Nazareth Part II: Examinging Humphrey's Work

I noted that Humphreys doesn't include Pfann in his sources, nor does he give any indication that he's read about his excavation, he does speak of it to some extent. His arguments are picky and not well thought out. Of cousre he has no expertise so it's an untrained armature trying to disprove the work a professional archaeologist. I find that his approach is very much like an atheist on a message board. I mean that literally becuase I think he has gone on a message board and done his thing agaisnt me personally. This guy uses and different name so I can't prove it. I do think it's him by the arguments and the writing style. Be that as it may let's look at Hurphreys' sight. First he deals dishonestly with Baggotti whom he dubs "Christian hero number one." he quotes Crossan to imply that Crossan doubts the existence of Naz. as a inhabited site. But it's doubtful that Crossan doubts that. Crossan doesn't believe in Jesus myth theory and he specifically lambastes Doherty. What he says that Humphry's quotes does not indicate that Naz did not exist, only that it's very small, which everyone admits: Humrphreys says:

Yet one point is inescapable: the Jewish disposition towards the 'uncleanliness' of the dead. The Jews, according to their customs, would not build a village in the immediate vicinity of tombs and vice versa. Tombs would have to be outside any village.

then quotes Crosson

"The tombs, both those discovered by Bagatti and others known from earlier explorations, would have been placed outside the village and serve, in fact, to delimit its circumference for us. Looking at their locations on the plans drawn up by Bagatti (1.28) or Finegan (27), one realizes just how small the village actually was ..."

–J.D. Crossan (The Historical Jesus)

Notice how the quote from Crossan positions in such a way as to seem like the back up for his statement, does not say what he wants it to. It does not say the town could not be Jewish, it say i would be a real small village. Skeptics have always made too much of this idea that they can't live near bodies. That doesn't mean they have to be miles away. The presence of burial sites is proof in itself that the site had to be inhabited by living people. More on that in part III.

The way he deals with Pfann's excavation is childish, amateurish and dishonest. He's already marked him out as the enemy, the only real aspect he deals with is amateurish carping about various artifacts, pitting his own lack of training against Pfann's expertise.

Humphreys

With typical Christian zeal Pfann was able to conclude that 'Nazareth was tiny, with two or three clans living in 35 homes spread over 2.5 hectares'. It was just unfortunate that all evidence of the homes was razed by later invaders.

In truth, the scanty evidence is consistent with the site being used as a single family farm over many centuries – and a single family farm does not make a village.

He's wrong in his untrained assertion that one family doesn't make a village. He's thinking of a nuclear family as we have in Modern America, but in th middle of the first century they had extended family. He was quotes Pfann's assessment 35 homes, that's a village. At this point he starts making assertions about the town based upon material from the fourth century, this would tell us nothing about the first century. That's really all he says about Pfann's work, which is idiotic becuase that's the major excavation which clearly proved that it was inhabited in the first century. Notice he quotes no scholars about that. But a bushel basket full of scholars accept Pfann's work. The archaeologists who discovered the house in 2009 agree with Pfann.

Humphrey's goes through a series of shallow cults on various artifacts. He has way too many fallacies, dishonest moves and mistakes to work out. He makes so many stupid assumptions. In painting a scenario for how various famous chruch theologians such as Origin who in real life took no hand in creating Holy places, or Jerome who described a pilgrim's journey, created the legend as a pilgrimage spot. He asserts that because Nazareth is not on the pilgrim path in the fourth century then it must not have existed until Helena and Constantine and other such notables created it. So he must have invented it with the help of people like Jerome. He asserts that because Helena found "Mary's well" a hole in the ground, that's how the site came to be associated with Mary. He shows that from the historical source, itinerary of the Anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux – "is the earliest description left by a pious tourist" he tells us, (dated to 333 AD) Nazareth is not on the tail. He asserts from this that no one lived there in 4BC -33 AD becuase in 333 a certain pilgrim didn't go there. First of all, he does not document that pilgrimages were all that common before that time. The oldest such description is from 333 then they weren't being made much before. To say it's not on his itinerary means Nazareth didn't exist is a pretty big leap. Besides, in part 1 I quoted Hegesippus who was writing in late second century (180) speaks of the relatives of Jesus still living in Nazareth.

Fragements of Hegesippus
on Peter Kirby's site:
Early Christian Writings

Concerning the relatives of our saviour.⁶

There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.

Humphreys writes: "The 1955/68 Excavation at Nazareth – storage pits & votive lamps – enough for Franciscan archaeologists to declare Nazareth 'the village of Jesus, Mary & Joseph and the site of 'uninterrupted veneration' by Christians." What he's calling storage pits and votive lamps is seen in this graphic he uses and I used as well on my earlier site.



The foundation pictured may not be a house, it may have been industrial but it's still evidence of habitation.

Roman I (Herodian, 37 BC- 70 AD)

The remains from this period possibly include 6-10 oil lamps. (But they may date as late as 150 AD).

Of these, 4 are from Tomb 70 (near the Church of the Annunciation), 2 were found under the Church's 'grottos', and 4 are from nearby places.

Pfann did not base the concept of habitation in the Roman period on a few oil lamps and couple of pot shards. He clearly saw the whole agricultural system as part of this era. The watch tower, the wine press, the water system, the house is first century. The infrastructure of the habitation is within that time frame. He cleared missed a lot by not reading Pfann. There's much he found that is not reflected in Hurphrey's critique. he makes it sound like the only evidence for Jesus era habitation are a few oil lamps and some pots form a tomb, that is far from the case.

Excavation and Research at Nazareth
University of Holy Land

A survey of the area was conducted in February 1997 by CSEC’s archaeological staff. Four seasons of excavation, licensed by the Israel Antiquities Authority and under the joint direction of Ross Voss and S. Pfann, have been carried out by CSEC, with the help of students and local volunteers. These excavations have confirmed the land to be a complete Roman Period terrace farm with a winepress, watchtowers, olive crushing stones, irrigation systems, and an ancient quarry, and have illuminated previously unknown aspects of terrace farming in the Galilee.

