Steven Carr

We know what Paul thought of publicly executed criminals.

'For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.'

No wonder Paul didn't write much about the life of Jesus - a wrongdoer, justly punished by God's servants, the agents of wrath who would have held no terror for Jesus if he had done right.


If this bunch of dudes had been claiming that a publicly executed criminal was the agent through whom God had created the world, they would have been stoned to death as blasphemers faster than you can say 'historical anachronism'

mountainman

Which leaves alot to be desired as an historical event.

But this bunch of dudes were apparently among that small minority of Greek literate educated. They recorded these events, but we dont know when this authorship occurred. It may have been the 1st century, it may have been the 2nd century. It may have been even later.

The ancient historian likes to have evidence.

I dont think its as simple as this. For example, let's assume for the sake of the argument that the NT was authored in the 2nd century - this is one position that is reasonably common. Using your criteria and method outlined above we would arrive at a probability that the NT is bogus AND a complimentary position - for the probability that the NT is not bogus, based on data from the 1st century.

What criteria does the method have in detecting the century of authorship, for example?


We do have the evidence (or its absence) itself. The subjective rhetoric and overappreciation or underappreciation of the evidence by means of this rhetoric at the end of the day must be associated with the evidence (or its absence). There are various categories of evidence to be considered, and the textual criticism with the manuscript tradition is only one strand. For example there is the archaeological evidence. The archaeologists tell us that there were shrines, some filled with the statues of gods and divine beings and emperors etc all across the Roman empire. But have we found even one pre-4th century trinket or a shrine for the historical jesus? Have a read through the subjective rhetoric associated with the Dura Europos "house-church" relocated to Yale Divinity College in the 1920's.

Roger Pearse

I think statements of the kind "this writer MUST say this, otherwise this proves something" are very chancy in antiquity. 99% of ancient literature is lost, after all. Writers do not write with an eye to saying what might interest us today -- they talk about stuff of interest to them.

The Remsburg list is rather a joke. Leaving the fallacy aside, it is notable that he doesn't display any real knowledge of the literature he references. It seems to be an example of the "bully people with a list" type of post that we used to see in usenet.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

jgoodguy

It is my understanding that 90% of what was written in the 1st century is missing. I understand that no document survives written by a person that was actually in Judea during the time of a hypothetical Jesus ministry or who wrote from eyewitness accounts about events in Judea during that time. The nature of miracles is such that the accurate reporting of them is as much a miracle as the miracle itself. In short fake miracles are much easier to create than real. A reporter of Judean events would be overwhelmed by reports of miracles and it would be unlikely to report a real miracle. A modern example, would be the reporting of Charismatic miracles which are unlikely to be reported outside the Characteristic community. Assuming a loss of 90% of information the survival of the report of a Charismatic miracle is unlikely.

In short, a hypothetical miracle during the hypothetical gospel Jesus' ministry has a low probability of being reported and any report has a low probability of surviving. This makes any argument from silence difficult because it is being attempted against a much larger silence.

jgoodguy

I have seen that list used and the person using the list was demolished by an apologist. The person that posted the list had not actually gone out and looked at what the authors wrote about.

All an apologist needs to do is a Google of Remsburg list and he will find this.

jgoodguy

Then there is the issue of just how would we recognize a early Christian church if we found one.

Steven Carr

Paul, of course, is not silent. Except in so far as he says things people don't want to hear, therefore they silence him.

He scoffs at the very idea that Christianity was a religion in the business of proclaiming miracle stories.

1 Corinthians 1

'Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified...'

I imagine Paul knew all about miraculous signs, as they would inevitably have been attached to a human founder,but simply bit his tongue when people taunted him with claims that this founder had performed no miracles.

Steven Carr

Is that the same JP Holding who claimed Romans wrote about Jesus so that Tacitus could read Roman sources?

Or is the JP Holding who claimed no Romans would have written about Jesus?

How many times do people have to explain that historians don't even expect to find any evidence of Jesus existing, and that they expect the record to be silent about his existence?

aa5874

Again, the Jewish Temple did Fall and in the NT Jesus Christ supposedly, a Jewish Messiah, CORRECTLY predicted the Fall of the Temple.

A Jewish Messiah is a MOST SIGNIFICANT Jew.

Mark 13 After the Temple fell, Josephus wrote about the event.

Both Jesus Christ, the so-called Jewish Messiah, and Josephus LIVED in Galilee.

Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, supposedly had THOUSANDS of followers in Galilee and there were supposed to be MANY BOOKS and MULTIPLE Epistles written about the Jewish Messiah where he CORRECTLY PREDICTED the Fall of the Temple.

Again, the Jewish Temple fell.

Who is Josephus who lived in Galilee going to claim CORRECTLY predicted the CALAMITIES of the Jews when the Temple fell?

Josephus wrote about INSIGNIFICANT OBSCURE PEASANT, Jesus the Son of Ananus, who was a LONER and declared a MAD MAN. See "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.3.

Jesus the Son of Ananus did NOT even have a single disciple and did not perform a single miracle and yet Josephus REMEMBERED that he did say "Woe Unto Jerusalem.

What is the STATISTICAL probability that Josephus would have written about a INSIGNIFICANT MAD MAN, Jesus the Son of Ananus, and NOT the JEWISH MESSIAH, Jesus Christ, who LIVED in Galilee with THOUSANDS of follwers and MULTIPLE books and Epistles?

It is probably the same as someone writing that some MAD VAGRANT in New York predicted the Fall of the WTC and did NOT even write a single word about Bin LADEN.

The writings of Josephus have EFFECTIVELY DESTROYED the theory that there was a character called Jesus the Jewish Messiah of Galilee who had THOUSANDS of Followers and that there were MULTIPLE Books and Epistles DOCUMENTING his activities in the 1st century.

It was an INSIGNIFICANT OBSCURE MAD MAN that CORRECTLY predicted the Calamities in Jerusalem when the Jewish Temple fell.

"Wars of the Jews" 6.5.3 It was the INSIGNIFICANT MAD MAN that Josephus remembered not the supposed MOST SIGNIFICANT Jew, the Jewish Messiah called Jesus Christ.

So what convinced you Jesus probably existed if there was NO OBJECTIVE studies ever carried out?

It would seem the DRIVEL that Jesus existed is COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED based on your own words.

NO Sort of objective study has been carried out by those who put out the DRIVEL that Jesus existed and that the mention of Christians in any century MUST mean believers in Jesus. None.

The existence of Jesus was SUBJECTIVELY PRESUMED.

BASED ON the evidence from antiquity that I have seen so far, it is PURE DRIVEL that Jesus existed and that there were Jesus believers in the 1st century.

Just OBJECTIVELY STUDY the writings of Josephus and Philo. These writings COVER virtually the ENTIRE 1st century.

The STATISTICAL probability that Jesus existed in the 1st century is NEXT to ZERO or some lower number based on the EXTANT evidence.

Toto

Josephus' Jewish War and Antiquities filfill your requirements of being written by someone who was in Judea in the first century and could have accessed eyewitness sources. Philo was in Egypt around this time and probably traveled to Judea at some point, but would be less likely to have written about Jesus.
This question is not about reports of miracles - it is about the existence of Jesus himself.

Survival of documents is not random. I think it is a safe assumption that Christians would have preserved any documents that did mention Jesus - unless, of course, the document provided an inconvenient or embarrassing portrait of Jesus or the church. So the probability of the survival of any document that mentioned Jesus is fairly high.

But I don't think that anyone relies on an argument from silence to show that Jesus never existed. It is just the starting point.