Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

[Plekhanov]

Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

From Richard Owen in Rome

AN ITALIAN judge has ordered a priest to appear in court this month to prove that Jesus Christ existed.

The case against Father Enrico Righi has been brought in the town of Viterbo, north of Rome, by Luigi Cascioli, a retired agronomist who once studied for the priesthood but later became a militant atheist.

Signor Cascioli, author of a book called The Fable of Christ, began legal proceedings against Father Righi three years ago after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ’s historical existence.

Yesterday Gaetano Mautone, a judge in Viterbo, set a preliminary hearing for the end of this month and ordered Father Righi to appear. The judge had earlier refused to take up the case, but was overruled last month by the Court of Appeal, which agreed that Signor Cascioli had a reasonable case for his accusation that Father Righi was “abusing popular credulity”.

Signor Cascioli’s contention — echoed in numerous atheist books and internet sites — is that there was no reliable evidence that Jesus lived and died in 1st-century Palestine apart from the Gospel accounts, which Christians took on faith. There is therefore no basis for Christianity, he claims.

Signor Cascioli’s one-man campaign came to a head at a court hearing last April when he lodged his accusations of “abuse of popular credulity” and “impersonation”, both offences under the Italian penal code. He argued that all claims for the existence of Jesus from sources other than the Bible stem from authors who lived “after the time of the hypothetical Jesus” and were therefore not reliable witnesses.

Signor Cascioli maintains that early Christian writers confused Jesus with John of Gamala, an anti-Roman Jewish insurgent in 1st-century Palestine. Church authorities were therefore guilty of “substitution of persons”.

The Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius mention a “Christus” or “Chrestus”, but were writing “well after the life of the purported Jesus” and were relying on hearsay.

Father Righi said there was overwhelming testimony to Christ’s existence in religious and secular texts. Millions had in any case believed in Christ as both man and Son of God for 2,000 years.

“If Cascioli does not see the sun in the sky at midday, he cannot sue me because I see it and he does not,” Father Righi said.

Signor Cascioli said that the Gospels themselves were full of inconsistencies and did not agree on the names of the 12 apostles. He said that he would withdraw his legal action if Father Righi came up with irrefutable proof of Christ’s existence by the end of the month.

The Vatican has so far declined to comment.

THE EVIDENCE

# The Gospels say that Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem, grew up in Nazareth, preached and performed miracles in Galilee and died on the Cross in Jerusalem

# In his Antiquities of the Jews at the end of the 1st century, Josephus, the Jewish historian, refers to Jesus as “a wise man, a doer of wonderful works” who “drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles”

# Muslims believe Jesus was a great prophet. Many Jewish theologians regard Jesus as an itinerant rabbi who popularised many of the beliefs of liberal Jews. Neither Muslims nor Jews believe he was the Messiah and Son of God

# Tacitus, the Roman historian who lived from 55 to 120, mentions “Christus” in his Annals. In about 120 Suetonius, author of The Lives of the Caesars, says: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, Emperor Claudius expelled them from Rome.”

Just how fantastic would it be if the court was forced to rule that there’s simply no reliable evidence that Jesus ever existed.

[Hillary]

Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest
THE EVIDENCE

# The Gospels say that Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem, grew up in Nazareth, preached and performed miracles in Galilee and died on the Cross in Jerusalem

# In his Antiquities of the Jews at the end of the 1st century, Josephus, the Jewish historian, refers to Jesus as “a wise man, a doer of wonderful works” who “drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles”

# Muslims believe Jesus was a great prophet. Many Jewish theologians regard Jesus as an itinerant rabbi who popularised many of the beliefs of liberal Jews. Neither Muslims nor Jews believe he was the Messiah and Son of God

# Tacitus, the Roman historian who lived from 55 to 120, mentions “Christus” in his Annals. In about 120 Suetonius, author of The Lives of the Caesars, says: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, Emperor Claudius expelled them from Rome.”

Overwhelming evidence there then

[Admiral Valdemar]

That'd be hilarious. By a court ruling, Christ doesn't exist.

[Hillary]

That'd be hilarious. By a court ruling, Christ doesn't exist.

Especially coming from an Italian court

[mr friendly guy]

“If Cascioli does not see the sun in the sky at midday, he cannot sue me because I see it and he does not,”

If Father Righi thinks that an magic man died for our sins and came back alive again, he cannot ask us to believe in that just because he is deluded and we are not.