Why would the site be occupied from the middle stone age to after the Romans and the early 4th century and yet they go away in the first century and come back in the late second? The whole site is clearly inhabited going back way into the stone age and way up into the current day. Humphreys does not quote a scholarly source saying that the only place Pfann finds coins, lamps or pots is in tombs. He's asserting that's the case. The new find of the house would help tend to disprove the assertion of no habitation.

Most of what he says on his site is coping about Christmas and tourism and insinuating that Christianity has to be false because some make money off it. Every little that he has to say really deals with the archaeological issues of Nazareth.





(2) There are tombs in Nazareth

Jews had a law that forbade them to live by tombs. This argument is also summarized and dealt with by couchman. The argument is little stronger. There are caves in Nazareth used as homes and also as storage facilities. The caves are also used as tombs. That is taken by atheists as a problem. It's important because all ancinet towns have tombs near by. They have to bury the dead relatively close to town (no pun). No town, no bodies, no cemetery. They didn't trek way into the wilderness to bury their dead. We can see that from research on the Church of the Holy Sepulcher as the site of Jesus' tomb. The site of the chruch was just outside the city gates in Jesus day. The site is now in the middle of town as over 2000 years the city grew up around it. It's in the Christian quarter so Jews don't live right up against it or the ancinet burial site. Yet they are within walking distance. If Jesus' family farm was in Walking distance of the tombs at Nazareth we can still say he lived in Nazareth.

The Jewish Encyclopedia tells us that they did live fairly near their dead.

Single burial was customary in ancient times, as is still the case among many peoples and in many lands. The most natural method was to bury one's dead near the house on one's own land, as is clear from 1 Samuel 25:1 and 1 Kings 2:3, while the latter passage, which refers to Joab, shows that this custom was not restricted to the burial of kings and prophets, as Winer ("B. R." i. 444) has supposed. The custom of interring Jewish kings in their castles, close to the Temple wall, is severely condemned by the prophet (Ezekiel 43:7-9), this criticism showing that graves were considered unclean, and were therefore not to be made near human habitations (Numbers 19:16). Graves were, accordingly, outside the cities (Luke 7:12; John 11:30), or, according to rabbinical precepts, fifty ells from the town (B. B. ii. 9).

also quoted by Couchman. In summarizing the article he says:

However, this article does not support the suggestion that because there were tombs at Nazareth, there could not have been people there:

• The article itself says that 'The most natural method was to bury one's dead near the house on one's own land.'
• It is at least possible that the reference in Ezekiel is not talking about burying bodies at all, but about idols. Contemporary English translations reflect this uncertainty.
• The encyclopedia article talks about a distance of fifty ells. Apparently an ell was a distance of two feet, so fifty ells would have been around a hundred feet, or thirty metres. This is hardly a large enough distance to establish the point that if there were tombs there could not have been people living in the same neighbourhood.

Conclusion

It is a fact that there are tombs in the area. This does not mean that the area was uninhabited. In fact, there must have been people living in the area to provide the bodies to go in the tombs.

(3) The geography is wrong.

In the Gospels is says that Jesus tried to read a prophetic scroll and implied his own identity as Messiah and they tried to throw him off a cliff. There are no cliffs in the area.


Humphreys says:

Nazareth, in fact, is located in a depression, set within gentle hills. The whole region is characterized by plains and mild rises with no sharp peaks or steep cliffs. The terrain is correctly understood as a high basin, for in one direction is the much lower Plain of Esdraelon. But there is no disguising Nazareth is built in a valley and not on a mountain. Even the mediaeval town sat below the summit – protected from the wind. Beginning only in 1957, the Jewish suburb called 'Nazerat Illit' ('Upper Nazareth') was built to the top of the hills to the east of the city.

I know from previous research that there is a high place to throw him off of 2.5 miles. Humphreys' asserts they could not carry him that far, I don't know what not. He also solves the problem himself by suggested they roll him down the incline. It's a very rocky roll and if they threw him with enough force it could do some damage. This issue is really far too weak to disprove the existence of Nazareth. It's just picky. You can tell from the topography in the graphic above that it's amid hills and steep heights.

Was Nazareth Inhabited in the Time of Christ? Examination of Arugments by Kenneth Humphreys

Part I



excavation of house discovered in Naz. 2009

Back around 2001 when I really made a major commitment of my time and resources to internet apologetic, or whatever this is I do, there was a huge presence of an argument that Nazareth was not inhabited in the time of Christ, so Jesus could not have grown up there, therefore, this lends credence to the idea that Jesus didn't exist. I wrote one of the few major responses, a page backed by my actual contact with the major archaeologist who excavated the stie in that in the late 90s or so (there's a new version on Doxa but no new material). With much publicity of my page the issue sort of faded into the background. Now it's back. There is more Jesus myth propaganda being made of this issue than ever before. The issue is still as hallow and the proof of Nazareth's existence still as obvious as ever.

There are three major atheist arguments:

(1) No historical mention of Nazareth.

(2) Tombs near by Preclude Jewish Habitation

(3) The Geography is wrong.

In this first section I will deal with argument one.

The argument always seemed silly to me becuase if you are going to make up a fictional guy and pass him off as historical, my have him come from a fictional town? To this atheists answer, writers always put fictional characters in real places. That's quite common. Exactly! Why invent the place he comes from? They did it with Superman but he's not being passed off as real. What is the major atheist evidence that Nazareth didn't exist? It's based upon argument from silence of course. No, actually there are two major arguments one is based on silence and the other is positive.

(1) no record of Nazareth being inhabited until the middle of the second century.

from a reader to blog "Facing the Challenge:"

To say that there is no proof that something does not exist as a way to support the supposed truth of the bible is misleading. The burden of proof is on you, the believers. You say Jesus and God exist. Show us.

