header-craig blomberg blog

When an Argument from Silence Becomes Utterly Meaningless

← back to blog home

Jun 16, 2009 by Craig Blomberg | 6 Comments

Not long ago an unsolicited e-mail asked me to comment on a skeptic’s blogsite that had posted a list of about twenty “historians” from the Jewish, Greek or Roman worlds of around the time of Christ. Not one of them ever mentioned Jesus, the blogger pointed out. Surely that should cast serious doubt on whether the Jesus Christians worship ever even existed.

It was an intriguing list. There were a few names I didn’t recognize that I had to look up, but most were indeed ancient writers from one of those three cultures. The trouble was that only about a third of them could be legitimately called historians. One was an ancient taxonomist who wrote about flora and fauna. A couple were writers on medicine or ancient science. Two were geographers. Several were poets and playwrights.

Of those who were truly historians, several did indeed live “around the time of Christ” but just a little bit before him. Gee, I wonder why they never mentioned him! Several others were actually second- or third-century writers not writing about life in Israel at all but about other parts of the Roman empire. In short, there wasn’t a single name on the list for which there would have been good reason for Jesus even to have been mentioned.

At least this blogger had the wherewithal to acknowledge that the first-century Jewish historian does twice refer to Jesus and that early second-century Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius do too. He obviously just had no idea who all these other folks were, and, in fact, acknowledged that he had taken the list from some obscure book published early in the twentieth century.

In our age of growing disinterest in history and classics (i.e., Greek and Roman language, history and literature) more generally, his faux pas isn’t surprising I guess. What is surprising to me, but perhaps it shouldn’t be either, are the number of people who ask why, even granted these late-first- and early-second-century witnesses, historians who wrote closer in time to Jesus’ ministry (probably 27 or 28 through 30 A.D.) didn’t refer to Jesus.

The question I always want to ask is “And which individuals are these who you think should have referred to Jesus?” The fact is that we no longer have in existence the writings of a single Jewish, Greek or Roman historian who wrote about life in Israel during the first third of the first century. And  even those whose names we know about, because later authors refer to them, are precious few in number, and we typically know little if anything of the contents of their writings. It’s hard for non-existent sources to reference Christ, or anyone else for that matter.

So why do so many atheists “buy” this meaningless argument from silence without even questioning whether sources exist in which we should expect to find something about Jesus but don’t. The only answer I can think of is that they really aren’t interested in learning truth, only in challenging it, and that without even being curious to find out what they don’t know that they don’t know!

G. K. Chesterton put it well a century ago. When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing. They believe in anything!

Comments

6 Comments | Login to Post Comments

Randy Widrick Jun 17, 2009 7:41am

I recall an on-line conversation with an atheist who stated that "No true atheist ever turned away from atheism." What a strange statement!

I questioned him about C.S. Lewis and his response (Surprise! Surprise) was, "He wasn't a true atheist."
His reasoning was that if he was a true atheist he never would have converted to Christianity. In other words, a person who searches out the truth and changes his position cannot be genuine.

If I hold to an actual interpretation of Romans 1, could I not say that there is no such thing as a true atheist?

"For since the creation of the world, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

I enjoy a bit of humor now when I encounter an atheist. When he states proudly, "I am an atheist."
I respond with a smile and a wink and say slowly,

"SURE you are."

I greatly enjoy your blogs. You are part of an increasingly small percentage of humanity that still uses your brain and thinks. :) Thank you.

Randy
Binghamton

Al Marks Jun 26, 2009 3:24pm

Thanks for a thoughtful response - and the added value of a good G.K. Chesterton quote.

Al Marks

Brent Lyons Jun 29, 2009 9:57am

It's interesting - this is a question I honestly posed to myself some time ago, mostly in curiosity as to how I might respond to a non-Christian asking me the same question. I do think it's important one be able to properly defend his/her faith.

In response to one part of your post, I might pose Philo of Alexandria as a candidate for a contemporary of Jesus who wrote considering Jewish activity, of whose works survive today, yet failed to mention Jesus.

For me though, there seem to be a couple options. First, I can actually think of several contemporaries of Jesus who wrote about Him: Peter, John, James, Matthew, etc. In other words, any contemporaries of Jesus' time that heard of Him - did write of Him. These works became part of a collection of books later referred to as "The New Testament". Some atheists may have heard of it. :)

I think there's another way to spin the question though: How many contemporaries of Jesus wrote of Him in a skeptical manner, of whose works survive today? The answer (as far as I know): none. So if we're playing fair, as an argument from silence, we must 'logically' conclude that Jesus must be who He claimed to be.

I'm not a student here, but I did just finish your commentary on 1 Corinthians and found it fantastic. So just wanted to drop a quick 'Thanks', for helping me more deeply understand Paul's letter.

-B

Craig Blomberg Jun 29, 2009 1:13pm

Thanks to all three of you for your kind remarks. Let's see, Randy, maybe we should call your friend a Calvinist atheist; if he goes out from among us he shows he wasn't really of us. B, as for Philo, he never really wrotre any works of history, but rather lots of commentary on Old Testament literature and philosophical discourses. And he was in Alexandria and a bit older than Jesus, so one could easily imagine him not having learned much at all about Jesus, nor imagining the significance he would one day have even if he did, nor having a genre for saying anything amount him even if he guessed!

Dante Charlemagne Jul 28, 2009 11:51pm

JP Holding completely demolished that list some time ago on his site
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/remslist.html
I personally think it is because of the fact that people tend not to do research and are completely misinformed and uncritically repeat whatever they see on the internet. I don't think there is intentional dishonesty.

Craig Blomberg Jul 29, 2009 9:17am

I suspect you're right about no intentional dishonesty. What's sad, though, is how our internet age has made people so used to instant information that they have no time for checking things any longer. Christians seem equally guilty at times. Something catches their eye that agrees with what they want to believe and they forward it to allo their friends even if it is a complete urban legend. Those that are a mixture of truth and falsehood are then so subtle as to be out of every one's league: witness Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus both in terms of its undeserved popularity among skeptics and undeserved fear spawned among believers!