Historical Jesus

[Delvo]

Posts about the "Acts of the Apostles" remind me...

How many Apostles does it tell about the Acts of, and what are their names, and for how long after Jesus was gone; how does their story end?

I know I've heard the whole gang referred as The Twelve Apostles, but that doesn't mean AotA couldn't be about what just a few of them did, not the complete set.

And that's even if there actually were twelve in the first place. I've seen verses that name one/two/three of them at a time, possibly in contexts that don't make it perfectly clear that they're really meant to count as Apostles or that they aren't. I've seen a couple of skeptics say that if you combine all of those verses you get something like 14-18 names. If anybody has a list of 12, I don't know how they came up with it. But I do know that people have long thought that 12 was such a cool number that there just naturally had to be 12 of anything important (unless there were 7).

In a debate about the Apostles having been willing to get tortured to death rather than deny Jesus's divinity or resurrection, I've seen it argued by skeptics that most of the stories Christians have told of how the Apostles died aren't even in the Bible; they're "church tradition", meaning somebody else came up with them much later. But if the Bible doesn't depict their deaths, then at what point did it draw the line and say the story was done?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You made it back..

Were you going to respond to this?

Racist/bigoted Jesus

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It is apparent that you joined this thread very late and may not be familiar with the contents of Acts of the Apostles and other writings of antiquity.

It would be expected that the author of Acts would mention that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches or anyone especially when the author mentioned those who gave letters to Saul/Paul.

1. In Acts 9.2 it is claimed Saul/Paul received letters from the high priest giving him authority to arrest believers of the Church in Damascus.

2. In Acts 15 It is claimed that the Church of Jerusalem as advised by James with the elders and apostles wrote letters to the Gentiles of the Churches of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia and gave those letters to Saul/Paul and his travelling companions to be delivered .
The contents of the letters Saul/Paul received are also found in Acts 15.

3. In Acts 28 It is claimed Saul/Paul being a prisoner, was sent to Rome and that he met with Jews however during the meeting the Jews admitted they had not received any letters about Paul from Judea.

4. In Acts 24 -Acts 28 it must be noted that Saul/Paul was held as a prisoner for about 2-3 years prior to going to Rome for the first time so it is extremely unlikely that the Epistle to the Romans was written by Saul/Paul when he was held in bonds.

5.In Acts, Saul/Paul did not have any letter for anyone or Church upon arrival in Rome.

It is clear the author of Acts mentioned those who gave letters to Saul/Paul and even shared the contents so it would be expected that the author would have mentioned the letters Saul/Paul wrote and would have given some details of their contents.

Based on Acts of the Apostles and other writings of antiquity Jesus, the disciples and Paul are fiction characters and all the Epistles are fraudulent historically worthless writings fabricated no earlier than the 2nd century.

Just because Acts sometimes mentions letters, it does not follow that one can infer an absence of letters from their lack of mention in Acts. All that one can say is that the author was not aware of any letters that he considered important to his narrative.

As to the suggestion that Paul never existed and that his letters are forgeries, I, apparently like some of the other posters here, fail to grasp your theory of the crime. What was even the point of making up Paul's existence? And what was the point of pretending he was important to the early church? Who was being fooled, to what purpose and to whose benefit? If they wished to bolster these letters' authority, why not forge letters attributed to, say, Peter or James? Or heck, to Jesus himself?

 

[HansMustermann]

It is apparent that you joined this thread very late and may not be familiar with the contents of Acts of the Apostles and other writings of antiquity.

It would be expected that the author of Acts would mention that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches or anyone especially when the author mentioned those who gave letters to Saul/Paul.

That's like saying that if the Dr Who writers knew some of the shady stuff Nixon did, they surely would have mentioned it in the episodes mentioning him. Or that if they knew about Churchill's most famous speeches, they would have surely included them in those episodes. So, clearly, Churchill and Nixon must have been invented in the 21st century, after those episodes of Dr Who.

Or you could just wake up to the fact that no such requirement exists for any fanfic ever. The idea that they MUST include exactly what bits you'd like, if they knew them, is patently absurd. If you want to control which bits and ends go into a story, write your own. Other people have other criteria.

1. In Acts 9.2 it is claimed Saul/Paul received letters from the high priest giving him authority to arrest believers of the Church in Damascus.

