Evidence for Jesus

[_Trevor]

Because it is highly unlikely that an objective outside source would refer to a mythical figure as if he really existed. Can you find a parallel example anywhere?

First of all, we have no way of knowing how objective and outside this source is.

You can read Euhemerus, who argues that the gods are historical kings who were deified for their great deeds and benefactions. You can read Diodorus Siculus' account of Medea using drugs to bamboozle the Greeks into believing Artemis was manifesting herself. Strabo has interesting passages about the many historical Heracleses and the historical origins of the Curetes (mythical dwarf metalworkers). There are numerous examples of this phenomenon. Greeks and Romans commonly historicized mythical and legendary figures. It certainly does not prove their existence.

But it isn't reasonable to suppose non-Christians would take a fictional character and speak of him as if he really existed. To say Chrisianity's enemies heard stories about Jesus, therefore they just believed he was real, is not a reasonable one to make.

It is reasonable to suppose that Christians historicized a mythical figure and then reported his life to others as though he existed. These others, trusting the basic historicity of their account or not, might or might not accept it. If someone were to make up the existence of Fred, and his existence meant nothing to me, I might just accept Fred existed as an unimportant piece of trivia. I might also assume, as Christian apologists do, that surely Fred must have existed if Fred is important to so many people. This does not mean that Fred existed. Still, I might write of the existence of Fred based on my erroneous assumption, but Fred still may not exist.

It is perfectly consistent with the existence of the figure Jesus. Who else could it have been?

Let's look at the Serapion testimony more closely, albeit not in Syriac:

"What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished."

In this part, the figure is called the wise king, whose execution by the Jews purportedly resulted in the dissolution of their kingdom. The king is not named, nor is the nature and time of the dissolution of the kingdom specified. The kingdom of Judah changed forms numerous times between the reign of Antioch IV and the suppression of the Jewish Revolt under Vespasian and Titus. Although a Christian might assume the connection between the death of Jesus and the abolishment of the kingdom of the Jews, I am dubious as to whether a non-Christian would. Since this is the case, I would have a difficult time believing that this account is not mediated by a Christian source in some way, especially since it is the Jews who are credited with executing the wise king. In my book this points to a later, anti-Jewish, Christian source for Serapion's "wise king" narrative.

Next quote:

"Nor did the wise king die; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

There is nothing here that would suggest to me that the immortality of the wise king was a resurrection. Instead the author writes of the king living on in his teaching--a rather metaphorical immortality, if you ask me.

The historicity of Jesus is so strong by way of reason, I cannot understand how mythers feel they have a leg to stand on. Why there was no documented account of any criticism, from any of Christianity's enemies, that presented Jesus as fictional, is a huge hurdle I don't see any myther even approaching, let alone successfully overcoming. Surely the Jews of 1st century Palestine were in a position to know if this character existed. Why were they passing on oral traditions that would later appear in the Talmud, that belittle Jesus? It seems to me that the death blow to Christianity would have been to point out that Jesus never existed as a person. Anyone with a minimal understanding of Christian doctrine knows that if Jesus didn't exist, then the entire ship sinks. The premise of Christianity is that God became man in the flesh. Not in myth, but in reality.

I do not see an unassailably strong case here. It was not typical in Greek and Roman writing to question the existence of legendary figures, including those who were thought to be holy persons. Instead the usual tactic was to rationalize accounts of those people in unflattering ways, if the intent was to belittle. Here I am thinking specifically of Tacitus' account of Moses in his Histories (his account of the rise and ultimate success of Vespasian). Because Tacitus treats Moses as a historical figure, as other authors might treat Orpheus as historical, does not mean that Moses lived. What you see as the death blow to Christianity may not jibe with the common strategies for undermining this kind of figure in Greek or Latin prose.

Why were people passing on oral traditions in the Talmud about Jesus? Because Christians thought that the Jesus figure was important, not because they had some proof that Jesus lived. Simply put, the existence of stories about Jesus is not proof that Jesus lived.

By the way, how can we be sure that Jews of first-century Palestine knew of Jesus' existence or not? Because the gospels are set there? Or because Paul mentions the Jerusalem Church in his letters? You seem to know the arguments on this pretty well, so I am ready to learn more.

[_dartagnan]

First of all, we have no way of knowing how objective and outside this source is.

It isn't about objectivity. If Jesus were a fictional character then there must have been those who knew this. In fact, more would have known he was fictional than there were those who believed he existed. Christianity became a quick thorn in the side of many. It is unfathomable that nobody point out the fact that the guy never existed. Jesus was criticized for being many things, but non-existent wasn't one of them. Again, can you produce a parallel example where a fictional character was taken for granted to be real, simply because some religious group believed it?

It is reasonable to suppose that Christians historicized a mythical figure and then reported his life to others as though he existed.

No, that is an unreasonable argument that ignores the evidence. This is why most historians, whether they be Christian or non-Christian, reject it.

Let's look at the Serapion testimony more closely, albeit not in Syriac:

"What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished."

In this part, the figure is called the wise king, whose execution by the Jews purportedly resulted in the dissolution of their kingdom. The king is not named, nor is the nature and time of the dissolution of the kingdom specified.

He is compared to Socrates and Pythagoras, who were both philosophers.

The kingdom of Judah changed forms numerous times between the reign of Antioch IV and the suppression of the Jewish Revolt under Vespasian and Titus.

We are not talking about the "changes" in Judah throughout time. We are talking about the specific destruction of the kingdom shortly after a "wise king" was executed. Jesus was called the King of the Jews. Shortly afterwards the kingdom was destroyed and the Jews "dispersed." Who else did you have in mind?

Although a Christian might assume the connection between the death of Jesus and the abolishment of the kingdom of the Jews, I am dubious as to whether a non-Christian would.