How about the embarrassing fact that the town now called Nazareth, contains no artifacts to suggest habitation in the area until at least midway through the second century? But wasn't Jesus born and raised there? You'd think we would have found some of their wares lying around. Not only that, but the caves in the area had previously been used as a necropolis, or city of the dead. Jewish law prohibits followers to live adjacent to a necropolis.

David Couchman (facing the challenge)
summarizes atheist argument:

According to the Bible, Jesus grew up in Nazareth. There is no evidence that the town now called Nazareth was inhabited before the middle of the second century - that is, more than a hundred years after Jesus was supposed to live there.

My foil in this discussion shall be one of the major atheist websites on the Issue: Nazareth the Town that Theology Built." The sight is by a Kenneth Humphreys, it's a chapter from his book Jesus Never Existed. His page is par to of the website of the same title and it's basically his book on the web.

Here's where argument from silence comes in:

Humphreys argues that Nazareth is not listed anywhere as a city in that era. As though there could never a place so small and obscure that there can't be a record of it. Of closure just as there are millions of people in first century Palestine we will never know existed, there are probably hundreds of villages we will never know existed. To prove this point he quotes (actually just alludes without even footnoting or documenting) (1) Joshua (as though if it wasn't inhabited before the exile it could never be) the (2) The Talmud (he doesn't document that he even looked at the Talmud--of course he can't show evdience that something it's there, without making us read the whole thing, he should at least foot note the source of the Talmudic the looked in so we have some idea that he at least got a copy). (3) Paul doesn't mention it. Then he claims (4) No ancient historian mentions it. This is clearly argument from silence because there's no positive reason to think it wasn't inhabited, the only reason is that the sources are silent.

As we will see the summary of those sources is more than just silent it's inaccruate. It is not true that no ancient historian mentions it.

Two mentions in antiquity

"Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources... (next paragraph) Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise." Paul Barnett[BSNT], Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, IVP:1990, p.42:

Patristic writer Heggespius, a Jewish-Christian writers of the second half of hte second century writes about it:

Patristic Evidence

Franciscan cyerspot

http://christusrex.org/www1/ofm/san/TSnzarc2.html

(this sorce no longer works) (visisted 2001-04)

Even the judeo-christian historian Hegesippus (late second century) gives witness to these next-of-kin of the Lord when speaking about a persecution of the Christians by Emperor Domiziano (81-96 AD) and whose writings are quoted by Eusebius (IV cent. AD) in his History of the Church (III,19.20,1-6). Jiulius the African (250 AD) mentions how the descendents of Jesus were jealous in keeping alive the memory of their forefathers (a passage quoted by Eusebius in his History of the Church I,7,13-14). During the persecution in Asia Minor of Emperor Decius (249-251) a christian maryr, Conon, is brought to trial and he proclaims in judgement: "I am from Nazareth of Galilee, I am descendent of Christ to whom I give worship since my forefathers". The Apochryphal writings too expand this vision about the next-of-kin of the Lord. They gather the oral traditions of the first Church about Jesus' family, especially his childhood years, Mary's and Joseph's daily life with Jesus amongst them.

Notice Humphreys begins dating the habitation of Naz. at late second century. This is in harmony with the standard Myther time table, but it also counters Heggisepius. Although it's not logical to think that the place would have sprang up from nothing in parallel to the life and times of the guy who mentions it.

Now Humphreys demonstrates his incredibly bad logic. He tries to aruge that the NT wirters were somehow biased because they don't mention a major metropolis which is just four miles away (I know it's four miles from the PBS website from Jesus to Christ, linked site by UT professor White discusses the excavations).

Humphreys on website--(link above)

None of this would matter of course if, rather like at the nearby 'pagan' city of Sepphoris, we could stroll through the ruins of 1st century bath houses, villas, theaters etc. Yet no such ruins exist.

caption to picture
reads:

No, not Nazareth but Sepphoris, a 45 minute walk away – and which does not get a mention in the gospels!

[Humphreys continues]

In short order, Christian apologists fall over themselves to explain 'But of course, no one had heard of Nazareth, we're talking of a REALLY small place.' By semantic downsizing, city becomes TOWN, town becomes VILLAGE, and village becomes 'OBSCURE HAMLET'.

Yet if we are speaking of such an obscure hamlet the 'Jesus of Nazareth' story begins to fall apart.

The reasons this is horrible logic, while he's constructing this would be brilliant analysis of the dishonesty of Gospel writers, what he's ignoring is the obvious fact that here is a major city right next to the village, just a few miles away, and there's hardly a mention in history of that era! We didn't' know much about it until we excavated it. He tries to sell it as some kind of plot implying that Jesus grew up in Sepphoris and this was transfomred into tiny Nazareth for some really stupid reason because it just makes it all the more difficult to ground Jesus in fact if his home town is made up too. Why do it? He assumes a place could not be so small on one wants to talk about it. He's also assuming a small place can't be next to a big place. Also notice how whining his arguments are. He's basically just whining because we don't have good ruins to prowl though, as though the fact of Nazareth being small proves it couldn't exist.

My evidence for the recent nature of our knowledge on Sepphoris comes from a site, the URL of which has changed. PBS, Frontline, From Jesus to Christ. I visited their site on this point backin 2006.

From Jesus to Christ: Frontline, PBS

http://www.pbs.org/wghb/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/arch/

Tradition pictures the world of Jesus as a peaceful and pastoral place, governed by the ancient rhythms of field and farm. But recent archaeological evidence has revealed a different environment, one influenced by city life and marked by political unrest and protest.

