ApostateAbe

This is the third installment of a critical review of Doug Shaver's claims contained in his page, "What's wrong with the picture?" of his website, "Was there a real Jesus?".

Probabilistic Difficulty #3:

No non-Christian writer who would have been a contemporary of Jesus, or who was born soon enough to have known someone who was a contemporary, shows any awareness of any religious leader who could have been Jesus of Nazareth. The earliest credible references cited as secular corroboration prove, at most, only that the writers were aware of people called Christians and that those people believed their founder had been executed by Pilate. No secular writer who mentions Jesus was born during his alleged lifetime. No secular writer who mentions Jesus and who could have known a contemporary of Jesus cites a source for what he says about Jesus.

I have previously written about the silence of contemporary non-Christian writers in my thread, "How to judge an argument from silence." I will copy the text (with minor revisions) to this thread.

This is an argument from silence. That label has a negative connotation. But, really, arguments from silence are not always faulty--I sometimes use them myself. They are mostly pitfalls only because there are limitations to arguments from silence in ancient history, and these limitations are easy to overlook. I have formulated a set of points of perspective by which we can judge an argument from silence.

1. An author would mention a point only if he knew about it.
2. An author would mention a point only if it were in his interest to do so.
3. We would know about such writings only if the evidence is preserved. In ancient history, written text may be preserved through quoting, scribing in stone, burying, many generations of copying, or a combination of these methods.
4. We would know about such writings only if they are known to modern scholarship.

If we strongly expect all four of these conditions to be met (but there is still only silence), then an argument from silence has weight, Otherwise, such an argument contributes very little to the conclusion, in my opinion.

Arguments from silence need to put in a further perspective that literacy was rare in the ancient world. Only 15% of Greeks at the time could read, let alone write, and writing was an expensive activity. It was typically an activity that was hired. There were no newspapers, primarily only the ruling class wrote letters, and nobody scribbled notes of things they saw.

So, on which point do we take issue with the argument from non-Christian contemporary silence about Jesus? The first three points apply most strongly. The third point explains why we today have only one contemporary historian that we expect may mention Jesus; only one of them--Philo of Alexandria. And, the first two points may explain why Philo never mentioned Jesus. If Jesus really was an ordinary human being called Jesus, then why would we expect Philo to have heard about him, let alone write about him? Philo, when he wasn't writing about the ancient Jewish traditions, focused almost exclusively on the events of the upper class.

There was another historical figure analogous to Jesus whom Philo was also completely silent about--John the Baptist. We know about John the Baptist through both the gospels and the writing of Josephus. And it is reasonable to expect that Josephus knew about John the Baptist and Jesus only because of the 70-year growth of the two cults emerging from those two figures, not from the notable accomplishments that were borne out in the lifetimes of either John the Baptist or Jesus. Philo probably knew about John the Baptist, in my opinion. So, why didn't Philo write about John the Baptist? Well, probably because Philo just didn't care, and John the Baptist didn't have much to do with what Philo was writing about.

The list of four points of perspective is useful for judging any argument from silence. We can use it to judge some arguments from silence as legitimate. For example, the Christian Biblicist Jesus, whose birth defied the mass murder of a jealous king, supposedly enacted many miracles in his ministry and rose from the dead with an earthquake, a tearing of the curtain of the temple, and the haunting of zombies in the streets of Jerusalem--those events would be strongly expected to make a huge immediate cultural impact all over the Roman empire, be mentioned by at least one other writer before Josephus, and be quoted by existing Christian writings. However, the best competing model--that Jesus was the short-lived leader of a small poor rural doomsday cult--expects no such citations by contemporary non-Christian authors. Almost any model of the historical Jesus can defeat the Christian Biblicist version of history, but of course that is not the relevant test if a merely-mythical model of Jesus wants a respected place on the table in debates of history.

aa5874

Well, after reading your post HJ is an argument from SILENCE.

MJ is NOT an argument from Silence.

Once you admit that there is virtually NOTHING about HJ from non-Christian sources then that was EXACTLY INHERENTLY PREDICTED by MJers.

MJers CORRECTLY PREDICTED:

1. that Jesus would be DESCRIBED as a MYTH.

2. that Jesus would ACT as a MYTH.

3. that NO contemporary writer would have SEEN Jesus alive before he supposedly died.

4. that HJers would NOT FIND any credible sources of antiquity for Jesus.


Now, ONCE HJers DISCREDIT the Gospels then they MUST ARGUE FROM SILENCE.

HJers HAVE NO CHOICE but to ARGUE from SILENCE.

Let us NOTE the SILENCE, the BIG BLACK HOLE of the HJ argument.

1. Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem is an Argument from Silence. There is NO credible source of antiquity that show Jesus was BORN and was NOT born in Bethlehem

2. Jesus was a CULT leader is an argument from Silence. Jesus was NOT called CHRIST by the populace in the NT.

3. Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher is an argument from Silence . Again, even in the NT, Jesus had a PRIVATE discussion with some disciple shortly BEFORE he was dead.

GakuseiDon

Yes, too often the Gospel Jesus is conflated with the historical Jesus. No Gospel Jesus == no historical Jesus.

Still, I wonder if even the Gospel Jesus existed, would we still expect contemporary sources to have reported it? I would like to see someone argue that we would. Obviously, the first thing would be that if a Roman in Rome heard about the exploits of Jesus, would they believe it in the first place? As I pointed out in the other thread, many of those who came to accept Jesus as Christ did so because of the Hebrew Scriptures. That suggests a sympathy for such writings in the first place. Even if the Gospel accounts of Jesus were literally true, I doubt that most Romans would believe such accounts in the first place, since they would cast doubt on the power of the Roman gods.

ApostateAbe

If the primary response is disbelief, then it would still make a tremendous impact. There would be no ordinary way to explain thousands of inhabitants and pilgrims of Jerusalem who witness zombies and the torn temple curtain (no small curtain), highlighted with an earthquake, an eclipse, a storm, all surrounding a guy who was reputed by thousands of non-Christian witnesses (Jews and Romans) to have enacted miracles. At the very least, it would have meant that Christianity would have exploded much more rapidly, and there would have been a huge counter-movement in the middle east to cast doubt on it.

aa5874

It is HJers who have PROMOTED the Conflation.

HJers claim THEIR HJ was NOT Christ but still use Galatians 1.19 where Jesus was called the CHRIST.

HJers claim THEIR HJ was NOT Jesus Christ of Nazareth who was born in Bethlehem but use the very Gospels to claim THEIR HJ was BORN in Nazareth.

HJers claim THEIR HJ was NOT Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Child of a Ghost, born in Bethlehem who walked on water, TRANSFIGURED, and was BAPTIZED by John but use the VERY NT to claim THEIR HJ was BAPTIZED by John.

HJers claim THEIR HJ was NOT Jesus Christ of NAZARETH who was born in Bethlehem, walked on water, TRANSFIGURED and was Crucified under Pilate but use the very NT to claim THEIR HJ was CRUCIFIED under Pontius Pilate.



Well, CONTEMPORARY sources did WRITE about Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was a 2nd century invention.

You have CONFLATED the issue but this is the picture based on evidence from antiquity--The Gospel Jesus===2nd century invention.

Jesus was just a story FABRICATED in the 2nd century but the main characters were placed in the 1st century DURING the reign of Tiberius and when Pilate was Governor.

The Roman writer CELSUS wrote about the Jesus Christ story which INDICATES that it was in the 2ND century that the Jesus story FIRST had any IMPACT on Roman writers.

CELSUS wrote "True Discourse" based on "Against Celsus" by Origen and the Roman writer was EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL about the Jesus story.

Now, it is EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT to understand that CELSUS wrote "True Discourse" about 150 years AFTER the supposed death of Jesus Christ and BELIEVED the Jesus story was FICTION, even the claim that Jesus had NO human father.

It would have been even more disastrous if Roman writers actually KNEW Jesus Christ and his PARENTS if he did LIVE and had ALREADY TOLD ROMANS and the Emperors of Rome that the claims by CHRISTIANS were COMPLETELY FALSE when they ASSERTED that Jesus Christ had NO human father and was of the seed of God.

The Deified Emperors of Rome would be DELIGHTED to have CHRISTIANS in the Roman Empire EXECUTED for refusing to worship them as Gods when they were KNOWN to be worshiping a Jew as a GOD.

In "Against Celsus", the author of "True Discourse",CELSUS, did NOT make mention that EARLIER ROMAN writers had FOUND out that CHRISTIANS LIED when they claimed Jesus had NO human father.

It is CLEAR that there were CONTEMPORARY sources about the Jesus stories but you MUST look in the correct century.

Jesus Christ was a CONTEMPORARY of the Roman writer CELSUS.

And now look, the Greek writer LUCIAN was a CONTEMPORARY of the INITIAL Jesus story, too.

See Lucian's "Peregrinus".

If Jesus did EXIST and was actually KNOWN to have had a human father by the Romans People and the DEIFIED Roman Emperors since the 1st century and before the Fall of the Temple then CHRISTIANS would be EXTINCT today.

The Roman people and the DEIFIED Emperors of Rome would be DELIGHTED to have those Jewish LIARS and DECEIVERS destroyed when they claimed Jesus had NO human father.

It is HISTORICALLY IMPROBABLE that the Roman People and the DEIFIED Emperors of Rome knew that it was a LIE that Jesus had NO human father.