What makes you think only Christians see the possible connection? So if it is Christian, it is biased. If it is non-Christian, well, it must have been messed with since a non-Christian wouldn't have said that. You've rigged the game from the start, since you don't seem willing or prepared to accept any kind of historical evidence.

In my book this points to a later, anti-Jewish, Christian source for Serapion's "wise king" narrative.

You begin with the premise that only a Christian would write something like that. So why couldn't this be legitimate non-Christian reference to Jesus? Because only a Christian would write something like that. This is circular reasoning.

Next quote:

"Nor did the wise king die; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

There is nothing here that would suggest to me that the immortality of the wise king was a resurrection. Instead the author writes of the king living on in his teaching--a rather metaphorical immortality, if you ask me.

Exactly, which flies in the face of any suggestion that a Christian was behind the text. The resurrection lasted for a very short time. I doubt it was even a popular doctrine that was known to many non-Christians at that time. One wouldn't expect a non-Christian reference to a resurrection. But you can't seem to make up your mind here. Are you arguing that none of these descriptions can reasonably apply to Jesus, or are you accepting that they do apply, and that they apply only because the whole thing is just a fabrication by some mysterious, devious Christians?

I do not see an unassailably strong case here. It was not typical in Greek and Roman writing to question the existence of legendary figures, including those who were thought to be holy persons.

Then you should be able to provide a parallel example, where a fictional character was taken for granted by objective observers, to be real, shortly after the time of his alleged death.

Instead the usual tactic was to rationalize accounts of those people in unflattering ways, if the intent was to belittle. Here I am thinking specifically of Tacitus' account of Moses in his Histories (his account of the rise and ultimate success of Vespasian). Because Tacitus treats Moses as a historical figure, as other authors might treat Orpheus as historical, does not mean that Moses lived.

No, but if Tacitus was writing his history just a century after the death of Moses, he would be in a position to know if Moses were real or not. Tactitus' history between 29 and 31 AD is missing, unfortunately. But you're jumping to the conclusion that even if he knew he was fictional, he would still speak of him as if he existed. By doing so, you've rigged the game further by precluding any objective historian to provide evidence for Jesus. In your view none of it means the person existed.

What you see as the death blow to Christianity may not jibe with the common strategies for undermining this kind of figure in Greek or Latin prose.

So the Jews kept an oral tradition that he existed, just so that centuries later, they could write it up in a Talmud in "Greek or Latin prose"? Are you serious? Please provide us with a parallel example. For instance, where a Jew spoke of Zeus as a real figure. You said this was the norm, right? That it was better to treat them as real so they could ridicule them.

Why were people passing on oral traditions in the Talmud about Jesus? Because Christians thought that the Jesus figure was important, not because they had some proof that Jesus lived.

That is an untenable argument. Oral traditions are created within a social construct - in this case Rabbinic Judaism - and are not dependant on outside claims by competing religions. The reason the Talmud refers to Jesus is because 1) Jesus challenged the authority of 1st century Pharisees, and 2) the Jews sought to ridicule his competing faith, but they did so with historic basis. Christianity was a threat, and the best way to deal with a threat is to take it out. But they couldn't do so by saying he didn't even exist, because Jesus did exist. If Jesus were imaginary, then the Jews of the day would have noted this, effectively destroying the Christian faith. At the very least, someone would have mentioned this idea that this popular religion was based on a non-existent person.

Simply put, the existence of stories about Jesus is not proof that Jesus lived.

Who said anything about proof? I thought we were discussing evidences.

By the way, how can we be sure that Jews of first-century Palestine knew of Jesus' existence or not? Because the gospels are set there? Or because Paul mentions the Jerusalem Church in his letters? You seem to know the arguments on this pretty well, so I am ready to learn more.

Because the Talmud is based on oral traditions. It is odd that oral traditions from both Christians and Jews, retain the belief in Jesus' existence.

The Historical Jesus is a great book for beginners, and it available for free online:

http://books.google.com/books?id=3ZU97DQMH6UC

[_Trevor]

It isn't about objectivity.

Do you keep track of your old arguments before you launch into new ones? It was you who claimed that we had an "objective outside source." I refer you back to the post I was replying to. If you do not think it was about objectivity, then don't make it about objectivity, but don't pretend that I introduced objectivity, and now you have to correct me on it. I disputed your claim. That is all.

If Jesus were a fictional character then there must have been those who knew this.

Actually, that is not the case at all. No one *must* have known this at the time and place these documents are being written.

Christianity became a quick thorn in the side of many.

According to whose accounts, Christian ones? The earliest evidence I would say definitively points to them being a thorn in the side of Romans is the Pliny-Trajan correspondence. The Romans should know who is and who is not a thorn in their side.

Again, can you produce a parallel example where a fictional character was taken for granted to be real, simply because some religious group believed it?

Are the Hellenic figures I raised somehow not pertinent?

No, that is an unreasonable argument that ignores the evidence.

No, I am weighing evidence according to the standards I would use in my own field. I am not ignoring it. I think the value of the evidence we have for the historical Jesus is actually pretty poor, and for that reason I find it reasonable to explore the possibility that he did not exist. I have not categorically rejected the possibility of his existence either. I simply know how difficult it is to establish facts in ancient history. Your former comments about Alexander the Great cause me to wonder whether you are so qualified in this area. Only someone who is largely ignorant about the practices of the ancient historian's craft, Alexander the Great, and the evidence for his life would have forwarded that kind of nonsense.

We are not talking about the "changes" in Judah throughout time. We are talking about the specific destruction of the kingdom shortly after a "wise king" was executed. Jesus was called the King of the Jews. Shortly afterwards the kingdom was destroyed and the Jews "dispersed." Who else did you have in mind?