Which is pretty absurd right there, considering that it was a country actively militarily hostile to Rome and to Judaea. That's like saying that some Soviet citizen could be given some letters allowing him to arrest Americans in the USA during the cold war. It really is THAT absurd.

But that's what you get when you insist on taking a work of fiction as gospel

2. In Acts 15 It is claimed that the Church of Jerusalem as advised by James with the elders and apostles wrote letters to the Gentiles of the Churches of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia and gave those letters to Saul/Paul and his travelling companions to be delivered .
The contents of the letters Saul/Paul received are also found in Acts 15.

A chunk of Acts 15 is, incidentally, on the list of stuff that's totally not by the same author as the rest of Acts. Generally, most stuff that is a quote in Acts you would do well to be circumspect of.

Not that it would matter anyway, since Acts is a novel. So if a novel conflicts with anything else -- real or fictional alike -- well, let's just say you're the only one who needs to find any extra meaning in that. For the rest of the world, it's kinda expected. We expect some kind of corroboration from historical sources, but novels don't have any such expectation.

Basically if the author of a novel, Acts included, even wants to write that Paul rode on a dragon, it's his prerogative.

3. In Acts 28 It is claimed Saul/Paul being a prisoner, was sent to Rome and that he met with Jews however during the meeting the Jews admitted they had not received any letters about Paul from Judea.

Again, it being a novel, who cares, really? There are even more ridiculous meetings and circumstances in Acts than that, such as the part with the Jews in Corinth. So expecting just that one to be somehow accurate, is kinda unwarranted.

4. In Acts 24 -Acts 28 it must be noted that Saul/Paul was held as a prisoner for about 2-3 years prior to going to Rome for the first time so it is extremely unlikely that the Epistle to the Romans was written by Saul/Paul when he was held in bonds.

If you have a problem with a novel saying that, you may want to stay away from Harry Potter. They have even more implausible things in there

5.In Acts, Saul/Paul did not have any letter for anyone or Church upon arrival in Rome.

Which is just as well, since the Romans epistle doesn't claim to be presented upon setting foot in Rome. But again, given that Acts is a novel, who cares?

It is clear the author of Acts mentioned those who gave letters to Saul/Paul and even shared the contents so it would be expected that the author would have mentioned the letters Saul/Paul wrote and would have given some details of their contents.

Would it? That's a silly blank assertion.

1. In fact, when you remove the parts that were not written by the same author, there are almost no quotes of anything left in Acts. Not from the trials, not from almost anything else.

And they'd be suspect in any ancient writing anyway. The normal modus operandi was to just fill in the blanks with your own words. That goes not only for whoever wrote Acts (or Jesus's speeches in the gospels, for that matter), but everyone. When you read stuff like the famous "They make a desert and call it peace" speech of Calgacus in Tacitus, chances are overwhelming that it's just Tacitus's own words.

2. You're postulating to basically know intent for someone who you don't know and have no records of. For no more apparent reason that your usual magical thinking: if it leads to the conclusion you really really want to believe, then that must be the truth.

But see, here's the thing: whoever would write such a forgery actually had an agenda. They're not just telling the most accurate story possible. They're pushing a certain version of the story. You can't just postulate that they'd include whatever you want them to include. (And yes, the same goes for the epistles too.)

Based on Acts of the Apostles and other writings of antiquity Jesus, the disciples and Paul are fiction characters and all the Epistles are fraudulent historically worthless writings fabricated no earlier than the 2nd century.

What you're saying is basically that when a novel conflicts with something else, then the novel wins. It's really that nonsensical.

 

[HansMustermann]

But let's think about it a bit more for a moment here. Even if the author of Acts wanted to include some letters from Paul, how would he get their contents?

I mean nowadays you have the internet, and printing press, and whatnot. But if you were a novelist in the late 1st century CE, how would you even get to find out who in a mystery cult has some letter from a certain guy, and even if you did somehow find out, why would they lend it to you? Again, for some of those we're talking the equivalent of a couple grand in today's money just for the paper alone. You couldn't just ask them to fax you a copy. Someone had to copy it by hand if you wanted a copy, and someone had to pay for that expense.

So exactly how would you go about collecting copies of every single letter from Paul?

 

[dejudge]

Just because Acts sometimes mentions letters, it does not follow that one can infer an absence of letters from their lack of mention in Acts. All that one can say is that the author was not aware of any letters that he considered important to his narrative.

Your statement is not logical.