These discoveries began to emerge twenty-five years ago, when a team of archaeologists, including Eric and Carol Meyers, began to excavate a city located less than four miles from Nazareth, easily accessible in an hours walk. The city is Sepphoris. It was destroyed in a political feud in about 4 BCE -- the approximate date of the birth of Jesus -- and it was rebuilt during the time that Jesus was growing up nearby. Known as the "ornament of the Galilee", Sepphoris was wealthy, sophisticated and predominately Jewish. An elaborate system of water works kept residents supplied with fresh water; satellite villages such as Nazareth may have kept it supplied with food.

The quotes are now gone from the site. They do talk about the city, however, Eric Meyers of Duke says he believes it wasn't as developed in Jesus' day. As Jew Jesus would have been excluded from much that the city had to offer. Meyers believe the theater wasn't there and that the city did not reflect a Roman flavor until the time of Herod Antipas, after Jesus.

Humphreys does not includ Dr. Pfann in list of sources. This is a serious mistake, it shows us that he has not actually read anything Pfann other than my page.He does deal with Pfann even though he doesn't make clear what he read. He demonstrates a total lack of objectivity and a real adversarial approach, not only in refusing to list him in the sources but labeling him "christian hero no 2" (Baggatti is no 1). I'll get to that in a minute. What is it that Pfann says that makes his work so important that leaving him out is a crucial mistake? Pfan was the archaeologist who excavated Nazareth in the last major excavation, which was in the late 90s. He proved beyond doubt that Nazareth was inhabited in the time of Christ.. Before him there was a previous excavation by the Franciscans (Father Bellarmino Bagatti) in the 50s that also proved it was inhabited.



Dr. Stephen Pfann

occupied since 7th century BC

"Despite Nazareth's obscurity (which had led some critics to suggest that it was a relatively recent foundation), archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2d century b.c. " ([MJ]A Marginal Jew--Rethinking the Historical Jesus, (vol 1), p.300-301)...cites Meyers and Strange, Archeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, Abingdon:1981. pp.56-57

Galyaah Cornfeld, Archaeology of The Bible Book by Book .(NY: Harper and Row 1976) p. 284 "What concretely about first century Nazereth? In the first two centuries AD it was a modest village built on Rocky soil in a valley far from the main trade routes [this was before Sarapis was discovered]...Two excavations, one led by Fther P. Viaud the other by Bagatti led to the discovery of the traditional site of the annunciation to Mary and the place which Jesus frequented as a growing lad...excavations of inscriptions there bear witness to a Jewish Christian cult of Mary from the very earliest times..." Some of those inscriptions also go back to the middle of the first century and identfy the place as the that of Jesus' boyhood home!

There have been a wave of excavations since the 1730,Brother Benedict Vlaminck 1982,889 and 1907-l909, Father Prosper Viaud, O.F.M., directed further excavations.Bellarmino Bagatti 1955. "Excavations in fact not only revealed the sanctity of the site but also the remains of the ancient village of Nazareth with its silos, cisterns and other cave-dwellings. No construction survived the impetus of time." (Franciscan Cybrespot: Nazareth, Basilica of the Annunciation Archaeological excavations). So even the 55 expedition found evidence of habitation.

Franciscan Cybresopt

Among these architectural remains the archaeologists found various graffiti and among them one of special interest. Scratched on the base of a column appeared the greek characters XE MAPIA (read: Ch(air)e Maria). Translated as: "Hail Mary". Recalling the angel's greeting to the Virgin, this inscription is the oldest of its kind known to us. It was written before the Council of Ephesus (431) where devotion to Mary received its first universal impulse. Other graffiti, all jelously conserved at the adjacent museum, confirm the Marian nature of the shrine. One in armenian reads "beautiful girl" (referred to Mary) and another one in greek reads "on the holy site of M(ary) I have writen".

Significant because it places the connection with Mary before the crusaders. The Jewish Christians would not have gone out into the desert to create a shrine to Mary in the second century. There would already have to be something to cause pilgrims to connect to Mary.

Neverthless it was Dr. Pfann who really did the one modern, major, professotional excavation of the habitations. The excavation began with expossed ground by a hospital. Pfann found an ancient wine press, agricultural terraces. Clealry signs of habitation. No one goes out into the desert far from everything to agricultural terraces and a wine press. Pot shards (always clear evidence of habitation) date from early to late Roman period, (2nd Century BC to 1st Century AD). The excavations began 1997, they lasted four successive years. They also found in irrigation system, watch tower and a quarry. No one would go put these things in the middle of nowhere and list long distances from them.The Stone quarry was probably of a latter era and used to build the chruch. Pfann theorizes that these comprise a single families farm that produced a variety of crops. Humphreys uses this phrase about the single farm to assert that it's not valid, it's just one family. He conjures up images of four people. Two parents, two kids (although he doesn't actually use a number). Pfann is talking about an extended family like in the ancient near east, living in a string of different units and everyone is a cousin. He's talking about like 30 family groups all related as one extended family.

University of the Holy land sponsors a site that shows photographs of the major highlights of the excavation and the city today. This site points out that the major problem that leads to criticism of the findings is the lack to housing discovered. That is connected to the discovery of the quarry and the church.

The problem comes when one paints the picture, as has been done, of a town of two hundred and fifty inhabitants who lived in the caves of a rocky hill (bringing into question the feasablity of the synagogue of the Gospel story). Why is the evidences for walled houses and buildings virtually lacking from the earlier excavations if recent excavations have revealed first century quarries which provided cut stones for building the town? The answer lies in the construction of the Byzantine Church. The ruins of Roman period Nazareth were the most available source of stone for building the Byzantine Church. After the stones were robbed out from the ruins, all that was left behind was one of the best preserved set of basement systems found in the Galilee. For the evidence in Nazareth itself see this powerpoint.

The official final publication of these excavations has just appeared recently in the Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society vol. 25 (2007) pp. 19-79: S. Pfann, R. Voss, Y. Rapuano, “Surveys and Excavations at the Nazareth Village Farm (1997–2002): Final Report”. The summary of the ceramic finds from this rather lengthy article has been provided by Antonio Lombatti here. (Ibid, see above link)

Archaeologists have no found a house at the site that dates to Jesus' era.