The kingdom of Judah was transformed from kingdom, to part of a province, to kingdom, to tetrarchy, and to province. At several points here one might say that the kingdom was abolished. 73 is actually not the best candidate for such a description. Furthermore, the purported life and execution of Jesus took place four decades before 73. It is in fact Christian scripture that most would agree connects these events. The connection most likely would not have been obvious to anyone else because of the long intervening space of time. If I were to guess who could plausibly be described as a king (much more plausibly than Jesus in 73) directly before 73, I would choose someone like Simon bar Giora. I certainly would not expect a non-Christian to connect Jesus with the destruction of the temple or abolishment of the kingdom unless his sources were Christian. It is Christian prophecy, first and foremost, that connects them.

You've rigged the game from the start, since you don't seem willing or prepared to accept any kind of historical evidence.

No, the problem here is that you have a very limited understanding of how to practice ancient history, and you are overly preoccupied with Christian concerns. Establishing events in the lives of people much more significant in the ancient world than Jesus apparently was is a difficult prospect given much better sources. That you are so blithe to assume that these snippets indicate what you want them to is alarming.

Then you should be able to provide a parallel example, where a fictional character was taken for granted by objective observers, to be real, shortly after the time of his alleged death.

I see. Since I was able to provide parallels, you want to up the standard. Now the person has to have supposedly recently lived. I'll give you one: the Nero impostor of 69. He is mentioned by Tacitus, and yet I have heard Classical scholars challenge his existence as nothing more than the product of rumors. In fact, although the easy default position is to assume that a person who is mentioned in a historical text must have lived, there is such little information to back up many of these characters that one could just as easily argue that they did not. Such is the case with Jesus, I would think.

No, but if Tacitus was writing his history just a century after the death of Moses, he would be in a position to know if Moses were real or not. Tactitus' history between 29 and 31 AD is missing, unfortunately. But you're jumping to the conclusion that even if he knew he was fictional, he would still speak of him as if he existed. By doing so, you've rigged the game further by precluding any objective historian to provide evidence for Jesus. In your view none of it means the person existed.

What makes you think that Tacitus would have mentioned Jesus at all? It is you who assumes that he was significant enough to the Romans to be remembered by them. If Serapion is correct about the Jews having executed Jesus, which he undoubtedly is not, then why on earth would they care at all?

And I am not saying anything like "even if he knew he was fictional, he would still speak of him as if he existed." What I am saying is that a non-Christian like Serapion might base his account at least partly on Christian sources and assume that Jesus existed, when he may not have. This would have nothing to do with Serapion knowing Jesus was fictional, or Tacitus for that matter. You could use a basic primer in ancient historiography.

I also chuckle that you have used "objective" yet again. Who is pressing the point of objectivity? Anyone with a basic understanding of ancient historians will know that objectivity was almost the last thing on an ancient historian's mind. This is a modern historical obsession.

So the Jews kept an oral tradition that he existed, just so that centuries later, they could write it up in a Talmud in "Greek or Latin prose"? Are you serious? Please provide us with a parallel example. For instance, where a Jew spoke of Zeus as a real figure. You said this was the norm, right? That it was better to treat them as real so they could ridicule them.

I spoke of Greek and Latin because these are my areas of expertise, and I was limiting my specific comments to my areas of expertise (unlike you, who like to pontificate on just about anything, regardless of your actual expertise).

Oral traditions are created within a social construct - in this case Rabbinic Judaism - and are not dependant on outside claims by competing religions. The reason the Talmud refers to Jesus is because 1) Jesus challenged the authority of 1st century Pharisees, and 2) the Jews sought to ridicule his competing faith, but they did so with historic basis. Christianity was a threat, and the best way to deal with a threat is to take it out. But they couldn't do so by saying he didn't even exist, because Jesus did exist. If Jesus were imaginary, then the Jews of the day would have noted this, effectively destroying the Christian faith. At the very least, someone would have mentioned this idea that this popular religion was based on a non-existent person.

You have demonstrated to me that you have a very superficial and simplistic understanding of oral tradition and its value. You supply reasons for why the Jews said "x" about Jesus, as if these were proven conclusions. Most actual scholars in this area whom I know discuss this oral tradition largely as a response to more contemporary (to the text) concerns. That you imagine being able to use this much later source as a straightforward reflection of first century concerns is something that practically no serious secular scholar would do.

Why would someone necessarily have to have said, "by the way, Jesus never lived"? Maybe they had the good sense that Christian apologists and atheist polemicists lack to understand that it really does not matter. If someone believed he existed, the best approach to criticism in that day would have been to denigrate the person they believed in, not to argue that he did not exist. This preoccupation with the fact of his existence, once again, is a more modern enterprise. I think there is something to be said for both sides of the argument, and I really don't think it ultimately matters which position turns out to be true. After one says "Jesus existed" comes the question of what he actually said and did. That is a whole different kettle of fish.

[_dartagnan]

I refer you back to the post I was replying to. If you do not think it was about objectivity, then don't make it about objectivity, but don't pretend that I introduced objectivity, and now you have to correct me on it. I disputed your claim. That is all.

You're right, I didn't notice what it was you were referring to. I understood you to mean the sources were not objective because they were Christian. My fault. In any event, I am using the term to refer to non-Christian sources, like Tacitus or the Talmud.

Actually, that is not the case at all. No one *must* have known this at the time and place these documents are being written.

This might come as a shock to you, but Christianity wasn't created in a vacuum. It wasn't remotely, let alone completely, divorced from Palestinian culture. Even if we assume Jesus never existed, we know there were Christians who believed and claimed that he taught sermons, had relatives, performed miracles, pissed off the Romans and the Pharisees, etc. People believed in Jesus so much they willingly died for him. The Christainity of the first and second centuries was a religion of martyrdom. So to suggest that in the midst of all this, Christians managed to live a religion based on someone who never existed, and nobody in their immediate vicinity thought to question why they never saw Jesus, heard about his famous sermons, know of any of his relatives, heard of his arrest, criminal charges, crucifixion, etc., is just patently absurd. If you think it is such an easy thing, then why not perform an experiment.