The author wrote about the acts of Saul/Paul up to the time he went to Rome and even mentioned it was the Church who him gave letters.

It can be inferred that the Epistles were fabricated after Acts of the Apostles.

As to the suggestion that Paul never existed and that his letters are forgeries, I, apparently like some of the other posters here, fail to grasp your theory of the crime. What was even the point of making up Paul's existence? And what was the point of pretending he was important to the early church? Who was being fooled, to what purpose and to whose benefit? If they wished to bolster these letters' authority, why not forge letters attributed to, say, Peter or James? Or heck, to Jesus himself?

All the NT Epistles are fraudulent historically worthless writings. Even the Church admitted that the 2nd Epistle of Peter was a forgery and did not belong in the the Canon.

All the NT Gospel authors were falsely attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Jesus cult Christians writers had to manufacture their NT authors and forged writings of antiquity because they never had any history in the 1st century.

Writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius were forged in an attempt to historicise Jesus and letters to Seneca were forged to historicise Paul.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul are fiction characters in their fraudulent historically worthless writings.

 

[dejudge]

But let's think about it a bit more for a moment here. Even if the author of Acts wanted to include some letters from Paul, how would he get their contents?

I mean nowadays you have the internet, and printing press, and whatnot. But if you were a novelist in the late 1st century CE, how would you even get to find out who in a mystery cult has some letter from a certain guy, and even if you did somehow find out, why would they lend it to you? Again, for some of those we're talking the equivalent of a couple grand in today's money just for the paper alone. You couldn't just ask them to fax you a copy. Someone had to copy it by hand if you wanted a copy, and someone had to pay for that expense.

So exactly how would you go about collecting copies of every single letter from Paul?

How illogical can you be?

Is it not claimed that the so-called Pauline letters were sent to the Churches?

If they were sent to the Churches then people who attended the Churches would have at least heard of the contents of the letters.


This is so basic.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Your statement is not logical.

The author wrote about the acts of Saul/Paul up to the time he went to Rome and even mentioned it was the Church who him gave letters.

It can be inferred that the Epistles were fabricated after Acts of the Apostles.

I don't believe you. Explain how your conclusion can be inferred from your observation. All I see here is: "Acts mentions some letters, therefore we should expect it to mention any letter that the author knew about." That is significantly less logical than anything I have written. And it still would only apply to letters that the author knew about.

Maynard Solomon's biography of Beethoven mentions all sorts of letters written by, to, or about Beethoven. Should I assume that any letters not mentioned there don't exist? Or conclude that Solomon didn't know about them?

All the NT Epistles are fraudulent historically worthless writings. Even the Church admitted that the 2nd Epistle of Peter was a forgery and did not belong in the the Canon.

All the NT Gospel authors were falsely attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Jesus cult Christians writers had to manufacture their NT authors and forged writings of antiquity because they never had any history in the 1st century.

Writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius were forged in an attempt to historicise Jesus and letters to Seneca were forged to historicise Paul.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul are fiction characters in their fraudulent historically worthless writings.

You didn't answer my question. What was the point of fabricating Paul, specifically? And why scramble to concoct a bunch of letters in his name. Again, you seem to jump straight from "some forgery happened, therefore it's all forgery" without any logical basis. Talk about hasty generalization!

 

[dejudge]

There are many writings of antiquity which show Saul/Paul was a fiction character fabricated by anonymous fraudsters.

Examine the Epistula Apostolorum [The Epistle of the Apostles] an anonymous writing.

The Apostles are claiming to have written to Churches after their Jesus resurrected and before Saul/Paul's conversion was fabricated.

The Epistle of the Apostles

2 We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and the west, of the north and the south, the declaring and imparting unto you that which concerneth our Lord Jesus Christ: we do write according as we have seen and heard and touched him, after that he was risen from the dead: and how that he revealed unto us things mighty and wonderful and true.

And then later.

The Epistle of the Apostles

30 But he said unto us: Go ye and preach unto the twelve tribes, and preach also unto the heathen, and to all the land of Israel from the east to the west and from the south unto the north, and many shall believe on <me> the Son of God.....................................
31 And behold a man shall meet you, whose name is Saul, which being interpreted is Paul: he is a Jew, circumcised according to the law, and he shall receive my voice from heaven with fear and terror and trembling. And his eyes shall be blinded, and by your hands by the sign of the cross shall they be protected...

