‘Certain people, going along, at that time announced to him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate mixed with their sacrifices. He answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse criminals than all the Galileans because they suffered these things? No, but if you do not repent all of you will likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the Tower of Siloam fell and killed them. Do you think that these were worse debtors than all the inhabitants of Jerusalem? No, but I tell you if you do not repent all of you will likewise perish.”’
The Galileans whose blood Pilate mixed with their sacrifices are nowhere else mentioned in scripture or surrounding literature. The eighteen who were killed when the Tower of Siloam fell are mentioned nowhere else. Both events occurred around Jerusalem, just a few metres apart, during Jesus’ ministry, when Pilate was governor (26–36 IA). These reports were written down when people knew all about the events and did not have to be told ‘which Galileans’ or ‘which eighteen’. How far away from Jerusalem could that have been? Or how much later than the events could that have been written down without any explanation? Think about it — 2,000 years ago, when there were no cell-telephones, no TVs, no radios, no newspapers, no telegraphs, e-mail, web, or other modern means of communication. The ruins of this tower have now been discovered inside the City of David, near the old wall and near the spring of Siloam, several metres south of Herod’s fortress, confirming the validity of Luke 13:1–5.
I was always fascinated by this scripture that describes entirely local events, which even the most outrageous mere fantacist could not ever arrive at if the idea is to awe and impress the masses in creating an entirely fictional personage. Not probable.
I know there is an actual roman log by pontious pilat about the crucifiction of Christ. (along the line of a regular note of a business record)
However, for the purposes of this thread, are there images or graphics of these documents?
We are not talking about the faith issues here, if I understand. But we are applying the historical tests to confirm the existence of the person beyond the eyewitness accounts.
[Next the left will tell us George Washinton was not real]
When I teach Sunday School, I emphasize what a small and tight community existed in Israel in the time period covered in the Gospels. People knew current events, and they knew each other. "Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus"; why mention it, unless readers of the Gospel could be expected to know Alexander and Rufus? "Anna, the daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher"; gosh, maybe she's my third cousin twice removed!
We often see the historical form of argumentation from silence. For instance, when Jesus was born and all the babies in Bethlehem were killed by Herod, there’s no mention of it in other surviving documents (at least till a few years ago). So the antichristians proceed from that to say that such an outrageous event would surely have been recorded elsewhere, so it must be fiction...
There have been some examples of such arguments in silence getting knocked down by an archaeological find. In particular Dr. Ramsay knocked down a bunch of them. I don’t know if anyone has ever compiled a complete list. Perhaps Josh McDowell has — he’s into making lists.