The First Century Void

[Dropship]

Huh? Paul wrote big chunks of the New T and he was a Roman citizen (with joint Jewish citizenship)..
Anyway think POLITICS..
When Christianity began snowballing in popularity after Jesus's execution, the snooty priests said- "Oops, better not let on it was us who killed him! Quick, SHRED all the documents implicating us or we'll have a Jesusgate scandal on our hands!
We'll try to airbrush him out of history and crack down on christians, then people will soon forget all about him"

I don't think that you have any evidence to support that.... also easier said than done.

After Jesus's execution his mate Stephen yelled at the snooty priests-
"Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him...At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. " (Acts 7:52-58)
So true to form, they and their lackeys went ballistic and killed him to shut him up-

---

Oh, Dropshit, you really should be on the stage!
There's one leaving in ten minutes.

Well done mate, that was almost funny..
PS- I'm intrigued by this inscription near your avatar- Noli simul flare sorbereque.
Is it a Klingon recipe?

[Cyberman]

Nope. It means simply "don't whistle and drink at the same time".

Is Google not a thing on your planet?

[Minimalist]

To a large extent, I think that it is fairly extraordinary that we have what we do.

I agree, especially since in large part we are dependent on propagandizing monks to have saved these documents which is Carrier's point.  It was jesus freaks - and not even ancient jesus freaks but medieval jesus freaks - who determined what was copied and what was not.  We have one manuscript of Annales, torn in half with extensive loss at the division on both sides.  But that does not apply to the first half where, as Carrier says, the period when your boy should have been wowing the ANE with all his fucking miracles is surgically removed.  Once might be an accident.  But when the same thing is repeated several times a pattern develops.  So you have to ask yourself why medieval xtians would excise information about the very time when the godboy was supposed to be alive?  Like Justus of Tiberias, Carrier's answer is that he did not mention your boy and that really pissed off the jesus freaks.

[RoadRunner79]

To a large extent, I think that it is fairly extraordinary that we have what we do.

I agree, especially since in large part we are dependent on propagandizing monks to have saved these documents which is Carrier's point.  It was jesus freaks - and not even ancient jesus freaks but medieval jesus freaks - who determined what was copied and what was not.  We have one manuscript of Annales, torn in half with extensive loss at the division on both sides.  But that does not apply to the first half where, as Carrier says, the period when your boy should have been wowing the ANE with all his fucking miracles is surgically removed.  Once might be an accident.  But when the same thing is repeated several times a pattern develops.  So you have to ask yourself why medieval xtians would excise information about the very time when the godboy was supposed to be alive?  Like Justus of Tiberias, Carrier's answer is that he did not mention your boy and that really pissed off the jesus freaks.

Well let's look at the facts.

We have a group of manuscripts, which are missing certain information, and as mentioned are also missing large parts of other portions (not unusual for ancient documents). 

You are assuming the contents of those documents, and information, that wasn't contained in them.   (except for Justus of Tiberias, where we do have one quote that states as much) and I would still like to see the quote in context by the way.
You are assuming that multiple people/groups across different periods of time removed these documents or portions of them to cover up the information that as to the above you are assuming wasn't there.
You are making an appeal to motive, based on these facts and assumptions.

I think that this is built on assumptions much more than facts.  The facts of the matter, do not even show that the mythers arguments where even really present or much of a concern until about the 19th century.  No one was arguing about the historicity of Jesus until much later.  Now I would say, that you have very little evidence for these conclusions (other than perhaps just offering them as a possibility) You can tell this, because given the facts of the case, one can easily change the assumptions, and thus the conclusion of the narrative.

Now I did do some research for this torn manuscript and "surgical removal" of information (that curiously is argued wasn't there to begin with).  I didn't find much.  I also didn't find much to corroborate the argument or to refute it.  Even from Carrier himself, there is very little on the internet that I found on this.  It doesn't appear to be much of a concern among professional historians, that there is much talk about it.

[Minimalist]

I'm not surprised that you did not find much.  Generally when looking for something it helps if you are really trying to find it.

Still.... it took no time at all for me to find, in Book V which begins with 29AD (and was intended to proceed to 31 AD) during the historically attested consulships of Fufius and Rubeliius there is a discussion of Tiberius and Sejanus and then this note appears in the text.

[The remainder of the fifth book and the beginning of the sixth, recounting Sejanus' marriage and fall and covering a space of nearly three years, are lost. Newer editions of Tacitus mark the division between the fifth and sixth books at this point rather than at the end of section 11; but references are regularly made to the older numbering, and so it has been retained here. The beginning of section 6 is obviously fragmentary.]

Book VI, not so coincidentally states that it covers 32-37 AD and duly begins with the historically recorded consulships of Domitius and Camillus.

And not a word about xtians or jesus or in fact anything to do with Palestine at all.

Again, I fully understand your desire not to find.  That's why we have real scholars in the world and do not waste our time with fundies.


http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.5.v.html

[RoadRunner79]

I'm not surprised that you did not find much.  Generally when looking for something it helps if you are really trying to find it.

Still.... it took no time at all for me to find, in Book V which begins with 29AD (and was intended to proceed to 31 AD) during the historically attested consulships of Fufius and Rubeliius there is a discussion of Tiberius and Sejanus and then this note appears in the text.

