Yes, I said that it was a list of historians and writers, not just historians. And they wouldn't have to be contemporaries of Jesus to be able to report accurately about him, as you yourself claim below about "the biographies of Jesus".
Poets do not necessarily have the motivation or desire to write about such far removed things, don't you agree? Their silence on the matter tells us little. Very few of them speak of Hadrian's Wall, so their silence is not proof of much.
As to not being contemporaries, I agree, as my statement of Alexander should point out. Military historians accept the witness of men who heard from a reliable source. It is an axiom of history - I believe from Aristotle - that we trust the author in such cases unless he proves himself to be writing fancifully (which is why not many take Arrian's numbers literally, since he seems to go overboard in praising Alexander, while ignoring his shortcomings. You would note them if you read him). We don't find such fanciful writings in the Gospels. I bring this up because it appeared that part of your argument was based on "no contemporaries of Jesus era", esp. in your discussions regarding the Gospels not being written by a contemporary who witnessed Christ's works.
In any event, if the events in the gospels are to be considered historically accurate, Jesus was not merely a criminal, he was a "supervillain". In other words, the authorities wouldn't think of him as just a thief or an arsonist, he would be more like Darkseid or Galactus. If nothing else, I would think they would want to document it just to keep records of what they were up against.
It doesn't appear, from the Gospels, that there was any revolt caused by the teachings of Jesus, so why would Jesus be considered a "supervillian" by Rome? To even Pontius Pilate, the matter was seen as more an act of jealousy in the matters of religious polity. The Gospels even show Pilate as merely placating the crowd, rather than putting to death a "supervillian". Note, the two criminals crucified alonside Jesus are not mentioned by the list of historians you note, either... It would seem to me, considering all the numerous religious sects in the Empire and the numbers crucified or condemned, it would HARDLY be expected for a historian of note to mention such things. Even the local procurator fails to mention the names of those crucified by HIMSELF...
Perhaps not, but even though there may be a lack of written documentation, there is a gargantuan amount of archaeological evidence that he existed, not least of which is all the cities named "Alexandria" that he established.
We have the very same for Jesus of Nazareth and His dying act on the cross/resurrection from the dead. The catacombs are full of such drawings, dating very quickly after His death. The very existence of this sect and the martyrdom practiced by it seems to indicate a very strong belief that the person they were following actually lived. Christianity is unlike most religions in that it DEPENDS upon the historical veracity of the events that they believe occured. Christianity does not survive because of any particular ethics or philosophy, but rather, a certain belief in the unity between that man, Jesus, and the follower - in a way unseen from any other religion.
There is no archaeological evidence to support the existence of Jesus.
Another historical axiom: Lack of evidence is not evidence of non-existence.
Are you expecting to find "built by Jesus of Nazareth" on a chair He built? He was an ordinary man, in the eyes of secular society. The Gospels themselves say He owned nothing of note, no house, boat, etc. He was an itenerant preacher, and it is hardly expected that such a man would leave "archeological" evidence. Here, one must look at other sources, such as reliable oral witnesses.
What we have are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all of which are anonymous uncorroborated documents written some time after Jesus' death by people who likely never met him.
There is very little to support the conjecture "likely never met him". Nor were you listening when I said the same for Alexander the Great... In addition, we have other writings that DO corroborate the Gospels, such as the letters of Paul and Peter, who speak of some of the actual events of the life of Christ.
Mark is generally agreed to be the earliest of the four, and even that one was almost certainly written no earlier than the year 65. The others all came later, Luke and John possibly even in the Second Century.
Practically every analyst of the Gospels, secular or otherwise, note that there is a reliance upon an earlier oral "tradition", what some call "Q". There appears to be an earlier common source for the Synoptics, which predated the actual WRITING of these Gospels and make them even more contemporary with Jesus, making the source LIKELY to have been a living witness of Jesus. In addition, we have sources that there was a Gospel written in Hebrew, lost to us now. It would seem that that Gospel would predate the Greek versions that we have now. Perhaps this refers to "Q".
In most circumstances, this would probably not be so problematic. If, for example, you found four different documents dating to the first century, talking about a man named, oh, I don't know... "Pianodwarf", let's say
and they said that he was born in Jerusalem, lived there making a living as a potter, married when he was 25, had three children, and died when he was 40, you would find the document reasonable. (Well, except that pianos hadn't been invented yet, but let's overlook that part.) You might not know for sure whether it was historically accurate or not, but you'd also have no real reason to doubt it. There were undoubtedly many men in First Century Jersualem who lived lives much like that.
So in other words, because the subject has a metaphysical background, we must toss aside ANY historical veracity found within the work of the Gospels? Because a man walked on water, he must not have even EXISTED??? That is your
a priori theological opinion that miracles are not possible working into the historical effort here.
It would seem very strange that people willingly went to the lions
for a man who never existed, don't you think? A witness becomes reliable and believable because people know the witness,
know he is not a phony. There are numerous such witnesses that speak of their transformation attributed to this Jesus, who was risen. What reason did they have for "faking" this? I believe that the witness of martyrdom strongly suggests that the said witness is reliable and believable. No one goes to the lions to continue to prop up a phony story about a mythical charecter that they knew was a lie...
Regards