Try to start a religion based on a man named Joe, who you say is the son of God. Make up all sorts of stories about his ministry, his troubles with the law, his run ins with opposing religious authorities, etc. And before the day is out, you're telling me that nobody you try to convert is going to ask where this Joe lives, where he was born, who is mother was, etc. I suppose you think converts will come flooding in based on this myth alone. Nobody is going to know or wonder if the guy really exists. NO! According to you, there is absolutely no reason to think anyone would know Joe was imaginary?
That's your idea for a "reasonable" theory about the origins of Christianity?

According to whose accounts, Christian ones?

The New Testament counts as historic evidence, whether you like it or not. Most historians accept them as generally reliable as far as history is concerned. The theology therein is open to myth because of the miracles mentioned, but there is nothing in the socio-economic details that isn't in harmony with what we already know about first century Palestine.

The earliest evidence I would say definitively points to them being a thorn in the side of Romans is the Pliny-Trajan correspondence. The Romans should know who is and who is not a thorn in their side.

And the Christians were a thorn. They were spreading rampantly, faster than their enemies could crucify or behead them. The Christians survived as an underground religion because of these persecutions.

Are the Hellenic figures I raised somehow not pertinent?

I don't think so. For one thing, you raise Euhemerus who is pretty much the guy who started this method. Doesn't this method apply mainly to the Greek gods? Yes, it is Greek culture to referring to Greek mythical figures as real people, but I don't see how this extends to Tacitus' mention of a marginal Jew.
The clear cases of Euhermerism (sp?) generally refer to popular Greek myths and refer to the figures in great detail. Tacitus hardly mentions Jesus in passing. There seems no reason to employ an ancient method developed by Euhermerus five centuries prior. If you give this universal application without any qualification, then you're pretty much precluding any possible evidence for historicity, since now even historians aren't to be taken at their word. And we're supposed to assume that since Tacitus spoke of Moses, then he didn't think Jesus existed either? Well, how do we know Tacitus didn't believe Moses actually lived?

Further, the problem with attributing euhermerism to Tacitus in this instance is that he includes two other historic figures in the context. According to your theory, this historian tells us that Jesus, a non-existent person, suffered "during the reign of Tiberius... at the hands of Pontius Pilate." It stretches reason beyond the breaking point, which is again, why historians reject it (except of course the fringe who follow Robert Price).

And why not apply this to Alexander the Great, who was also understood to be the son of Zeus? You mentioned coins as the seal on the deal, but coins were made with an image of Zeus also.

You can read Euhemerus, who argues that the gods are historical kings who were deified for their great deeds and benefactions. You can read Diodorus Siculus' account of Medea using drugs to bamboozle the Greeks into believing Artemis was manifesting herself. Strabo has interesting passages about the many historical Heracleses and the historical origins of the Curetes (mythical dwarf metalworkers). There are numerous examples of this phenomenon.

Yes, in the context of Greek mythology as the method was created by a Greek mythographer.

I simply know how difficult it is to establish facts in ancient history. Your former comments about Alexander the Great cause me to wonder whether you are so qualified in this area. Only someone who is largely ignorant about the practices of the ancient historian's craft, Alexander the Great, and the evidence for his life would have forwarded that kind of nonsense.

I never said Alexander the Great didn't exist. I am simply showing how your logic fails when applied to this historic figure. You bring up coins, but seem unaware that coins were made with a supposed image of Zeus. So no, coins don't help establish the historicity of Alexander. He was spoken of by subsequent historians, he was deified, legends were created, but hey, like you said, none of that counts as evidence that he existed since historians often referred to imaginary figures as though they were real. I mean as far as we really know, the man who led those armies and conquered nations was someone named Gomer. Alexander was the son of Zeus, and since Zeus doesn't exist, neither could an Alexander born from him.

The kingdom of Judah was transformed from kingdom, to part of a province, to kingdom, to tetrarchy, and to province. At several points here one might say that the kingdom was abolished. 73 is actually not the best candidate for such a description.

You keep rationalizing why this couldn't be referring to Jesus, but you're not dealing with the fact that it refers to someone. So... who?

Furthermore, the purported life and execution of Jesus took place four decades before 73.

Yes, but the citation refers to the demise of the kingdom as a gradual process, "from that time on."

It is in fact Christian scripture that most would agree connects these events.

But he wasn't a Christian.

The connection most likely would not have been obvious to anyone else because of the long intervening space of time.

We don't know when this private letter was written, other than it was between 73AD and 165AD. The Jewish War (66-70AD) consisted of mass deportations that one could easily get the impression that they were being "dispersed."

If I were to guess who could plausibly be described as a king (much more plausibly than Jesus in 73) directly before 73, I would choose someone like Simon bar Giora

This guy doesn't even meet the condition of philosopher or king. And you think he lives on in his teachings? Come on. It sounds like you're on a fishing expedition.

I certainly would not expect a non-Christian to connect Jesus with the destruction of the temple or abolishment of the kingdom unless his sources were Christian. It is Christian prophecy, first and foremost, that connects them

No, it is a simple connection of the chronological dots. It is a historic fact (assuming Jesus existed) that the destruction of the kingdom and the dispersal of the Jews, took place after Jesus was executed. Your quibble that 40 years is too much of a gap is easily resolved by the fact that he referred to a gradual process. Besides, precision obviously wasn't a primary concern given his inaccurate claim about the burning of Pythagoras.

Your quibble that only a Christian would have made such a connection, or that a non-Christian never would have held Jesus in any high regard, simply begs the question. That isn't a reasonable basis for rejecting this the historical significance of this letter.