Jesus Christ is a 2nd century invention and his CONTEMPORARIES like CELSUS and LUCIAN wrote about him.

GakuseiDon

Well, I know you don't hold that the Gospels contain verifiable historical accounts anymore than I, but: if (completely hypothetically) they were accounts of actual events then, given the world in which the accounts occurred, I'm not sure that there would have been a great more accounts than what we got anyway.

For example, when Jesus did miraculous healings on the Sabbath day, the reaction wasn't "Holy shit!" but "Hey, you can't do that on the Sabbath day!" He was accused of being a sorceror; this in a time where magic and the invoking of daemons for good and ill was not considered unreasonable. In fact, despite his miracles, when he gave difficult sayings, he lost followers, at least according to the Gospel stories. From Paul's letters to the apologetics going into the Third Century, the most convincing element to accepting Jesus as Christ seemed to be that he was prefigured in the Hebrew Scriptures, and as "Son of God" the resurrection (at least in Paul's case). I don't know anyone who used the miracles and Jesus' sayings to show that he was the Christ, except where they were tied to the Old Testament.

I think an equivalent example is Alexander the False Prophet, who lived around 150 CE. He was famous in his time, known throughout the Roman world, and had a religion based on him that lasted several centuries (one which the famous comic book writer and mystic Alan Moore has 'revived'). Yet we only have a few accounts, the main one being Lucian. Roger Pearse's excellent website has a page on Alexander, including an extract from Lucian on him, which forms an interesting 'anti-Gospel':
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/lu..._alexander.htm

Although Alexander achieved honour not only in his own country, a small city in remote Paphlagonia, but over a large part of the Roman world, almost nothing is known of him except from the pages of Lucian. Gems, coins, and inscriptions corroborate Lucian as far as they go, testifying to Alexander’s actual existence and widespread influence, and commemorating the name and even the appearance of Glycon, his human-headed serpent. But were it not for Lucian, we should not understand their full significance.

According to Lucian:

By now he was even sending men abroad to create rumours in the different nations in regard to the oracle and to say that he made predictions, discovered fugitive slaves, detected thieves and robbers, caused treasures to be dug up, healed the sick, and in some cases had actually raised the dead. So there was a hustling and a bustling from every side, with sacrifices and votive offerings—and twice as much for the prophet and disciple of the god...

So far, we have been concerned with his doings near the frontier, extending over Ionia, Cilicia, Paphlagonia, and Galatia. But when the renown of his prophetic shrine spread to Italy and invaded the city of Rome, everybody without exception, each on the other’s heels, made haste, some to go in person, some to send; this was the case particularly with those who had the greatest power and the highest rank in the city...

No sooner did Alexander get Italy in hand than he began to devise projects that were ever greater and greater, and sent oracle-mongers everywhere in the Roman Empire, warning the cities to be on their guard against plagues and conflagrations and earth*quakes; he promised that he would himself afford them infallible aid so that none of these calamities should befall them...

And this, probably my favorite bit:

Of all this blackguard’s emprises, however, hear one, the greatest. Since he had no slight influence in the palace and at court through the favour which Rutilianus enjoyed, he published an oracle at the height of the war in Germany, when the late Emperor Marcus himself had at last come to grips with the Marcomanni and Quadi. The oracle recommended that two lions be cast into the Danube alive, together with a quantity of perfumes and magnificent offerings. But it will be better to repeat the oracle itself.

“Into the pools of the Ister, the stream that from Zeus taketh issue,
Hurl, I command you, a pair of Cybele’s faithful attendants,
Beasts that dwell on the mountains, and all that the Indian climate
Yieldeth of flower and herb that is fragrant; amain there shall follow
Victory and great glory, and welcome peace in their footsteps.”

But when all this had been done as he had directed, the lions swam across to the enemy territory and the barbarians slaughtered them with clubs, thinking them some kind of foreign dogs or wolves; and “amain” that tremendous disaster befel our side, in which a matter of twenty thousand were wiped out at a blow. Then came what happened at Aquileia, and that city’s narrow escape from capture. To meet this issue, Alexander was flat enough to adduce the Delphian defence in the matter of the oracle given to Croesus, that the God had indeed foretold victory, but had not indicated whether it would go to the Romans or to the enemy

Another pertinent example is the eruption of Mt Vesuvius, which killed thousands and left tens of thousands fleeing for their lives. However, we only have the one account, by Pliny the Younger, written many years later at the behest of his friend Tacitus. There are a couple of other indirect references, but very few for a major disaster not that far from Rome itself.

So I'm not convinced that, even if the Gospel stories were completely true (and again, for any reading this, I am not suggesting that at all), we should expect to find many more references than what we have.

