The Passion rotten so far

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, weren't the Romans really good at documenting things?

[MrBaggins]

They were predigious record keepers... everything had to be paid and accounted for. What would be the overpowering reason to think that they wouldn't record it?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually, weren't the Romans really good at documenting things?

For the time, yes, but not to the point that there would be records archived in Rome detailing the executions of criminals, which was an incredibly common thing. Any records would have been maintained in Judea, and if they existed, probably lost in the revolt of 69-70 AD, when the city was destroyed.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
... still doesn't jive with the fact that no document during the lifetime of Jesus mentions Jesus at all.

No surviving document. Lots of documents have been lost in 2000 years.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
They were predigious record keepers... everything had to be paid and accounted for. What would be the overpowering reason to think that they wouldn't record it?

We have plenty of records from Rome, none of them deal with executions of criminals in the provinces. What evidence do you have that such a record would be in the Roman archives, when none of the surviving records we have are of that sort?

I think you're also overestimating Roman record keeping. They were prodigious for their time, but nowhere near the level of any post-industrial society. They weren't the Nazis quite.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
For the time, yes, but not to the point that there would be records archived in Rome detailing the executions of criminals, which was an incredibly common thing. Any records would have been maintained in Judea, and if they existed, probably lost in the revolt of 69-70 AD, when the city was destroyed.

We don't actually know whether they did or didn't report excutions/per date to Rome... or report significant executions, such as the killing of a revolutionary.

Certainly much documentation was archived and transported to Rome, so that the Emporer could keep track of the provinces, to ensure that he wasn't being swindled.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
We have plenty of records from Rome, none of them deal with executions of criminals in the provinces. What evidence do you have that such a record would be in the Roman archives, when none of the surviving records we have are of that sort?

Plenty. But not all. That would be the only proof.

[Ned]

The question that always bugged me was this: Was Jesus treated differently from other political criminals? Were they too lashed and beaten all the way to the spot where they were crucified?

[DinoDoc]

Wierd. Two atheists debating the existance of Jesus.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Certainly much documentation was archived and transported to Rome, so that the Emporer could keep track of the provinces, to ensure that he wasn't being swindled.

What does detailing executions of common criminals have to do with swindling? Sorry, but there aren't any precedents here for your position. The Romans executed a LOT of people, and they simply didn't catalogue them all. To really keep track of all the people they were killing would have required feats of bureaucracy well beyond logical means.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Plenty. But not all. That would be the only proof.

So in other words, you concede there's no evidence to support your assertions?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Wierd. Two atheists debating the existance of Jesus.

Its ultimately impossible to have a definitive debate, since too much time has passed.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Wierd. Two atheists debating the existance of Jesus.

I'm not debating his existence, I'm debating the basis for Tacitus's reference to his existence.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So in other words, you concede there's no evidence to support your assertions?

The absence of evidence isn't proof to the contrary. Particularly when you know a situation is incomplete.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually, weren't the Romans really good at documenting things?

Yes they were. But Jerusalem, where the records would have been kept, was destroyed a few years after the events.

I refer you to my earlier post - science is tending to confirm the accuracy of oral traditions. In some cases, stories once thought of as myth are being found to based accurately on historical events. Certainly more than historians ever gave credit going off the written record.

The most famous example was actually a century ago when Homer's Troy was found by a German archeologist. Hitherto Homer's stories had been considered myth and not been thought to be based on historical events.