No, the problem here is that you have a very limited understanding of how to practice ancient history

Well you got me there. I'm certainly not in the habit of "practicing" ancient history. But I do know fallacious reasoning when I see it, and I do know how to read and comprehend scholarly consensus. Pulling rank on me isn't going to get you closer to their side. If I am wrong, well, I'm not the expert. So what's your excuse?

and you are overly preoccupied with Christian concerns

Christian concerns? I simply pointed out that you have created a standard that doesn't allow any evidence to exist. It is not unreasonable note this. Historians do not do this. Agenda driven skeptics do this. If a source is Christian, reject it. Why? Because it must be a biased document filled with myth. Why? Because Christainity is a myth. But don't get dizzy on me yet, the circular reasoning is just beginning.

You begin with this premise and use it to filter out all evidence to the contrary. Now we learn from you that if a source is non-Christian, well, it is either an example of someone adopting a 300 BC technique by Greek mythographers called euhermerism, or else it has to be the result of someone simply relaying more Christian nonsense he heard from other Christians, or, of course, it is simply a Christian forgery.

Establishing events in the lives of people much more significant in the ancient world than Jesus apparently was is a difficult prospect given much better sources. That you are so blithe to assume that these snippets indicate what you want them to is alarming.

They indicate acknowledgment from those who lived shortly afterwards, that he was a historic figure who existed. That you are so blithe to reject them and follow the Robert Price method of historic interpretation, isn't alarming, just disappointing.

What makes you think that Tacitus would have mentioned Jesus at all?

You mean in his missing annals of 29-32 AD? Well, for one thing, he already mentioned him elsewhere.

It is you who assumes that he was significant enough to the Romans to be remembered by them.

By the time of Tacitus, yes. The Christian religion would have become enough of a nuisancethat contemporary historians would start commenting on it and its founder. We already know Josephus did. And that is precisely what Tacitus did too. You automatically take the position that Tacitus wouldn't have mentioned Jesus in his history of 29-32 AD. Well, maybe not. But it would have been interesting to read the history during that period.

If Serapion is correct about the Jews having executed Jesus, which he undoubtedly is not, then why on earth would they care at all?

Here you go again taking it for granted that nothing in the New Testament could remotely resemble actual history. If an outside document corroborates the New Testament, then it cannot be anything but a product of New Testament influence! Geez, and you think I'm going to believe this is how true historians operate?

No, the Jews did not kill Jesus, but the Jewish authorities were directly responsible for his death. Since this is how the New Testament relates the events, I do not see the problem with others outside Christianity also understanding the events in this manner. Moreover, according to the Babylonian Talmud, a product of first century oral tradition among Jews, the Sanhedrin were responsible for the execution of Jesus, not the Roman court system. And according to "Jesus in the Talmud" by Peter Schafer, the Talmud totally goes out of its way to demolish Christianity's truth claims. Jesus wasn't born of a virgin and he is even in hell boiling in semen. But nothing to indicate his non-existence. Was Jewish oral tradition also given to Euhermerism or could it simply be that the Jews contemporary to Jesus knew he was a real person?

What I am saying is that a non-Christian like Serapion might base his account at least partly on Christian sources and assume that Jesus existed, when he may not have.

Well hell, anything is possible. But the evidence is there. It isn't proof, but it is evidence that deserves consideration. And as I noted earlier, I use the word objective as a convenience for non-Christian. Of course I don't believe any historian is objective, and I have said as much many times, even recently to JAK. But Serapion wasn't a historian. He was just a guy who wrote a private letter to a friend. There seems to be no appareent reason why he would be pro-Christian and propagate a myth about Jesus. The fact that he places Jesus in line with two other historic philosophers, is compelling.

You have demonstrated to me that you have a very superficial and simplistic understanding of oral tradition and its value.

No, I simply refuse to render it to the dust bin simply because don't like what it says. Your expertise is Greek and Latin, but does that include Rabbinic studies, Hebrew, the Mishna, etc?

You supply reasons for why the Jews said "x" about Jesus, as if these were proven conclusions.

This, coming from someone who just stated as if were proven: "Why were people passing on oral traditions in the Talmud about Jesus? Because Christians thought that the Jesus figure was important, not because they had some proof that Jesus lived."

Most actual scholars in this area whom I know discuss this oral tradition largely as a response to more contemporary (to the text) concerns. .

Nice of you to shift your ground. Of course oral traditions will include contemporary concerns, but that is not the same thing as being the result of them. The Talmud is not the result of just any oral tradition. The Jews went into excruciating detail to memorize traditions for centuries before they were put to pen. The result was not intended to be a treatise on Jewish culture, sociology or economy. It is primarily concerned with Jewish law, religious code, customs and history; the latter serving as the basis for the Jesus references.

I have read quite a bit on the Mishnah from Jacob Neusner, Sarna, Brettler and others, and I don't recall any of them agreeing with your claim that the only reason Jews kept an oral tradition about Jesus, was simply because it was something their enemies, the Christians believed. Now if you are interested in backing up your claim, then feel free.

Why would someone necessarily have to have said, "by the way, Jesus never lived"?

Because the agenda was to destroy Christian truth claims and ridicule the faith. What's more embarrassing for a Christian? To hear that some pompous Jews assert Jesus is in hell boiling in semen, or to find out that Jesus never even existed? Common sense my friend. Try it out when you've got time.

Maybe they had the good sense that Christian apologists and atheist polemicists lack to understand that it really does not matter

Again, when the agenda is to destroy and ridicule the faith, it matters a great deal. I can't believe someone as intelligent as you would actually sit there and keep trying to defend this silliness about how we shouldn't expect to find any evidence that anyone knew Jesus didn't exist. You keep covering the holes of your argument with blase assertions like these, but they don't hold water. The fact is, if Jesus didn't exist, someone would have blown the whistle. It is simply inconceivable that nobody would have. We have documents criticizing Christ and Christians for just about everything under the sun, but not the slightest hint that anyone believed he was just myth used this as a weapon against the faith.