By Diaa Adid | HuffingtonPost.com
2009

The humble dwelling is the first dating to the era of Jesus to be discovered in Nazareth, then a hamlet of around 50 impoverished Jewish families where Jesus spent his boyhood.

The Jews of Nazareth dug camouflaged grottos to hide from Roman invaders, said archaeologist Yardena Alexandre, excavations director at the Israel Antiquities Authority. But the hamlet was so far off the beaten path that the caves were apparently not needed, she said.

Based on clay and chalk shards found at the site, the dwelling appeared to house a "simple Jewish family," Alexandre added, as workers carefully chipped away at mud with small pickaxes to reveal stone walls.

Pfann was not involved in this dig, it was conducted by Yardenna Alexandre.

Bible. org

A recent Israel Antiquities Authority excavation in Nazareth has resulted in the discovery of a residential building dating to the time of Jesus. The site is located next to the Church of the Annunciation, and was discovered as archaeologists carried out excavations in preparation for the construction of the International Marian Center of Nazareth. During the course of excavations, researchers discovered the remains of an early Roman-period structure, as well as several artifacts including pottery fragments and pieces of chalk vessels.

The fragments of chalk vessels that were discovered are particularly important, as these indicate that the residents were Jewish—chalk vessels were only used by Jews in this period because such pieces were unsusceptible to becoming ritually unclean. The discovery of this structure is the first such residential structure to be discovered in Nazareth from this period. Further examination of the structure is expected to shed light on daily life in the Jewish village during the time of Jesus.

In Part 2 I'm going to go through Humphrey's site and show how he deal with Pfann's work. We will see his approach is immature, biased, adversarial and un-scholarly.

Silence Argument

Loren continues her arguemnts on the darkness at noon. Don't ask me why she's so hung up on that. But it seems to be a real sticking point for her.

Arguments from silence are completely legitimate are in some cases. Let's say that I claimed that a 100-ft-tall giant robot walked through downtown Dallas last Wednesday noon. But nobody in Dallas ever claimed to have seen it, and there was no mention of it in the newspapers or the local TV news shows. Would you claim that that non-observation is not really evidence against the presence of that giant robot?

Meta: problem is when argument from silence proves the case against your view then you will ignore it or call it a fallacy. So you apply it selectively. You set up a phony crtieria that historians don't use. no historian says "X must be written by about by Pliny to be true." But for arbitray reason you set up Pliny as the guy. why not use Josephus as the guy? because that disprove your view.

example of argument from silence disproving the Jesus myth position: no opponent of Christianity ever argued that he didn't exist any time before the late 19th century. In fact major opponents said he did exist. But you don't count that as anything.

the gaint walking through Dallas example is bad. Because the writing we have from the first century are sparce. We don't have a ot of things, and just becasue we don't have Pliny writting about Jesus doesn't mean he didn't it dosn't mean he's the standard and if he didn't write about something it didn't exist.

Mythers also just ignore a host of real good reasons why contemporaries didn't write about Jesus during his life time but they totally ignore these kinds of things to suit their phony criteria.

Loren

So it is with that crucifixion darkness. People all over the Roman Empire would have seen it, and the more literate ones would have written about it in detail; we'd have a *lot* more than the Gospels and some obscure allusions.

Meta: we have hardly anything from that century and we do have three people talking about and you just dismiss it as an eclipse so if Pliny did write about it you would just ignore it. Maybe others do. maybe there are 50 people who mention it and it's all put under the heading of "eclipse."

Loren

They might have gotten puzzled over why the people in Hispania saw it in late morning while the people in Anatolia saw it in early afternoon and people in Italy saw it at midday -- until someone points out that that's a natural consequence of the roundness of the Earth

.



Meta: you are assuming that we have gobs of information form that century and people all over the world wrote and we have their writings. we have only a handful of writings overall from the whole the first century. it's very space if you everything we have from the whole first century it would be less I've written in school.


here's a list of first century source that don't mention Jesus:

First century Sources that don't mention Jesus.

[form JP Holding--Teckton Apologetics]


"A final consideration is that we have very little information from first-century sources to begin with. Not much has survived the test of time from A.D. 1 to today. Blaiklock has cataloged the non-Christian writings of the Roman Empire (other than those of Philo) which have survived from the first century and do not mention Jesus. These items are":

* An amateurish history of Rome by Vellius Paterculus, a retired army officer of Tiberius. It was published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry.

* An inscription that mentions Pilate.



Why Jesus wouldn't be mentioned more than he is.

Jp Holding:Tekton apologetics.

We turn to John P. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 7-9] and Murray Harris [Harr.3Cruc, 24-27] for several reasons on this point:

a. Roman Historians were only concerned with issues that directly effected them where they lived, or pertained to the fortunes of the empire. He didn't address the Roman Senate, worte no treatesies, histories, poems or palys, never travaled outside of Palestine, and did not change the socio-economic situation in Paltestine. He was a strictly local affair, of regional importance only, in his own lifetime.

Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?"

Jesus and History

On Line Electronic books

Edward C. Wharton

From Pagan Sources

"Palestine of the first century has been referred to as an unimportant frontier province in the Roman Empire. Those provincial governors assigned to that region of the world were often thought to have received hardship posts. Too, those who wrote the history of Rome were in the upper strata of Roman society and usually had a personal dislike of Orientals, disapproved of their religions and looked upon their superstitions as very un-Roman. [Micahel Green , Runaway World, Inter-Varsity Press, p. 12.] This partially accounts for the little trickles of information that comes from their pens about the Christian religion. They wrote about it only as it forced its way into the mainstream of their view. Yet what they did write is proof positive that Jesus Christ was both a real person and that he had made such an impact upon society that the Roman world found it increasingly difficult to disregard him."

b. Jesus was not a big enough threat to the Romans He was enough of a threat to warrent his exicution, but there had been many other Messianich "pretenders" who warrented harher treatment. The Romans never had to call out troops to quell a revolt led by Jesus or his followers.

c. His death as a criminal made him even more marginal, and as one of many criminals exicuted by Rome during their stay in Palestine he was unremarkable.

d. He was itinerant

J.P. Holding:

"Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?"

e. He was a nerdowell.