It is clear that Jesus, the disciples and Paul are all fabricated characters who never ever had any history.

 

[Delvo]

Were you going to respond to this?

Racist/bigoted Jesus

I don't really have anything in particular to say about it. It seems incongruous with the Good Samaritan thing, but OK, he's an incongruous guy sometimes. So I've gone from no indicators of Jesus as a bigoted/racist character to one small one. I'm actually more interested now not in what it says about Jesus but in the treatment of identifying someone as "Canaanite" as such an easy casual thing. I didn't even know that that word was still applicable at such a late date in history, but even given that it was, how would one be identified by observers in such a short time? Did they dress differently? Did they speak with a funny accent? Did they wear different hairstyles? Did the author just gloss over something that's actually not so simple at all in reality?

 

[HansMustermann]

How illogical can you be?

... says the guy who on the previous page found the basic soundness requirements illogical. Sorry, at this point I'm seriously not losing any sleep over your finding anything that disagrees with your magical thinking "illogical"

Is it not claimed that the so-called Pauline letters were sent to the Churches?

Yes, pretty much a lifetime before. At least as the traditional dating goes.

If they were sent to the Churches then people who attended the Churches would have at least heard of the contents of the letters.

Again, "churches" meant several groups of people meeting in this or that guy's house. There wouldn't be an actual basilica until Constantine's time. As such what you had would be literally hundreds of private citizens who happen to use their home for a supper and a chat about Jesus with some other private citizens. After literally tens of years, many of them wouldn't even be the same. And they sure as fork wouldn't be just listed in some church directory.

So again, how do you propose to go about even finding WHICH of them have a letter from Paul at that point in time, much less getting a copy to include in your novel? And how much effort and money would that involve?

You seem to just postulate that surely everyone who wanted to write a novel about Paul would definitely put a few decades and a small fortune into that kind of gargantuan effort. Why? Just because without that kind of assertion pulled out of the ass, your nonsense falls flat right out the gate?

This is so basic.

Yes, it is basic. But that would still involve you actually knowing anything about the world you're talking about.

 

[HansMustermann]

There are many writings of antiquity which show Saul/Paul was a fiction character fabricated by anonymous fraudsters.

Examine the Epistula Apostolorum [The Epistle of the Apostles] an anonymous writing.

The Apostles are claiming to have written to Churches after their Jesus resurrected and before Saul/Paul's conversion was fabricated.

For someone quick to call anyone "illogical" if they disagree with your nonsense, you go and write the above nonsense showing that you don't even understand even basic syllogism logic. What you have is "SOME X are Y", and you jump from that to "ALL X are Y". Because an example of X="a mention of Paul" being Y="forged" just shows that you have a case of "SOME X are Y". But to dismiss the character entirely, what you need is "ALL X are Y".

(Edit: assuming that you're actually just using it as an example that SOME mentions of Paul were forged. And not, say, using the contents of a known forgery as premises, and failing soundness again in the process.)

But here's the thing. We all already knew the "SOME X are Y" part. I mean, even the RCC's own biblical scholars will tell you that. Hell, even before there was such a thing as actual scholarship, even the early deranged Jesus fanboys knew at least since the third century that not all of those are genuine, or they wouldn't have argued about which to include.

The reason why nobody just jumped straight from that to "ALL X are Y" at this point is just that pretty much everyone else understands the difference between the two. I.e., that drawing conclusions about ALL from a statement about SOME is the textbook fallacy of Converse Accident.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

There are many writings of antiquity which show Saul/Paul was a fiction character fabricated by anonymous fraudsters.

Examine the Epistula Apostolorum [The Epistle of the Apostles] an anonymous writing.

The Apostles are claiming to have written to Churches after their Jesus resurrected and before Saul/Paul's conversion was fabricated.

The Epistle of the Apostles

And then later.

The Epistle of the Apostles

It is clear that Jesus, the disciples and Paul are all fabricated characters who never ever had any history.

Do you think this adds to your case somehow? Yes, apocryphal stories about Paul made the rounds. Apocryphal stories about Beethoven made the rounds, too. Doesn't mean Beethoven was made up.