If someone believed he existed, the best approach to criticism in that day would have been to denigrate the person they believed in, not to argue that he did not exist.

Exactly, which is why the Jews who kept their oral traditions from the time of Jesus, knew he existed!! If they knew he didn't exist, then they certainly would have said something about it.

This preoccupation with the fact of his existence, once again, is a more modern enterprise.

Are you serious? His existence was always taken for granted because there was never any reasonable doubt. When enough history passes us by, people will justify and rationalize denying the existence of just about anything. That is what happened when people started wondering, "Maybe Jesus didn't exist." The idea was too idiotic to entertain between 1900 and 500 years ago.

I think there is something to be said for both sides of the argument, and I really don't think it ultimately matters which position turns out to be true.

Oh? So you don't think that the largest religion in the world finding out that it is just a myth, ultimately doesn't matter? Just how detached from reality are you anyway?

After one says "Jesus existed" comes the question of what he actually said and did. That is a whole different kettle of fish.

Of course the only reason we're discussing this is due to the recent onslaught of "Jesus didn't exist" assertions.

[_Trevor]

Kevin,

Let me point out some of the basic problems with your position. None of this is offered to say you have no evidence. All along I have only argued concerning the value of the evidence you put forth (I place much less value on it than you do), and mostly to show that your bluster about how "patently absurd" the position of others is is, well, unfounded.

1) Your position on Tacitus is untenable. What Tacitus mentions in one place, he may not refer to again, even when he promises he will do so. Therefore it is unlikely that we would have seen a reference to Jesus in the place you would expect it according to chronology. Tacitus probably brought it up in the one place it was appropriate-in connection with the Great Fire.

There are also some odd things about the passage in question. First, no Christian writer of the imperial period refers to Tacitus when discussing Nero's persecution of the Christians. Sulpicius Severus (363-425) quotes the passage, but then the question becomes one of whether Severus was inserted in Tacitus, someone else inserted something in Tacitus that Severus quoted (less likely I think), or Severus is actually quoting Tacitus and the passage was there all along.

There is also the interesting problem of whether Pilate was a procurator or prefect. Although he was a prefect, the Tacitus passage calls him a procurator. See B. Goudote, "Ponce Pilate, Procurator Provinciae Iudaeae: status quaestionis jusq'aux debuts de la Magistrature," Apollinaris 1986 59 (1-2): 335-368; M. Dubuisson, "Le procurateur de Judee," RBPh 1999 77 (1): 130-136. It is an interesting mistake for Tacitus, if indeed he wrote this. Although Josephus makes the same mistake, one would not expect him to know Roman administration as well as Tacitus.

2) Your confidence in Jesus traditions in the Jewish oral tradition perhaps overly enthusiastic. Here I quote Christine Schams in her 1998 book "Jewish Scribes in Second-Temple Judaism" (p. 40):

"A very similar problem concerning the dating of traditions arises from the Mishna and Tosefta. Compiled in the beginning of the second and third/fourth centuries CE respectively, much of the material is ascribed to rabbis or scholars who lived during the Second-Temple period (me: why? probably to establish authority for the material). It is likely that at least some laws and traditions stem from the period prior to the destruction of the Temple. There is, unfortunately, no reliable method to distinguish earlier from later ones."

What this author says offers good reason to interrogate closely any claims that the oral traditions attributed to the Second Temple period--like those about Jesus--actually do date to that time. They could, after all, be the result of contact with later generations of Christians.

3) The evidence for the historicity of Alexander surpasses that of Jesus in amount and quality to the degree that your use of him as a comparandum is ill advised. Your insistence that you are doing so justifiably only suggests to me that you have almost no idea what you are talking about.

4) There are big questions about the historicity of the gospels, our most fulsome and earliest accounts of the "life of Jesus." On some historical points, like Roman taxation, the texts get the matter so embarrassingly wrong as to strain credibility to the breaking point. The Roman emperor did not require people to return to the villages of their ancestors to report for census and/or taxation. Recently scholars have even argued that Mark was written in Antioch or even Rome. Our best, earliest witness on Christianity is Paul, and there are myriad problems to consider in connection with his claims. For one thing, he is often the first and/or only corroborating witness for what he claims. The degree of actual connection of what we know of Christianity with first century Palestine is at the very least something that is open to debate.

5) You have not understood my point on the habit of assuming the historicity of figures that were in all likelihood legendary. Not only do we have Euhemerus, who explicity theorizes that the gods were actually historical kings, but in the other examples I offered authors implicitly and often unquestioningly assume that legendary figures are historical. This is because they had no concept of testing the historicity of these people. That is my point. Conceptual worlds do make a difference. Your common sense is not such a great measure of what people in antiquity took for granted or not.

6) Romans ruled Judea directly from 44-66, that is, up to the Revolt. That being the case, I find it unlikely that a non-Christian, relying on non-Christian sources, would connect the abolishment of the Herodian kingdom directly to the execution of Jesus. Simply put, there was no kingdom to abolish, only a Roman province to be restored to order.

Finally, you really ought to take your bluster down a few notches. That you are not even close to being an expert on all of the things you pontificate on should warn you off of calling the positions of others "patently absurd." What I find time and again in what you write on this thread is someone who is very bright, but whose knowledge, at least in my areas of expertise, is woefully thin. I admit that I am not an expert on Talmud and the New Testament. I have done much more study of the latter. But your statements concerning things I do know something about, like Julius Africanus, Tacitus, habits of thought and writing in the Roman Empire, Alexander the Great, and the nature of oral tradition, are poorly conceived enough to raise real red flags in this scholar's mind that you are a reliable authority on any of this other stuff either.