Holding agin: "Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples."

f. He was unimportant, poor, migrant, in an empire the captial of which was very far away, ran by rich tyrannts and he could do nothing to imporve their power. Why should they have an interest in him?

g. Not concerned with Roman gods.

Jesus' bore a message of eschatological and spiritual significance about an obscure foreign God most Romans knew little about. They had no particular reason to see him as anything other than a strictly regional private matter concerning a religion that seemed barbaric and about which they had no interest.

h. No evening News.

News travaled slowly, the distances were great. They had no mass communications. It took months for Rome to learn of events in Palestine, and most of the events there were of little interest to them. Moreover, his work only lasted three years. By the time he was begining to reach the height of his fame in Jerusalem word of his very existence might just be reaching Rome, where it would have been gretaed coldly with no real interest anyway. Than suddenly he was gone, exicuted as a torulbe maker and good ridence! Reports of his resurrection would not flood Rome as great astounding news, other supernatural claims were made all the time from all parts of the world, including Rome itself, so who would believe or care about this one?

i. One of many wonder workers.

There were actually quite a few "wonder workers" and Messianic claimants in Jesus' time. In fact he may have seen one himself, a man called "The Egyptian" who led a revolt in Jesus' childhood, in The Galillee, but his followered were slaughtered and the Egyptian disappeared. Why should the Romans Take notice of just one more. (Now many will argue well see Jesus was just one more of these guys, but for an answer on that see "How do I know that Jesus is the Son of God?")

B. How Historians Look at Historicity

Histirans do not dismiss the historicity of a figure just because supernatural claims are invovled. They dismiss the cliams of the supernatual as a matter of ideological bias (ideological in the non-pajorative sense). But, they do not dismiss out of hand the existence of any particular individual just because he is bound up with superntural claims. Most ancient world figures in early history were bound up with such claims. Gilgamesh is the star of an ancient flood narrative which history takes to be mythical, but historians see Gilgamesh himself as an historical figure, probably king of ancient Sumer. Now in all fairness, most histoirans do not place much stock in Pliny the younger's account as proof of Jesus' historicity, most of them do not accept Thallas account at all, or Sarapion, but they accept without question that Jesus existed based upon the Gospels, and the accounts of Josephus and Tacitus.

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus, San Francisco: Harper, 1996,p.121

"...Non narrative New Testament writtings datable with some degree of probability before the year 70 testify to traditions circulating within the Chrsitian movement concerning Jesus that corrospond to important points within the Gospel narratives. Such traditions do not, by themselves, demonstrate historicity. But they demonstrate that memoires about Jesus were in fairly wide circulation. This makes it less likely that the corrosponding points within the Gospels were the invention of a single author. If that were the case than such invention would have to be early enough and authoritative enough to have been distributed and unchallenged across the diverse communities with which Paul delt. Such an hypothosis of course would work agaisnt the premise that Paul's form of christiantiy had little to do with those shaping the memory of Jesus." "As I have tried to show, the character of the Gospel narratives does not allow a fully satisfying reconstruction of Jesus ministry. Nevertheless certain fundamental points when taken together with confirming lines of convergence from outside testimony and non-narrative New Testament evidence, can be regarded as historical with a high degree of probability.Even the most cirtical historian can confiently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was exicuted by crucifiction under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death. These assertions are not mathematically or metaphysically certain, for certainty is not within the reach of history. But they enjoy a very high level of proability."

The level of probablity is slightly less secure wtih the resurrection, but that is one of those points of convergence which meet steming form these three different points of origin (Gospels, epistles, and secular sources). It must be remebered that the epistles were written before the Gospels, except perhaps for Mark. So they do count as independent sources.

C. How Historians Look at the Historicity of Jesus

John Dominic Crossan

QUESTION 62

The full review is at:

If I understand what Earl Doherty is arguing, Neil, it is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as an historical person, or, at least that historians, like myself, presume that he did and act on that fatally flawed presumption.

I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable. I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying.

It was, however, that hypothesis taken not as a settled conclusion, but as a simple question that was behind the first pages of BofC when I mentioned Josephus and Tacitus. I do not think that either of them checked out Jewish or Roman archival materials about Jesus. I think they were expressing the general public knowledge that "everyone" had about this weird group called Christians and their weird founder called Christ. The existence, not just of Christian materials, but of those other non-Christian sources, is enough to convince me that we are dealing with an historical individual. Furthermore, in all the many ways that opponents criticized earliest Christianity, nobody ever suggested that it was all made up. That in general, is quite enough for me.