For someone who likes to chide his interlocutors for their lack of logic, you sure do lack a lot of logic. You vault from observation (here's an apocryphal epistle) to conclusion (Paul and everybody else were made up from nothing) without supplying any inferential connective tissue.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I don't really have anything in particular to say about it. It seems incongruous with the Good Samaritan thing, but OK, he's an incongruous guy sometimes. So I've gone from no indicators of Jesus as a bigoted/racist character to one small one. I'm actually more interested now not in what it says about Jesus but in the treatment of identifying someone as "Canaanite" as such an easy casual thing. I didn't even know that that word was still applicable at such a late date in history, but even given that it was, how would one be identified by observers in such a short time? Did they dress differently? Did they speak with a funny accent? Did they wear different hairstyles? Did the author just gloss over something that's actually not so simple at all in reality?

Speaking of the Good Samaritan.

That story tells about " one of those people " who did something admirable.

There was no hint that Samaritans as a group were OK after all, and welcome in Jesus' circle.

 

[dejudge]

Do you think this adds to your case somehow? Yes, apocryphal stories about Paul made the rounds. Apocryphal stories about Beethoven made the rounds, too. Doesn't mean Beethoven was made up.

The Epistula Apostolorum was not regarded as apocryphal when it was written. People believed it was really written by the Apostles just like people believe all the Epistles attributed Paul were really him not realising that the stories about Jesus, the disciple and Paul are utter fiction and the Epistles were fabricated by multiple unknown writers..

In effect, the so-called Pauline Epistles and the Epistula Apostolorum are really apocryphal. The authencity of all Epistles cannot be verified.


By the way Beethoven is a known figure of history but Jesus, the disciples and Paul are only found in fables, forgeries, false attribution and apocryphal writings.

For someone who likes to chide his interlocutors for their lack of logic, you sure do lack a lot of logic. You vault from observation (here's an apocryphal epistle) to conclusion (Paul and everybody else were made up from nothing) without supplying any inferential connective tissue.

Your argument is quite absurd.

If Jesus, the disciples and Paul were figures of fiction then there would not be historical sources which mentioned them.

That is precisely what has happened.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul are only and always found in fiction or corrupted stories with fake or unknown authorship.

 

[dejudge]

Jesus and Paul had no history. They are only and always products of fiction, forgeries and apocryphal sources,

Examine the Acts of Paul

Acts of Paul

When Paul was teaching the word of God in Myra, there was there a man, Hermoerates by name, who had the dropsy, and he put himself forward in the sight of all, and said to Paul: Nothing is impossible with God, but especially with him whom thou preachest; for when he came he healed many, even that God whose servant thou art. Lo, I and my wife and my children, we cast ourselves at thy feet: have pity on me that I also may believe as thou hast believed on the living God.

Paul said unto him: I will restore thee (thine health) not for reward, but through the name of Jesus Christ thou shalt become whole in the presence of all these. (And he touched his body) drawing his hand downwards: and his belly opened and much water ran from him and . . . he fell down like a dead man, so that some said: It is better for him to die than to continue in pain. But when Paul had quieted the people, he took his hand and raised him up and asked him, saying: Hermocrates, ask for what thou desirest. And he said: I would eat. And he took a loaf and gave him to eat. And in that hour he was whole, and received the grace of the seal in the Lord, he and his wife.

Jesus and Paul are no different. They were fabricated.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The Epistula Apostolorum was not regarded as apocryphal when it was written.

Not regarded by whom? Some churches included it in their canon, others never did. So what? Just like many an apocryphal story, including ones about Beethoven, some people initially accepted it as genuine.

People believed it was really written by the Apostles just like people believe all the Epistles attributed Paul were really him not realising that the stories about Jesus, the disciple and Paul are utter fiction and the Epistles were fabricated by multiple unknown writers..

Again, you need a rule of inference to get from observation to conclusion before you have an argument. The observation here is: “People believe the Pauline Epistles were written by Paul.” The conclusion you try to draw from this is “Paul is utter fiction and the Epistles were fabricated.”

The rule of inference appears to be: “If people believe some work was written by Author X, then Author X is utter fiction and the work is fabricated.” People believe Moby Dick was written by Herman Melville. Therfore, Herman Melville is utter fiction and Moby Dick was fabricated. People believe that Beloved was written by Toni Morrison. Therefore, Toni Morrison is utter fiction and Beloved was fabricated.

Needless to say, this is a silly rule. But you do not offer a better one for your argument.

In effect, the so-called Pauline Epistles and the Epistula Apostolorum are really apocryphal. The authencity of all Epistles cannot be verified.

They cannot be verified, therefore they are apocryphal. Got it.

