Clivedurdle

The ones who did, Fiction writers and storytellers and myth makers.

Zaphod

Andrew, I am sure that you know far far more on this subject than I do, but I will reply.

As far as I understand it, the Argument from Silence rests on the fact that none of the historians of the era wrote about Jesus in a such a way that one would expect them to, assuming that virtually any of the stories about Jesus were true.

Hence, none of the stories of miracles could be true, as surely true and witnessed miracles would have been newsworthy?

None of the stories which portray Jesus as having even a moderate following could be true, as even such small matters were noticed , written about, and the texts survive today.

So it seems we are left with two situations: either Jesus never existed, and all the stories about him are conjured, or that he did exist, but caused so little a stir that he escaped attention from historians.

This latter hypothesis seems, to me, to not easily bear scrutiny, for, as I understand it, the historians of the time noticed and wrote about even quite minor characters of the day.

I also feel it might be significant that, as I understand it, even in the apologetic literature that survives, none of the authors profess to be a first hand witness to Jesus himself, always writing from afar.

So, if the supposed Jesus made little or no attention to himself in the area in which he lived, escaped attention of attentive historians, wrote no manuscripts himself, left no relics, and was not recorded first-hand by any authors of any surviving manuscripts, then how can we not deem the only safe starting assumption is that he did not exist historically?

Especially since the only surviving documents which do attest to his existence are self contradictory, exhibit multiple instances of historic revisionism for well-documented good reasons, and are not believed to be cohistorical with Jesus himself?

andrewcriddle

One problem is that apart from Josephus (who in our extant texts does mention Jesus but who may or may not have been interpolated) we have little surviving material from non-Christian contemporary sources about events in Palestine during the time of Jesus. (We know much more about events in Rome during the same period.)

For example many, maybe most, of those who doubt a historical Jesus accept a historical John the Baptist. However our only surviving evidence for John the Baptist comes from Josephus plus Christian sources and Christian influenced groups such as the Mandaeans.

If the historical Jesus was a reasonably prominent but controversial figure in the Galilee who attempted to extend his activity to Jerusalem and was killed as a result, then few of the non-Christian writers of the day would have bothered to mention this, apart from those providing a background to accounts of later Christian activity as in Tacitus.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

The problem for for those who propose a physical only Jesus of the NT is that those who wrote about Jesus of the NT claimed he was a God and provided witnesses including his so-called mother Mary to corroborate that he was offspring of the Holy Spirit.

In fact, the NT cannot support a human only Jesus, such a human only figure would render the entire NT and all early Church writings to be completetly erroneous and implausible from birth, to ascension, to the second coming.

For the human only Jesus to be maintained it would mean that perhaps all the main characters of the NT including Jesus, his parents, the disciples, the authors and followers, even the shepherds, were involved in a scheme to mis-lead everyone about the true nature and character of Jesus.

If it is assumed that Jesus was just human and a figure like John the Baptist, Banos, or Jesus son of Ananus, as stated in Josephus' writings, then the stories about Jesus are just not credible in any way. And this human Jesus appears to become virtually a wholly fictitious character without redemption that cannot be salvaged.

spin

Josephus.

Oh... and Hebrew sources. Mishna or early layers of the talmud.

You need to be qualitative with your sources. Neither the christian sources nor Josephus have any tickets on there having been a JtB. The two sources are at odds with each other enough to show that they are not from within the same tradition. The survival of the Mandaeans is evidence of a non-christian tradition.

Can we use a term like "hypothetically historical Jesus"? The "historical Jesus" descriptor isn't based on any known historical processes that I have seen.


spin

Roger Pearse

The less good news is that their efforts are being used in Moslem propaganda in order to promote Islam.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

But again we have to ask specifically which historians we mean?

This isn't being frivolous; people really have little idea who wrote what and when. In fact I enquired in a classics mailing list if there was, anywhere, a list of extant literary texts written between 30 and 100 AD, and drew a blank. The materials to make one are around, although it would be quite a bit of work, but no-one has done this.

I'm sure that you realise, as I do, that in the absence of such information any claims to silence look a bit strange. Unless we have a clear idea what exists, how can we judge what 'should' exist?

If I can find the time and resources, I might compile such a list myself.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

While I appreciate the need for clarification, I feel that there is a certain hint of sidetracking historical pursuit. If there aren't any historical sources that deal with the issue, can there be any history? (This doesn't mean that whatever it was didn't happen, but that we mightn't have any evidence to permit us to talk meaningfully about the subject as history.)


spin

ynquirer

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” The saying is sound, not just because Lincoln said it, but because it is commonsense: the alternative view is conspiracy theory. In dynamic terms, the idea implies that creeds based on lies in all likelihood will lose, and certainly will not gain, believers. Being a fast-growing creed, as it was in the first three centuries CE, that Christianity might be based on lies is scarcely plausible.

This is the reason why Doherty’s criticism is attractive, that is, because he doesn’t say that Jesus’ existence was a purposeful lie. He rather suggests that it was the undesired outcome of a gross misunderstanding: Paul’s followers unwillingly misinterpreted his words and so self deluded. No-one really wished to fool anyone else, and accordingly Lincoln’s dictum does not apply. So far so good.

In coming across textual evidence of Jesus’ existence, such as Josephus and Tacitus, however, the critic becomes inconsistent and explains the evidence as interpolation by Christian scribes – lies. After all, potential dishonesty is to be taken into the frame, isn’t it? And yet, the interesting detail is why interpolation is assumed without evidence. For there is no conclusive evidence that they are interpolations, just a mindset in its stead.

The mindset is this. Deprived of miracles and resurrection, Jesus was a ‘nobody’. And history – especially ancient history – speaks of great, noticeable men alone. Therefore, if a pagan historian, like Tacitus, speaks of such a ‘nobody’, it is not Tacitus himself but a later forger of his work, who does. In Josephus’ case the argument runs parallel: Josephus, a Jew, is not expected to speak in such favorable terms of someone like Jesus; therefore - &etc.

What is this? I’d call it the argument from Noise: if not a wonder-maker, Jesus is not expected to be spoken of in history; if history speaks of him, so much worse for history. For “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and the claim that ancient historians could have written about such uninteresting person requires extraordinary evidence. Without factual evidence against, extant Tacitus is required to show proof that what he says is what the author really wished to say. Likewise for extant Josephus. Nonsense, overall.

The argument from Noise is the mirror-image of the argument from Silence. They don’t need to be shared as beliefs by the same people; that would be unfair, and I won’t suppose unfairness in anyone. Yet, partisans of the argument from Noise spread the rumour that Jesus’ existence lacks evidence, which is only too convenient for the partisans of the argument from Silence.

That way, by saying things contradictory to each other, the partisans of both arguments reinforce one another and so score a common goal, namely, leaving no room for any possible evidence, whether extant or potential, of the historical Jesus. Fine.

Malachi151

Not true. See my analysis of the passages here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...history.htm#10