Silence of Contemporaries & Jesus' Popularity

[amishrockstar]

The bible is clear that massive crowds came to hear Jesus speak. Once a man had to be lowered through the roof to get to him because so many people were around. At least once Jesus had to cast off in a boat to preach to the masses. So what is your best apologetic as to why there's silence on the part of his contemporaries? As far as I know, all non-biblical references to Christ are from people who were born after he was crucified.

I hadn't thought much about this until I came across sites such as this: A Silence That Screams - (No contemporary historical accounts for "Jesus) | The Rational Response Squad

Thoughts?

 

[PreservedKillick]

I am by no means an apologetics expert, but I skimmed the piece and was struck immediately by the thought that it shows the usefulness of presuppositional apologetics. Words like "moral" were used in describing defending arguments, and there was an appeal to standards of evidence, logic, and a quote from Socrates about "the good" closed the essay. The author obviously wants to make and defend truth claims against what he sees as falsehood. Upon what ground does he base this view of truth and morality? Upon what ground does he assume a rational world in which logic makes sense? Just my

 

[Contra_Mundum]

One glaring problem is his historical standard.

There are MANY historical events of the past for which we have ZERO contemporary accounts, that are nonetheless received as reliable accounts, being reported only by later historians.

There are other historical events that are recorded by only one source. Again, most historians do not discount these events as improbable, merely because only one source reported it.

Many of the above events were unique, unrepeatable, even extraordinary events. I don't have a list of them here, but perhaps a book on apologetics might contain some references.

On a strict, multi-source criteria, the Bible contains a minimum of two independent witnesses to the ministry of Jesus, namely Matthew and John. Of course, unbelievers have gone out of their way to discredit both the eyewitness character of all the NT writings, as well as a good number of Paul's letters, and the general epistles.

But in order to do so, they are forced (by more ways all the time) into the unenviable position of discrediting all historic study by their skeptical demands. They basically end up resuscitating the Humean proposal that "extraordinary claims compel extraordinary evidence," by which they mean: Keep giving me evidence until you give up on finding enough to persuade me.

The fact that the Bible was written by believers, and that several witnesses were compiled in one library-source, doesn't mean that the separate sources are ipso facto unreliable or untrustworthy. Again, to make this argument against Scripture is also (however unwittingly) to argue that Josephus' writings are basically unreliable, because he 1) reports miraculous events as history, or 2) he makes mistakes in his reporting, or 3) his work was pure propaganda.

Present day historians view Josephus' work as a remarkable record, one we are incredibly fortunate to have, since it has survived when many other works of his age have not. They treat it as basically reliable, even if they have questions about various things he reports, or the exact accuracy of some of his statements. Not even the fact that a) he was first on one side in the Jewish War, and then the other (winning) side; or b) that his labor was an effort to flatter General Titus (later Caesar); or c) that he had a nationalist streak that aimed for a general Jewish rehabilitation in the eyes of the world--none of these facts means that his work is given the brush-off by historians.

Furthermore, we do not have ONLY the contemporaneous biblical accounts of Jesus and his ministry, as claimed in the Bible itself (which has actually collected and preserved multiple witness accounts of Jesus ministry, including his miracles). There is other, remarkable evidence, all the more remarkable for it's being from disinterested sources, or even hostile sources. One record is Josephus himself, who though he may have only just been born about the time of Jesus death, must be considered "virtually" contemporaneous. He had first-person access to the previous (Jesus') generation, and he records the fact that Jesus created a brief sensation, and performed miracles.

One of the Talmudic writings records the "arrest notice" of Jesus, which accuses (present tense) him of among other things performing miracles by sorcery. As you might expect, this is exactly the kind of testimony that some have sought to drop down the memory hole, others have sought to discredit. And yet, it is there.

One final factoid. Later ages (like ours) have had significantly more trouble dealing with this matter of reportage than others. The reason is, for over 200yrs, the speed of communication has been growing exponentially. The graph is absolutely without any other description. The speed of communication in Jesus' day averaged ONE MILE PER DAY. Not that horses, chariots, or sailboats could not get information point-to-point faster that that. But the average speed of dispersal of information was quite slow by today's standards, and had been that way for thousands of years, and would still be that way for another 18 centuries or so.

Today, I send an email to the antipodes, and it is there in... seconds? A minute or two? This speed of communication would have been inconceivable to ancients. Availability of transport, availability of reliable messengers, banditry, and skepticism--all these factors work against the spread of information. We further fail to appreciate the fact that knowledge is power, and sometimes people who know things have no interest in propagating the information they and only a few others possess.


And, I also agree that presuppositionalism is the most effective philosophy out of which to work toward evangelism. But the truths above contribute to our overall confidence in the Faith we possess.

 

[Pergamum]

4 Gospels and other New Testament writings, much of it eyewitness, is not enough?

 

[Miss Marple]

Yes; do not consider the Bible as "one source" in this context, as there are multiple eyewitnesses all bearing one another out.

Also, I understand Josephus mentions Jesus, or at least Christians, if that is helpful.

 

[Mathetes]

Give this a look:

Triablogue: What Early Non-Christians Said About Christianity

 

[GloriousBoaz]

I vote for presup too!

We have an embarrassment of riches its not our fault they couldn't go on after they witnessed truth without converting (its the sovereign electors fault lol!!)