THE EVIDENCE

# The Gospels say that Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem, grew up in Nazareth, preached and performed miracles in Galilee and died on the Cross in Jerusalem

Circular logic. You can't use the Bible to prove itself. Another great argument from apologetic morons.

# In his Antiquities of the Jews at the end of the 1st century, Josephus, the Jewish historian, refers to Jesus as “a wise man, a doer of wonderful works” who “drew over to himboth many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles”

Josephus works comprise twenty volumes. Yet we are supposed to believe that Jesus who was so great is only discussed with a dozen lines in his works? Moreover since Josephus was a devout Jew claim that Jesus was divine, Jesus rose from the dead etc. The entire passage smacks of being added in by Christians down the line.

# Muslims believe Jesus was a great prophet. Many Jewish theologians regard Jesus as an itinerant rabbi who popularised many of the beliefs of liberal Jews. Neither Muslims nor Jews believe he was the Messiah and Son of God

And many atheists believe Jesus never existed. Therefore Jesus never existed. Amazing isn't it when we can appeal to belief.

# Tacitus, the Roman historian who lived from 55 to 120, mentions “Christus” in his Annals. In about 120 Suetonius, author of The Lives of the Caesars, says: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, Emperor Claudius expelled them from Rome.”

Information which Tacitus wrote several decades after Jesus was supposed to have lived. It is likely he received it very second hand. Moreover Tacitus writing just shows that there were Christians (Tacitus was writing about how Christians were punished for the great fire which damaged Rome). He mentions that Christians derived their teaching from someone named "Christus", not Jesus.

[Rye]

Hurm, let's see here:

# The Gospels say that Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem, grew up in Nazareth, preached and performed miracles in Galilee and died on the Cross in Jerusalem

Though the gospels are highly mythologised, and often have historical errors (like Mark's assertion that you could work north of Tyre and ending up south of the Decapolis) a source for a few of them, outside of Mark, is a hypothetical document called "Q" which contained a load of sayings that are attributed to Jesus. There are sayings in the Gospels, attributed to Jesus that do not fit either first century judaism or christianity, so it's pretty likely it's from a real historical character that would become Jesus as the Bible portrays him. I think that's as definitive evidence as you're going to get.

That, plus the growth of christianity in the first century, a time known for being rife with people like Jesus who wanted to be messiahs. One of them being publically successful is hardly that unreasonable.

# In his Antiquities of the Jews at the end of the 1st century, Josephus, the Jewish historian, refers to Jesus as “a wise man, a doer of wonderful works” who “drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles”

4th Century interpolation.

# Muslims believe Jesus was a great prophet. Many Jewish theologians regard Jesus as an itinerant rabbi who popularised many of the beliefs of liberal Jews. Neither Muslims nor Jews believe he was the Messiah and Son of God

The jews considering him a real person is pretty cool, yeah, not amazing evidence, though.

# Tacitus, the Roman historian who lived from 55 to 120, mentions “Christus” in his Annals. In about 120 Suetonius, author of The Lives of the Caesars, says: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, Emperor Claudius expelled them from Rome.”

Tacitus repeated what Christians said ages after Jesus' death (unsurprisingly, since he was born decades after it) and isn't a great source. Plus "Chrestus" was 10 years too late to be Jesus.

If they actually use those evidences in court, it would be more detrimental than helpful.

[mingo]

I view the Christian belief as simalar to the Stories of King Artur,. It is such a prevasive myth, there must be SOMETHING behind it, but who can say what? I've never understood why the mythos is so important. Isn't the ethics of the religion what's important? How does this belief make the believer a better person. Wheather or not someone said "I am the light of the world..." 2000 years ago is not a life or death matter.

[tharkûn]

The Gospels are admissable as historical evidence. Sure the earliest surviving copies date two or three centuries after the fact, were written by partisans, and mythologized; but that is true of most historical figures from the period. The earliest surviving documentation of Buddha's life dates centuries after his death. All the evidence of Socrates we have as surviving manuscripts attributed to his disciples, all of which are attributed to dates far after original composition.

