Roman records

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>

>EDWARDS

>No trove of trial/crucifixion records from Jesus' time has been recovered

>and made public.  It's debatable whether such records would have been

>produced in the first place, especially during the occasions when thousands

>at a time were crucified.  I don't think the "Roman records" approach is a

>good one to use if one wishes to argue against the existence of Jesus.  In

>fact, I can't think of any persuasive arguments against the existence of

>Jesus.


BRADY:
While I appreciate the fact that you can't think of any persuasive argument
against the existence of Jesus, many others can and have published their
conclusions.  As I noted, I recall one argument being the lack of records
of his trial and the events surrounding it in a bureaucracy where such
records would be expected.  I am attempting to confirm or deny that the
Romans did or did not maintain such records in the provinces.

You state that "No trove of trial/crucifixion records from Jesus' time has
been recovered and made public."  Are you aware of any that has been
discovered and NOT been made public?  If so, can you tell me who claims to
have discovered them or to have them and why they have not been made public?

I am aware of the fact that it is unlikely that records of each individual
crucifixion would be kept.  As to whether "thousands at a time were
crucified" as you state, I am also aware of some debate on that subject.
Nonetheless, I have not asked for records of the crucifixion but of trial
and surrounding events.

• Previous message: Roman records
• Next message: Roman records
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]