There was one other point where I think Earl Doherty simply misstated what I did. In BofC, after the initial sections on materials and methods (1-235), I spent about equal time in Galilee (237-406) , or at least to the north, and in Jerusalem with pre-Pauline materials (407-573). I agree that if we had a totally different and irreconcilable vision/program between Paul and Q (just to take an example), it would require some very good explaining. Part of what I was doing, for example, in talking about the Common Meal Tradition was showing how even such utterly distinct eucharistic scenarios as Didache 9-10 and I Cor 11-12 have rather fascinating common elements behind and between them. It is a very different thing, in summary, for Paul to say that he is not interested in the historical Jesus (Jesus in the flesh) than to say that "no Galilee and no historical Jesus lie behind Paul."M

QUESTION 71

Crosson's Asnwer:I am not certain, Neil, that I have much to add to my previous post. I do not claim "ideological immunity" against the possibility that the historical Jesus never existed. That such a person existed is an historical conclusion for me, and neither a dogmatic postulate nor a theological presupposition. My very general arguments are: (1) that existence is given in Christian, pagan, and Jewish sources; (2) it is never negated by even the most hostile critics of early Christianity (Jesus is a bastard and a fool but never a myth or a fiction!); (3) there are no historical parallels that I know of from that time and period that help me understand such a total creation. There is, however, a fourth point that I touched on in BofC 403-406. It is crucially important for me that Jesus sent out companions and told them to do exactly what he was doing (not in his name, but as part of the Kingdom of God). The most basic continuity that I see between Jesus and those companions was, as I put it, not in mnemonics, but in mimetics. In other words, they were imitating his lifestyle and not just remembering his words. I find that emphasized in the Q Gospel�s indictment of those who talk, but do not do, and in the Didache�s emphasis on the ways (tropoi) of the Lord (not just words/logoi). When, therefore, I look at a phrase such as "blessed are the destitute," and am quite willing to argue that it comes from the historical Jesus, I am always at least as sure that it represents the accurate summary of an attitude as the accurate recall of a saying. For analogy: If Gandhi had developed a large movement after his death of people who are living in non-violent resistance to oppression, and one of them cited an aphorism of Gandhi, namely "if you do not stand on a small bug, why would you stand on a Big Bug," I would be more secure on the continuity in lifestyle than in memory and could work on that as basis.

From J.P. Holding

"Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus thanthere is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one woulddare to argue their non-existence. Meier notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no onedoubts that Alexander existed. [Meier, John P. - A Marginal Jew: Rethinkingthe Historical Jesus. New York: Doubleday, 1991, p. 23]Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." [Charlesworth, JamesH. - Jesus Within Judaism. New York: Doubleday, 1988., 168-9]The well-respected Jewish New Testament scholar, E.P. Sanders, echoes Grant,saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whosenames we have from approximately the same date and place."[ Sanders, E.P. -The Historical Figure of Jesus. New York: Penguin Press, 1993., xiv.]

On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: "It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world." [Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraintsof History. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982., 11] The main proponent of the view that Jesus never existed has been the German Professor G.A. Wells (NOT an NT scholar). Referring to Wells' thesis, Dunnwrites:

"The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such acoherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figuresuch as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. Itinvolves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to themuch simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more orless what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact ofChristianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition issuch that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing theexistence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianity'sbeginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably comeout very like Jesus!"[ Dunn, James G. D. The Evidence for Jesus. Louisville:Westminster, 1985., 29]

Morton Smith, a hardened skeptic of Orthodox Christianity and an Emeritusv Professor of History, wrote of Wells' work:"I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."

"...he argues mainly from silence."

"...many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space."

"(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I findincredible beyond anything in theGospels."[Hoffmann, R. J. and Larue, Gerald, eds. Jesus in History and Myth. Buffalo: Prometheus, 1986, 47-48.]

Encyclopedia. Britannica says, in its discussion of the multipleextra-biblical witnesses (Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, etc.):"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponentsof Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."(Article on "Jesus", 1990)

As F.F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at theUniversity of Manchester, has stated:

"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not doso on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is asaxiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. Itis not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories."[Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? ..5th revised edition, Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972.]Otto Betz concludes: "NO SERIOUS scholar has ventured to postulate thenon-historicity of Jesus (emphasis mine)."[Otto Betz, What do We Know about Jesus?, SCM Press, 1968, page 9]

J.P. Meier, in his authoritative work on Jesus, points out that what is MOSTsurprising is that we have ANY reference to Jesus at all:

"When we look for statements about Jesus from non canonical writings of the1st or 2nd century A.D., we are at first disappointed by the lack ofreferences. We have to remember that Jews and pagans of this period, if theywere at all aware of a new religious phenomenon on the horizon, would bemore aware of the nascent group called Christianity than of its putativefounder Jesus. Some of these writers, at least, had direct or indirectcontact with Christians; none of them had had contact with the ChristChristians worshiped. This simply reminds us that Jesus was a marginal Jewleading a marginal movement in a marginal province of a vast Roman Empire.The wonder is that any learned Jew or pagan would have known or referred tohim at all in the 1st or early 2nd century." ."[John P. Meier, A MarginalJew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. (New York: Doubleday, 1994)]

The Historicity of Jesus In his recent work on extra-biblical references to Jesus, Robert E. Van Voorst comments on the thesis that Christ was not a historical figure:

"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. Moreover, it has also consistently failed to convince many who for reasons of religious skepticism might have been expected to entertain it, from Voltaire to Bertrand Russell. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." [Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, (Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), p. 16.]

The authors of two of the most influential histories of New Testament interpretation sum up the scholarly opinion of the Christ-myth thesis in their day. Werner G. Kummel writes in a footnote that "the denial of the existence of Jesus.[is] arbitrary and ill-founded."[The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972) p. 447, n. 367.]

And according to Gunter Bornkamm, "to doubt the historical existence of Jesus at all.was reserved for an unrestrained, tendentious criticism of modern times into which it is not worth while to enter here."[Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Harper & Row, 1959) p. 28.]

Likewise, Van Voorst, referring to the mythicists, states that "Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely." [Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, (Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), p. 6.]

The arche liberal Rudolf Bultmann, who doubted the authenticity of much of the Gospel traditions, concluded: "Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community."[Jesus and the Word (2nd ed.; New York: Scribners, 1958).p.13]

Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." [Charlesworth, James H. - Jesus Within Judaism. New York: Doubleday, 1988., 168-9]

Van Voorst Wrote of Wells:

"Although Wells has been probably the most able advocate of the nonhistoricity theory, he has not been persuasive and is now almost a lone voice for it. The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question." [Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, (Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), p. 14.]