Doug Shaver

I'd like to present the argument from silence in the form I think is relevant to this topic.

Here is the form, or one version thereof:

An event E is alleged to have occurred. We should expect a writer W contemporary with the event, or nearly contemporary, to have mentioned E if:
1. We reasonably think W would have been aware of E;
2. We reasonably think that because of E's relevance to subjects about which W customarily wrote, he would have been motivated to mention E; and
3. We are aware of no reason to suspect W would have been motivated to feign ignorance of E.

But there is also the question of whether we should expect to know about W's writing about E. We don't have any idea what most ancient writers wrote about because most ancient writings did not survive long enough for modern historians to have any awareness of them. The only ancient documents we know about or can know about are those that (a) were copied on enough occasions that at least one manuscript still exists, or (b) were of sufficient interest to other authors that they mentioned the documents in their own writings. These two factors are not independent. Documents that get mentioned a lot are likelier to be copied than ones that are ignored in other writings, and documents that get copied a lot are probably going to get mentioned oftener than those of which hardly any copies exist. The point is that at least one of those things has to happen to a document -- lots of copies have to be made, or other writers have to mention the document -- before we can even be aware of the document's existence.

I go into that because I consider it a near certainty that if some first-century writer had mentioned Jesus of Nazareth, then we would know about it, because the community of literate Christians would have made sure people knew about it. Some manuscripts would almost certainly have survived, and even if they had not, the writings would have been mentioned in documents that did survive. Those writings would not have vanished without a trace. Vanished maybe, but not without a trace.

Since we do not know of any contemporary or near-contemporary references to Jesus, with the arguable exception of the Pauline corpus and other canonical epistles (I don't include the gospels or Acts among near-contemporary writings), I think it justifiable to suppose there never were any. I would entertain arguments to the contrary, but to date I have never seen any. Historicists apparently take it for granted that there were none. Except for Josephus, of course, but we don't need to go there in this thread. If total silence would be anomalous, total silence with only one exception would be hardly less anomalous.

So the question is: Is it really so anomalous? Well, that depends on what the real Jesus really did, if there was a real Jesus. The standard historicist argument is that he didn't do anything that would have attracted anybody's attention. OK, let's hold that thought. He was just one more itinerant preacher with a few disciples following him around, and nobody important was paying him any attention, until one day he pissed off the wrong people and got himself executed on charges of insurrection or some such accusation. And, that would have been the end of the story except that some of those disciples got it into their heads that he didn't stay dead and he was really the Jewish messiah and he was even the Son of God, and they commenced to telling all this to anybody who would listen to them and, next thing you know, the world has a new religion. But then, what's the big deal with another new religion? In the first-century Middle East, they were all over the place. Who would have cared enough to write about that, other than the new religion's own members?

So far, so good for historicism. Except . . . if he was such a nobody, if he was so indistinguishable from all the other itinerant preachers of his day, then what made his disciples think he was so special? Special enough for God to have raised him from the dead? Special enough to be the messiah foretold by the Jewish prophets? Special enough to have been God's own son? What did he do or say to give them such ideas about him?

It might not actually matter whether he really did or said anything of that sort, but it certainly matters that the disciples must have thought he had. Not that we have their word for it. The disciples themselves left no writings (an anomaly itself), but we know, at least approximately, what they were telling people about Jesus, because it had to have been something like what Paul was putting in his letters.

Yes, I know, we ahistoricists make a big deal of scripture and revelation being Paul's only source of information about Jesus. Even so, he makes it plain enough that his message was consistent with what Cephas and the other pillars in Jerusalem were preaching. On the historicist assumption, then, Jesus' disciples were saying the same things Paul was saying. What we ahistoricists are claiming is just that Peter and the others were never anybody's disciples; but if they were disciples, then they were saying things about the man whose disciples they had been that ought to have gotten some attention -- because the disciples had to have been saying a lot more than what Paul was putting in his letters. They had to have been saying a few things at every possible opportunity about why they believed that this cipher of a Galilean preacher who'd been executed as a criminal was the resurrected Son of God and messiah of Israel. Never mind why Paul was oblivious to Jesus' pre-crucifixion life. We can't believe that the disciples would have been similarly oblivious. They had to have been telling stories, and the stories had to have attracted attention. But the surviving historical record says they attracted no attention. I submit that the most parsimonious explanation is that the stories were not being told because there was never anyone about whom to tell them. Christians themselves never heard the stories until the gospels were written because the gospels were where the stories originated.

Doug Shaver

Would they have had to? Did no Roman writer ever say anything along the lines of "Some people say such-and-such and about so-and-so, but I don't believe it."

Doug Shaver

So say the stories. I don't think we can infer that that is what the reaction would actually have been if the miraculous healings had actually occurred.

GakuseiDon

Because of human nature?