Information which Tacitus wrote several decades after Jesus was supposed to have lived. It is likely he received it very second hand. Moreover Tacitus writing just shows that there were Christians (Tacitus was writing about how Christians were punished for the great fire which damaged Rome). He mentions that Christians derived their teaching from someone named "Christus", not Jesus.

Decades in historical evidence is as good as next day. Herodutus writes a century after the fact, Thyucides writes decades after the fact, etc. With the exception of extremely important persons of state, nobody's life was chronicled as it occurred. It further doesn't help that Jesus lived mostly in Judea; which revolted and was burnt, plundered, and pillaged when the Romans put the revolt down.

In any event modern history does consider oral histories as evidentiary; if we exclude them the we have NO evidence for any of the illeterate societies. Should we say Manco Capac and Acamapichtli (Incan and Mexica rulers respectively) did not exist because we have only oral traditions? A huge amount of history will have to be dumped if we exclude only those things repeated by word of mouth, let alone if we simply discard mythologized accounts by partisans.

Granted all this evidence is of rather poor quality, but Signor Cascioli has assumed a positive burden of proof by claiming that "substitution of persons" has occurred and would be required to show superior evidence. Given the dearth of superior sources about much of anything for that region at that time; I will be amazed if he can pull it off.

[Guardsman Bass]

Decades in historical evidence is as good as next day. Herodutus writes a century after the fact, Thyucides writes decades after the fact, etc. With the exception of extremely important persons of state, nobody's life was chronicled as it occurred. It further doesn't help that Jesus lived mostly in Judea; which revolted and was burnt, plundered, and pillaged when the Romans put the revolt down.

That doesn't explain why we should trust the account, or the author. Herodotus was notoriously inaccurate in several areas (he was the one that started the myth that the pyramids were built by slaves, which survived until recently).And Thucydides was not writing his history 'decades after the fact';Thucydides died around 399 B.C, only five years after the Peloponnesian War ended. Moreover, he didn't pull the History out of his ass at the end of the war; after he was banished from Athens for failure as a general in 424 B.C., he spent much of his time traveling to and from the countries participating in the war, writing his accounts as he went. He also wrote a highly accurate account of the plague in Athens in 430. source

[Guardsman Bass]

I forgot to point out the contrast between Thucydides and the biblical authors. Thucydides was an active participant in the war and in Athens until his banishment, wrote accounts throughout the event that he incorporated into his history, and stated that his motive was to write as accurately to the facts as possible. The "Gospel authors," by contrast, may or may not have been the actual authors of their doctrine, the earliest wrote at least 30 years after Christ's supposed date of death, and we have no idea if they were even trying to portray facts, or simply modified events to suit their religious purposes.

[VT-16]

Hasn't it been said before that historians in the Middle East have had a tendancy to add exsaturated claims to historical events to make them more interesting, and that's why they're so unreliable? I know I heard that somewhere.

[Surlethe]

... and we have no idea if they were even trying to portray facts, or simply modified events to suit their religious purposes.

Remember, the purpose of the Gospels is prosthelytize as effectively as possible within the context of the Roman culture of the first centuries AD. The best way to do that is not to directly adhere to the facts, but rather to elaborate on oral tradition and present the best face possible on the Messiah. The fact there are multiple Gospels giving, on the face of it, contradictory accounts, only enhances the idea the Gospels are advertising, rather than attempting to remain comprehensive and factually correct accounts; others have covered in more detail the evidence each Gospel is designed for a different audience.

[Guardsman Bass]

... and we have no idea if they were even trying to portray facts, or simply modified events to suit their religious purposes.

Remember, the purpose of the Gospels is prosthelytize as effectively as possible within the context of the Roman culture of the first centuries AD. The best way to do that is not to directly adhere to the facts, but rather to elaborate on oral tradition and present the best face possible on the Messiah. The fact there are multiple Gospels giving, on the face of it, contradictory accounts, only enhances the idea the Gospels are advertising, rather than attempting to remain comprehensive and factually correct accounts; others have covered in more detail the evidence each Gospel is designed for a different audience.

Hell, that is still done today. I've seen some accurate "biographies" of Joseph Smith done by faithful members suffer from the 'proselyting' disease.

[tharkûn]

That doesn't explain why we should trust the account, or the author.

Why then should we trust accounts handed down about such figures as Socrates, Buddha, Monco Capac, Musonious Rufus, Apollonious of Tyana, etc.?

