. It is unlikely to reflect anything but our own biases, surely? (Yours and mine)

All the best,

Roger Pearse