By the way Beethoven is a known figure of history

Yes, that’s the point of my counter-examples: to show out that the rules you employ would lead one to conclude that known historical figures such as Beethoven or Toni Morrison never existed. You need a better argument.

If Jesus, the disciples and Paul were figures of fiction then there would not be historical sources which mentioned them.

That is precisely what has happened.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul are only and always found in fiction or corrupted stories with fake or unknown authorship.

Affirming the consequent again. Logic fail.

The argument you need is: “If Jesus, the disciples and Paul were *not* figures of fiction then there *would* be historical sources which mentioned them. That is precisely *not* what has happened.”

Then your inference would be based on modus tollens, and thus valid. Would you like to try your hand at making that case?


And you still haven’t explained how any of this means that Acts predates the Epistles.

 

[HansMustermann]

Again, you need a rule of inference to get from observation to conclusion before you have an argument. The observation here is: “People believe the Pauline Epistles were written by Paul.” The conclusion you try to draw from this is “Paul is utter fiction and the Epistles were fabricated.”

More like a case of
P1: Some X are Y
P2: Z is an X
therefore
C: Z is an Y

I take it I don't need to explain what's wrong with that logic.

The examples establish that SOME ancient Xian writings about Paul that were assumed to be true (X) were actually forged.(Y) ^(*) The epistles are Xian writings about Paul. Therefore, his logic seems to go, the epistles are forged too.

^(*)Or it would, if he hadn't botched that too. There are no scholars that assume the Epistula Apostolorum or Acts to be anything but fiction. So what he gets is that writings taken by all scholars to be forgeries, actually were forgeries, therefore those assumed by scholars to be for real are forgeries too.

I.e., that logic becomes more like a surreal case of:
P1: Some Y are NOT X
P2: Z is an X
therefore
C: Z is an Y

I'm guessing that he got his ideas from someone who had a more coherent case for it, based on some actual historical knowledge, but he doesn't seem to be able to make that case himself.

 

[dejudge]

Once writings of antiquity are examined it will be easily seen that Jesus, the disciples and Paul were completely fabricated and that all of them are found in works of fiction, forgery, false attribution and without historical corroboration.

Examine the very NT.

All the NT stories of Jesus, the disciples and Paul are utter fiction.

All the authors are unknown but falsely attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Peter, Jude and John.

Now, examine all the apocryphal writings which mention Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

The apocryphal writings about Jesus, the disciples and Paul are total ridiculous fiction just like the NT.

Examine writings from the 1st century by supposed well-known writers it will be noticed that there is no mention of Jesus, the disciples and Paul except in forgeries.

It is argued that it is not likely 1st century writers would mention NT characters like Jesus, the disciples and Paul but such an argument is contradicted by the very writings which were forged in an attempt to historicise Jesus.

The NT contains stories about a character called John the Baptist who after having met Jesus baptised him in the river Jordan.

John the Baptist is mentioned in the writings of Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" and the passage is not considered a forgery.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.5. 2.

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism....

Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" 18. appears to corroborate that John the Baptist was a figure of history in the time of Herod even though the NT stories about John the Baptist were made up.

In gMark, John the Baptist, is mentioned a few times in the 1st chapter and chapter 8 but the rest of the story is about Jesus and the disciples. For example, Jesus is mentioned at least 93 times, and the disciples no less than 90 times.

In the NT John the Baptist, later slain by Herod, supposedly baptised Jesus, a miracle worker, who had thousands of followers in Judea and was put on trial before the Sanhedrin and Pilate after which he was crucified.

The fact that Josephus mentioned John the Baptist means that he could have mention Jesus, his disciples and Paul if they were really figures of history.

Josephus mentioned characters by name who claimed to have or attempted to perform miracles similar to the supposed miracles of Jesus.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.5.1.

NOW it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, (9) persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem.

Why didn't Josephus write about the supposed magician called Jesus who was crucified under Pilate in Jerusalem?

Jesus never existed.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul never had any history so writings of well-known writers had to be corrupted or fabricated in an attempt to historicise them.

 

[abaddon]

Jesus and Paul had no history. They are only and always products of fiction, forgeries and apocryphal sources,

Examine the Acts of Paul

Acts of Paul

Jesus and Paul are no different. They were fabricated.

So what?

It's not like any of us cares much.

Except you, who care very, very much,

Can you tell us why?

No. You refuse to do so.