Virtually all anqituitious accounts are untrustworthy prima facie. They were written by self-serving partisans, often decades or centuries after the fact. They may all suck but, we rarely have anything better. Contemporary accounts simply did not survive.

Herodotus was notoriously inaccurate in several areas (he was the one that started the myth that the pyramids were built by slaves, which survived until recently).

Yes I know, one could make a case that Herodotus was even propogandizing. However his inaccuracies do not make his accounts worthless, just of lesser worth than superior ones (like Thucydides).

And Thucydides was not writing his history 'decades after the fact';Thucydides died around 399 B.C, only five years after the Peloponnesian War ended.

The Peloponnesian War lasted 27 years, but History of the Peloponnesian War begins with an epic recap and proceeds to Epidamnus. It seems highly unlikely that authorship spead over even 10 years, let alone 32. The intial events of the war would most likely have occurred a decade or two prior to putting to parchment.

Moreover, he didn't pull the History out of his ass at the end of the war; after he was banished from Athens for failure as a general in 424 B.C., he spent much of his time traveling to and from the countries participating in the war, writing his accounts as he went. He also wrote a highly accurate account of the plague in Athens in 430.

Not argueing with that. The point was we cannot dismiss Tacticus merely for writing decades after the fact, that is common and even the gold standard of antiquitious history most likely did that. Nor can we dismiss him for reporting second hand accounts; virtually all histories from that time period were such. Thucydides openly states much of his material is such and reproduces speaches from second or worse hand.

I forgot to point out the contrast between Thucydides and the biblical authors. Thucydides was an active participant in the war and in Athens until his banishment, wrote accounts throughout the event that he incorporated into his history, and stated that his motive was to write as accurately to the facts as possible. The "Gospel authors," by contrast, may or may not have been the actual authors of their doctrine, the earliest wrote at least 30 years after Christ's supposed date of death, and we have no idea if they were even trying to portray facts, or simply modified events to suit their religious purposes.

My point is, yes the Gospels as historical evidence have problems, however so does all antiquitious evidence. If we say all accounts written decades after the fact are worthless, then we get to kiss the vast majority of antiquitious history goodbye. If we exclude 'historians' who may have modified events to suit their goals; we can drop virtually all of them as they were either writing under patronage, for political purposes, etc.

If you are going to say the Gospels are completely inadmissible as historical evidence, then you need some standard to weed all the other lousy sources out. If you don't pick criteria carefully you may end up throwing out Thucydides, Xenophon, etc.

It isn't enough to say the evidence supporting their account (that a Jesus of Nazereth existed in the 1st centuray AD) is crap, the litigant needs to have better evidence showing his account (that Jesus was actually John of Gamela) to be true. I'd be interested in seeing what evidence meets the reliability standards that disqualifies the Gospels as well as Jewish, Christian, and Islamic oral history.

[SirNitram]

The Gospels are unreliable because the Romans had this tendency of noticing huge groups gathered to listen to people.

[Solauren]

Does the Church have tax exempt status in Italy?

If so, how could they keep it if they could not prove there god/object or worship ever existed/was divine?

[Guardsman Bass]

My point is, yes the Gospels as historical evidence have problems, however so does all antiquitious evidence. If we say all accounts written decades after the fact are worthless, then we get to kiss the vast majority of antiquitious history goodbye. If we exclude 'historians' who may have modified events to suit their goals; we can drop virtually all of them as they were either writing under patronage, for political purposes, etc.

If you are going to say the Gospels are completely inadmissible as historical evidence, then you need some standard to weed all the other lousy sources out. If you don't pick criteria carefully you may end up throwing out Thucydides, Xenophon, etc.

But I did post at least a partial standard, and I didn't say they were completely inadmissable; I just said that they are not very reliable, and probably should not be used to determine the actual events surrounding the origin of Christianity, because of three problems that it does not share with Thucydides:

1. No confirmed author. We know that Thucydides was a general for Athens, and that he traveled during his exile throughout the region, collecting accounts. By contrast, we don't know this for the Biblical authors, although, if I remember correctly, it's suspected that John used Mark as a source.

2. No prior accounts. During the three decades between Mark and Jesus, we have no indication of any accounts that Mark may have used in composing the Gospel, and no indication of if he actually saw the events in his Gospel happen firsthand. We have this for Thucydides; he describes the plague in Athens in 430 very accurately, and we know about the other writings he used.