I readily concede that Jesus could have been an actual historical person. I also believe it is possible he was not. Those who pursue the latter position are not fools. They are in fact doing us all a service by closely interrogating something that people have taken for granted for centuries. I think that you will agree that centuries of assumption can be turned on their heads by one brilliant discovery. To say that people are patently absurd in their pursuit of these questions is both hasty and irresponsible. This flies in the face of the real progress that has been made in scholarship and science in recent centuries.

That you write with such gusto and vaunted intellectual authority, while having a Masters Degree in something or other, about modern political demography, Jacksonian America, modern atheist thought, Fundamentalist Islam, the New Testament, and the Early Roman Empire, among other things, makes *you* look questionable, to put it lightly. Go out and acquire some real training in these subjects before you call the work of trained scholars who are published in peer-reviewed venues and books (that also have been vetted by peers) "patently absurd." How in the world would you know? Because you read a book or two about it? Unless you are some rare genius, I doubt you actually do.

You may think you are still jousting with Daniel Peterson on the subject of modern Islamic fundamentalism, but you are not. I will respect Robert Price's minority scholarly opinion, based in part on my reading of him and also the readings of other scholars I respect, over your proclamations that his work is patently absurd. In my opinion you lack the tools and training to be so confident you are right. I am out of time to continue educating you on how you are wrong in the specific areas I know something about. I have to get back to the business of responding to critics who have expertise in writing projects that will help me stay employed.

[_JAK]

Kevin,

Let me point out some of the basic problems with your position. None of this is offered to say you have no evidence. All along I have only argued concerning the value of the evidence you put forth (I place much less value on it than you do), and mostly to show that your bluster about how "patently absurd" the position of others is is, well, unfounded.

1) Your position on Tacitus is untenable. What Tacitus mentions in one place, he may not refer to again, even when he promises he will do so. Therefore it is unlikely that we would have seen a reference to Jesus in the place you would expect it according to chronology. Tacitus probably brought it up in the one place it was appropriate-in connection with the Great Fire.

There are also some odd things about the passage in question. First, no Christian writer of the imperial period refers to Tacitus when discussing Nero's persecution of the Christians. Sulpicius Severus (363-425) quotes the passage, but then the question becomes one of whether Severus was inserted in Tacitus, someone else inserted something in Tacitus that Severus quoted (less likely I think), or Severus is actually quoting Tacitus and the passage was there all along.

There is also the interesting problem of whether Pilate was a procurator or prefect. Although he was a prefect, the Tacitus passage calls him a procurator. See B. Goudote, "Ponce Pilate, Procurator Provinciae Iudaeae: status quaestionis jusq'aux debuts de la Magistrature," Apollinaris 1986 59 (1-2): 335-368; M. Dubuisson, "Le procurateur de Judee," RBPh 1999 77 (1): 130-136. It is an interesting mistake for Tacitus, if indeed he wrote this. Although Josephus makes the same mistake, one would not expect him to know Roman administration as well as Tacitus.

2) Your confidence in Jesus traditions in the Jewish oral tradition perhaps overly enthusiastic. Here I quote Christine Schams in her 1998 book "Jewish Scribes in Second-Temple Judaism" (p. 40):

"A very similar problem concerning the dating of traditions arises from the Mishna and Tosefta. Compiled in the beginning of the second and third/fourth centuries CE respectively, much of the material is ascribed to rabbis or scholars who lived during the Second-Temple period (me: why? probably to establish authority for the material). It is likely that at least some laws and traditions stem from the period prior to the destruction of the Temple. There is, unfortunately, no reliable method to distinguish earlier from later ones."

What this author says offers good reason to interrogate closely any claims that the oral traditions attributed to the Second Temple period--like those about Jesus--actually do date to that time. They could, after all, be the result of contact with later generations of Christians.

3) The evidence for the historicity of Alexander surpasses that of Jesus in amount and quality to the degree that your use of him as a comparandum is ill advised. Your insistence that you are doing so justifiably only suggests to me that you have almost no idea what you are talking about.

4) There are big questions about the historicity of the gospels, our most fulsome and earliest accounts of the "life of Jesus." On some historical points, like Roman taxation, the texts get the matter so embarrassingly wrong as to strain credibility to the breaking point. The Roman emperor did not require people to return to the villages of their ancestors to report for census and/or taxation. Recently scholars have even argued that Mark was written in Antioch or even Rome. Our best, earliest witness on Christianity is Paul, and there are myriad problems to consider in connection with his claims. For one thing, he is often the first and/or only corroborating witness for what he claims. The degree of actual connection of what we know of Christianity with first century Palestine is at the very least something that is open to debate.

5) You have not understood my point on the habit of assuming the historicity of figures that were in all likelihood legendary. Not only do we have Euhemerus, who explicity theorizes that the gods were actually historical kings, but in the other examples I offered authors implicitly and often unquestioningly assume that legendary figures are historical. This is because they had no concept of testing the historicity of these people. That is my point. Conceptual worlds do make a difference. Your common sense is not such a great measure of what people in antiquity took for granted or not.

6) Romans ruled Judea directly from 44-66, that is, up to the Revolt. That being the case, I find it unlikely that a non-Christian, relying on non-Christian sources, would connect the abolishment of the Herodian kingdom directly to the execution of Jesus. Simply put, there was no kingdom to abolish, only a Roman province to be restored to order.

Finally, you really ought to take your bluster down a few notches. That you are not even close to being an expert on all of the things you pontificate on should warn you off of calling the positions of others "patently absurd." What I find time and again in what you write on this thread is someone who is very bright, but whose knowledge, at least in my areas of expertise, is woefully thin. I admit that I am not an expert on Talmud and the New Testament. I have done much more study of the latter. But your statements concerning things I do know something about, like Julius Africanus, Tacitus, habits of thought and writing in the Roman Empire, Alexander the Great, and the nature of oral tradition, are poorly conceived enough to raise real red flags in this scholar's mind that you are a reliable authority on any of this other stuff either.