To his credit, G.A. Wells has now abandoned the Christ-Myth hypothesis and has accepted the historicity of Jesus on the basis of the "Q" document. [See G.A. Wells, The Jesus Myth (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1999).]

Of the historicity of Jesus, Glenn Miller writes the following:

"Jesus lived His public life in the land of Palestine under the Roman rule of Tiberius (ad 14-37). There are four Roman historical sources for his reign: Tacitus (55-117), Suetonius (70-160), Velleius Paterculus (a contemporary), and Dio Cassius (3rd century). There are two Jewish historical resources that describe events of this period: Josephus (37-100?), writing in Greek, and the Rabbinical Writings (written in Hebrew after 200, but much of which would have been in oral form prior to that time). "Of these writings, we would NOT expect Velleius to have a reference to Jesus (i.e. the events were just happening OUTSIDE of Velleius' home area), and Dio Cassius is OUTSIDE of our time window of pre-3rd century. Of the remaining Roman writers--Tacitus and Suetonius--we have apparent references to Jesus (discussed below). If these are genuine and trustworthy 'mentions' of Jesus, then we have an amazing fact--ALL the relevant non-Jewish historical sources mention Jesus! (Notice that this is the OPPOSITE situation than is commonly assumed--"If Jesus was so important, why didn't more historians write about Him?" In this case, THEY ALL DID!).

"Of the Jewish resources--Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash)--BOTH make clear references to the existence of Jesus (even though the details reported may be odd). So ALL the Jewish sources refer to Him.

"In addition, there are three OTHER candidates for historical 'mentions' of Jesus that fall in the 2nd century: one Roman (Pliny the Younger) , one possibly Syrian (Mara Bar Serapion), and one Samaritian (Thallus)."

In his book, The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders explains that Jesus would not have been well-known by historians in his day: "Most of the first-century literature that survives was written by members of the very small elite class of the Roman Empire. To them, Jesus (if they heard of him at all) was merely a troublesome rabble-rouser and magician in a small, backward part of the world" (1993, p. 49, parenthetical comment in orig.).

J.P. Meier, in his authoritative work on Jesus, points out that what is MOST surprising is that we have ANY reference to Jesus at all:

"When we look for statements about Jesus from non canonical writings of the 1st or 2nd century A.D., we are at first disappointed by the lack of references. We have to remember that Jews and pagans of this period, if they were at all aware of a new religious phenomenon on the horizon, would be more aware of the nascent group called Christianity than of its putative founder Jesus. Some of these writers, at least, had direct or indirect contact with Christians; none of them had had contact with the Christ Christians worshiped. This simply reminds us that Jesus was a marginal Jew leading a marginal movement in a marginal province of a vast Roman Empire. The wonder is that any learned Jew or pagan would have known or referred to him at all in the 1st or early 2nd century." ."[John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1994)]

Yamauchi summarized quite well the findings of the secular sources regarding Christ:

"Even if we did not have the New Testament or Christian writings, we would be able to conclude from such non-Christian writings as Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger that: (1) Jesus was a Jewish teacher; (2) many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; (3) he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; (4) he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; (5) despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by 64 A.D.; (6) all kinds of people from the cities and countryside-men and women, slave and free-worshiped him as God by the beginning of the second century." (1995, p. 222)

As J.P. Holding writes: "None of these scholars, we emphasize, is a friendof fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity. Contrary to the protestationsof the "Jesus-myth" consortium, they make their statements based onevidence, not ideology. Conspiracy and bias exist only in their ownimagination."

To his credit, G.A. Wells has now abandoned the Christ-Myth hypothesis andhas accepted the historicity of Jesus on the basis of the "Q" document. [SeeG.A. Wells, The Jesus Myth (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1999).]

"The Historicity of Jesus Christ"

Wayne Jackson

The Christian Courier

December, 7 1998

"More careful scholars, however, have been forced to acknowledge the historicity of the Lord. German historian, Adolf Harnack (1851-1930), declared that Jesus was so imposing that He was "far beyond the power of men to invent" and that those who treat Him as a myth are bereft of "the capacity to distinguish between fiction and the documentary evidence..." (as quoted by Harrison, p. 3). Joseph Klausner, the famous Jewish scholar of Hebrew University (who did not accept Christ as the Son of God) conceded that Jesus lived and exerted a powerful influence, both in the first century and subsequent thereto (1989, pp. 17-62)."

Next: Argument II; chruch fathers.

* Fables written by Phaedrus, a Macedonian freedman, in the 40s A.D.

* From the 50s and 60s A.D., Blaiklock tells us: "Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from these significant years." Included are philosophical works and letters by Seneca; a poem by his nephew Lucan; a book on agriculture by Columella, a retired soldier; fragments of the novel Satyricon by Gaius Petronius; a few lines from a Roman satirist, Persius; Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis; fragments of a commentary on Cicero by Asconius Pedianus, and finally, a history of Alexander the Great by Quinus Curtius.

Of all these writers, only Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject.

* From the 70s and 80s A.D., we have some poems and epigrams by Martial, and works by Tacitus (a minor work on oratory) and Josephus (Against Apion, Wars of the Jews). None of these would have offered occasion to mention Jesus.

* From the 90s, we have a poetic work by Statius; twelve books by Quintillian on oratory; Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law Agricola, and his work on Germany. [Blaik.MM, 13-16]

"To this Meier adds [ibid., 23] that in general, knowledge of the vast majority of ancient peoples is "simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be." It is just as was said in his earlier comment on Alexander the Great: What we know of most ancient people as individuals could fit on just a few pieces of paper. Thus it is misguided for the skeptic to complain that we know so little about the historical Jesus, and have so little recorded about Him in ancient pagan sources. Compared to most ancient people, we know quite a lot about Jesus, and have quite a lot recorded about Him!"

So there just aren't that many overall sources to go by in the first palce. But why wouldn't more of Jesus' contempoaries write about him?