3. We can gauge the possible distortion. We know, for example, that Thucydides was an athenian, and a supporter of Athens. By contrast, all we know about the Gospel authors is that they were probably interested in promoting Christianity. There's no way to tell how much of their account was probably distortion. Moreover, there is other evidence that can be used to confirm or disprove Thucydides's account, but next to none for the Gospels, other than the probably fraudulent bit in Josephus, and Tacitus's writings nearly a century later.

[Lord MJ]

Excuse me, but what has this priest done that would merit a lawsuit?

Is the plaintiff suing because he was "denounced" ?

[SirNitram]

Excuse me, but what has this priest done that would merit a lawsuit?

Is the plaintiff suing because he was "denounced" ?

I think so. Denouncement could be claimed to be slander/libel. Of course, to do that, you have to show the other guy is false.

[tharkûn]

The Gospels are unreliable because the Romans had this tendency of noticing huge groups gathered to listen to people.

Most contemporary Roman records would have been lost during the Jewish revolt. Those that survived would have been sent to Rome and possibly have made it to Byzantium. Both of those cities were pillaged multiple times which has a negative effect on the survival of documentation.

1. No confirmed author. We know that Thucydides was a general for Athens, and that he traveled during his exile throughout the region, collecting accounts. By contrast, we don't know this for the Biblical authors, although, if I remember correctly, it's suspected that John used Mark as a source.

I'm playing devil's advocate here:

On what authority do we have it that Thucydides was an Athenian general? On what authority do we have it that he travelled collecting accounts? Much of what we know about Thucydides, comes from Thucydides. I assume you can see the problem with that.

2. No prior accounts. During the three decades between Mark and Jesus, we have no indication of any accounts that Mark may have used in composing the Gospel, and no indication of if he actually saw the events in his Gospel happen firsthand. We have this for Thucydides; he describes the plague in Athens in 430 very accurately, and we know about the other writings he used.

Certain elements of the Gospels were reproduced in the prior Epistles (notably the Last Supper). Again I'm not denying Thucydides is MUCH better historicly, rather that the differences are in magnitude, not kind.

3. We can gauge the possible distortion. We know, for example, that Thucydides was an athenian, and a supporter of Athens. By contrast, all we know about the Gospel authors is that they were probably interested in promoting Christianity. There's no way to tell how much of their account was probably distortion. Moreover, there is other evidence that can be used to confirm or disprove Thucydides's account, but next to none for the Gospels, other than the probably fraudulent bit in Josephus, and Tacitus's writings nearly a century later.

Actually Thucydides was not a supporter of Athens at many times. He was not particularly fond of some of the latter demagogues. What other evidence do you rely upon Xenophon who quite clearly emulated Thucydides? Aristophanes who was a satirist and known to fabricate for comedic effect?

[SirNitram]

The Gospels are unreliable because the Romans had this tendency of noticing huge groups gathered to listen to people.

Most contemporary Roman records would have been lost during the Jewish revolt. Those that survived would have been sent to Rome and possibly have made it to Byzantium. Both of those cities were pillaged multiple times which has a negative effect on the survival of documentation.

So your argument will now be that no news of this guy ever left his region, despite the fact you could get the results of sports across the empire in a few days. That no record of someone gathering huge amounts of Jews will ever emerge, despite there being a record-keeping Empire in place. That's rather a ridiculous position to take, why would this individual who apparently attracted such multitudes on the Mount not merit at least as much coverage as the existance of a Gladiatrix?

[Lord MJ]

In Italy it might be that the defendant has to prove his statements or true...

But in any case it is totally lame to consider Denouncement libel/slander, and only a greedy or insecure asshat would take legal action for someone denouncing him.

This guy is free to say Jesus doesn't exist, and that Christians are idiots, right or wrong. But the priest is free to denounce him for his comments, say that Jesus does exist, and that atheists are all idiots. It's called expressing opinion....

[Darth Wong]

The Gospels are admissable as historical evidence. Sure the earliest surviving copies date two or three centuries after the fact, were written by partisans, and mythologized; but that is true of most historical figures from the period. The earliest surviving documentation of Buddha's life dates centuries after his death. All the evidence of Socrates we have as surviving manuscripts attributed to his disciples, all of which are attributed to dates far after original composition.