[The remainder of the fifth book and the beginning of the sixth, recounting Sejanus' marriage and fall and covering a space of nearly three years, are lost. Newer editions of Tacitus mark the division between the fifth and sixth books at this point rather than at the end of section 11; but references are regularly made to the older numbering, and so it has been retained here. The beginning of section 6 is obviously fragmentary.]

Book VI, not so coincidentally states that it covers 32-37 AD and duly begins with the historically recorded consulships of Domitius and Camillus.

And not a word about xtians or jesus or in fact anything to do with Palestine at all.

Again, I fully understand your desire not to find.  That's why we have real scholars in the world and do not waste our time with fundies.


http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.5.v.html

Ok... I found that as I posted before (some books are missing and others are fragmented, much like other documents from that time)  I was looking for information on it being "surgically removed" or information about the manuscript itself to support your claim.

[Fake Messiah]

The facts of the matter, do not even show that the mythers arguments where even really present or much of a concern until about the 19th century.

You keep repeating that but even if this was true so what? Does this gives somehow merit to Jesus historicity? Many things were not questioned until 19th century. For instance wikipedia's article on evidence for validity of historicity of King Arthur says "These modern admissions of ignorance are a relatively recent trend". So, by your logic, does that mean that King Arthur really existed because only recently people have admitted there is no evidence for his existence?

[RoadRunner79]

The facts of the matter, do not even show that the mythers arguments where even really present or much of a concern until about the 19th century.

You keep repeating that but even if this was true so what? Does this gives somehow merit to Jesus historicity? Many things were not questioned until 19th century. For instance wikipedia's article on evidence for validity of historicity of King Arthur says "These modern admissions of ignorance are a relatively recent trend". So, by your logic, does that mean that King Arthur really existed because only recently people have admitted there is no evidence for his existence?

I can see your point, and agree.  But I also think it depends on the context and what is trying to be said.

Much earlier in the conversation, I was mostly having fun, with the argument from silence and why I think it is not a strong argument, and that it actually works against the mythicists as well.
Here, we are talking about the specific premise, that they targeted and removed this material because it did not contain the history of Jesus.  So I think that evidence of the mindset, or a lack of; is relevant. Inserting the mythicist position in, when it didn't show up until much later is a mistake or at least unjustified.

Also, you may keep in mind, that this is part of a conversation.  Don't assume that everything is trying to make the case towards one particular end. Discussing merits, strengths or weaknesses of one particular argument doesn't necessarily support or negate the opposing view.   It's also not black and white, but must be assessed as part of the total picture.

[The Grand Nudger]

You keep repeating that but even if this was true so what? Does this gives somehow merit to Jesus historicity? Many things were not questioned until 19th century. For instance wikipedia's article on evidence for validity of historicity of King Arthur says "These modern admissions of ignorance are a relatively recent trend". So, by your logic, does that mean that King Arthur really existed because only recently people have admitted there is no evidence for his existence?

I can see your point, and agree.  But I also think it depends on the context and what is trying to be said.

Much earlier in the conversation, I was mostly having fun, with the argument from silence and why I think it is not a strong argument, and that it actually works against the mythicists as well.
Here, we are talking about the specific premise, that they targeted and removed this material because it did not contain the history of Jesus.  So I think that evidence of the mindset, or a lack of; is relevant. Inserting the mythicist position in, when it didn't show up until much later is a mistake or at least unjustified.

Also, you may keep in mind, that this is part of a conversation.  Don't assume that everything is trying to make the case towards one particular end. Discussing merits, strengths or weaknesses of one particular argument doesn't necessarily support or negate the opposing view.   It's also not black and white, but must be assessed as part of the total picture.

The mythicist position is the default when dealing with myths.  The best a person could hope for in the case of jesus is to "upgrade" from a mythicist position to a legendary position - wherein the jesus narrative was creative embellishment of some proto-character in history.  I doubt you'd be satisfied with either, but those are the only options on the table, and without evidence to support the legendary assertion of a mythical narrative...myth it will remain.

[Fake Messiah]

Yeah even if there was some person that Jesus was based on and if he came today and saw all the Jesuses he wouldn't recognize himself in any of them. Just like if there was some person on which King Arthur myth was based on came today in some sort of time machine and saw Lancelot, Merlin, Camelot, Excalibur etc. he would not recognize himself.

I mean let us suppose Jesus in the Bible was based on Jesus ben Ananias from Josephus’ "The Jewish War"? They have some similar parallels (this is about Jesus ben Ananias): Jesus comes to Jerusalem during the time of a holy festival (the Feast of Tabernacles); Jesus enters the Temple and suddenly begins to rant against the Temple and the people of Jerusalem, loudly quoting Jeremiah; he preached daily in the Temple; he declared woe unto the people of Jerusalem/Judea; he predicted the Temple will be doomed; Jesus was arrested by the Jerusalem leaders; Jesus is accused of speaking against the Temple; Jesus made no defense for himself in face of these charges of speaking against the Temple; he is later beaten by Jews; after that the Jerusalem authorities delivered Jesus to the Roman procurator; Jesus is interrogated by the procurator; During interrogation the Roman procurator asks Jesus to disclose his identity; he says nothing to the procurator in his own defense; Jesus is whipped by the Romans; procurator releases Jesus; Jesus is then after 7 years hit by catapult and wounded deadly; he utters a woeful lament for himself just before his death.