And by that same token, if some historian wrote that perhaps Socrates wasn't a real person, he would be able to sue for slander if some idiot publicly slandered him as a liar. So what's the difference? This lawsuit wouldn't have happened if Father Jackass didn't decide to publicly slander a historian for writing a book with a viewpoint that he didn't like.

[tharkûn]

So your argument will now be that no news of this guy ever left his region, despite the fact you could get the results of sports across the empire in a few days. That no record of someone gathering huge amounts of Jews will ever emerge, despite there being a record-keeping Empire in place. That's rather a ridiculous position to take, why would this individual who apparently attracted such multitudes on the Mount not merit at least as much coverage as the existance of a Gladiatrix?

According to other historical sources multitudes listening to other teachers, philosophers, and mystics was also common. Apollonius of Tyana, Musonious Rufus, etc. Furthermore the Gladiatrix has a distinct advantage that she was in Rome which was the cultural center of the day. Not to mention that Jesus would lack the sex appeal of a Gladiatrix.

The fact that a bunch of Jews in one of the backwater provinces were congregating isn't all that spectacular. It most certainly would have been filed with the local government, and possibly forwarded to Rome. The odds of the actual documentation surviving the Jewish revolt are low; most documentation didn't. What copies would exist in Rome would have faced subsequent risk of destruction, both from centuries of crude storage as well as multiple sackings.

And by that same token, if some historian wrote that perhaps Socrates wasn't a real person, he would be able to sue for slander if some idiot publicly slandered him as a liar.

Neither "abuse of popular credulity nor "impersonation" are tantamount to libel. Is he litigating for libel as well?

His case seems to be more this, "According to article 661 of the Italian Penal Code, there is an abuse of popular credulity when someone, by means of fraud, deceives a great number of people. In this particular case, the ministers of religion of the Catholic Church, like Righi in the present case, by committing historical falsity, therefore presenting invented facts as if true and actually occurred – but useful to religious doctrine – they deceive all the people that come into contact with the teachings of such religion, by inducing them to believe in that religion, not on the basis of purely theological reasoning (totally legitimate and admissible), but on the basis of a deceptive representation of the facts. "

On that one he should be assuming a positive burden of proof, and should be required not only to show that the Gospels are a lousy historical source, but that he has superior ones. Likewise he can call into question the oral traditions, but he should still have to provide superior evidence.

A translation of the actual charges can be found here:
http://www.luigicascioli.it/processo_eng.php#1

I have only skimmed the text, but it appears that "fraud" rather than "liable" appears to be the closest American term for the charge.

[SirNitram]

So your argument will now be that no news of this guy ever left his region, despite the fact you could get the results of sports across the empire in a few days. That no record of someone gathering huge amounts of Jews will ever emerge, despite there being a record-keeping Empire in place. That's rather a ridiculous position to take, why would this individual who apparently attracted such multitudes on the Mount not merit at least as much coverage as the existance of a Gladiatrix?

According to other historical sources multitudes listening to other teachers, philosophers, and mystics was also common. Apollonius of Tyana, Musonious Rufus, etc. Furthermore the Gladiatrix has a distinct advantage that she was in Rome which was the cultural center of the day. Not to mention that Jesus would lack the sex appeal of a Gladiatrix.

I must admit, women in skimpy leather armour > Hippies preaching on a hill.

More seriously: Notice that we know about these popular figures. We know because they were not little-known figures, word got around. Why? Because people loved a show! We'll not tackle the problem that the Mount is not capable of handling the claimed multitudes while one man can speak(It's not an amplitheatre, natural or constructed..).

The fact that a bunch of Jews in one of the backwater provinces were congregating isn't all that spectacular. It most certainly would have been filed with the local government, and possibly forwarded to Rome. The odds of the actual documentation surviving the Jewish revolt are low; most documentation didn't. What copies would exist in Rome would have faced subsequent risk of destruction, both from centuries of crude storage as well as multiple sackings.

Yet mysteriously, we know so much about Rome and it's popular figures. You are insisting a major event in history happened and the ruling power was so clueless it could lose it's only copy without anyone taking notice. This is a staggeringly unlikely event, and merely emphasizes the need for more than just the Gospels.