I readily concede that Jesus could have been an actual historical person. I also believe it is possible he was not. Those who pursue the latter position are not fools. They are in fact doing us all a service by closely interrogating something that people have taken for granted for centuries. I think that you will agree that centuries of assumption can be turned on their heads by one brilliant discovery. To say that people are patently absurd in their pursuit of these questions is both hasty and irresponsible. This flies in the face of the real progress that has been made in scholarship and science in recent centuries.

That you write with such gusto and vaunted intellectual authority, while having a Masters Degree in something or other, about modern political demography, Jacksonian America, modern atheist thought, Fundamentalist Islam, the New Testament, and the Early Roman Empire, among other things, makes *you* look questionable, to put it lightly. Go out and acquire some real training in these subjects before you call the work of trained scholars who are published in peer-reviewed venues and books (that also have been vetted by peers) "patently absurd." How in the world would you know? Because you read a book or two about it? Unless you are some rare genius, I doubt you actually do.

You may think you are still jousting with Daniel Peterson on the subject of modern Islamic fundamentalism, but you are not. I will respect Robert Price's minority scholarly opinion, based in part on my reading of him and also the readings of other scholars I respect, over your proclamations that his work is patently absurd. In my opinion you lack the tools and training to be so confident you are right. I am out of time to continue educating you on how you are wrong in the specific areas I know something about. I have to get back to the business of responding to critics who have expertise in writing projects that will help me stay employed.

This is an excellent treatise on the issues and level of competence. You should be commended for this commensurate of time invested in analysis and discussion.

Thank you for your attention to detail and willingness to consign intellectual scrutiny to the issues which you address here.

JAK

[_Trevor]

These quotes come from Robert E. Van Voorst's "Jesus Outside the New Testament" and concern the Mara bar Serapion letter that Kevin raised as positive evidence of the historicity of Jesus.

On dating the letter (p. 56):

"A date in the second century is most likely. It fits the situation of the writer just as well as the first century, and the situation of the Jewish people better. As Cureton states in arguing for a date in the second half of the second century, "The troubles to which the writer alludes as having befallen himself and his city will apply to those afflicted by the Romans upon the countries about the Tigris and Euphrates which had been excited to rebel against them by Vologeses, in the Parthian war under the command of Lucius Verus, A.D. 162-165....Seleucia was sacked and burned by the Romans." More persuasively, the way the author speaks of what has happened to the Jewish nation also points to a date sometime after the second Jewish revolt (132-135). Mara says that "their kingdom was taken away" and they are "desolate," language that could fit the aftermath of either the first or second revolt. But his observation that "driven from their own kingdom, [the Jews] are scattered throgh every nation" applies particularly to the aftermath of the second revolt. It was only then that, by decree of the emperor Hadrian, all Jews were expelled from the city of Jerusalem and its environs, making it a Roman colonia which no Jew was allowed to enter."

On Christian influence (p. 57):

"Nevertheless, the balance of the evidence favors a Christian origin. First, Mara states that the Jews wrongly killed Jesus; they killed him just as the Athenians wrongly killed Socrates and the Samites Pythagoras (me: which is wrong, by the way). While Jewish tradition also states...that the Jewish authorities executed Jesus, and Mara could conceivably have learned about the death of Jesus from Jewish sources, this tradition was probably a point of debate between church and synagogue that did not find its way into a wider polemic that Mara would have known. Moreover, the tradition that reached Mara seems to contain a negative judgment on the death of Jesus that Jewish traditions, which justify the death of Jesus as legal, would not have. Second, as we have seen, Mara links the death of Jesus with the destruction of the Jewish nation, as only Christian tradition did."

Food for thought while we consider the value of these purportedly independent evidences of the historicity of Jesus. The fact that the author actually argues in favor of the historical Jesus, valuing the New Testament as our best evidence of that claim, makes his argument against this letter's independent (of Christian influence) witness of Jesus especially interesting.

[_Calculus Crusader]

*Thread necromancy*

There is also the interesting problem of whether Pilate was a procurator or prefect. Although he was a prefect, the Tacitus passage calls him a procurator. See B. Goudote, "Ponce Pilate, Procurator Provinciae Iudaeae: status quaestionis jusq'aux debuts de la Magistrature," Apollinaris 1986 59 (1-2): 335-368; M. Dubuisson, "Le procurateur de Judee," RBPh 1999 77 (1): 130-136. It is an interesting mistake for Tacitus, if indeed he wrote this. Although Josephus makes the same mistake, one would not expect him to know Roman administration as well as Tacitus.

As far as I know, Josephus used both and ἔπαρχος (eparchos) and ἡγεμών (hegemon) of Pilate. As for Tacitus, who, unlike Josephus, was not from the area and was born about 20 years later, he used the then current title of procurator instead of prefect. No big deal. Also, I would expect a pensioned encomiast/historian of the Flavians who lived in Rome to know Roman administration, especially concerning his homeland, quite well.

4) There are big questions about the historicity of the gospels, our most fulsome and earliest accounts of the "life of Jesus." On some historical points, like Roman taxation, the texts get the matter so embarrassingly wrong as to strain credibility to the breaking point. The Roman emperor did not require people to return to the villages of their ancestors to report for census and/or taxation.

I'm not sure that you can entirely rule out such an approach in Judea.

I readily concede that Jesus could have been an actual historical person. I also believe it is possible he was not. Those who pursue the latter position are not fools.

No, they are crackpots.

I will respect Robert Price's minority scholarly opinion, based in part on my reading of him and also the readings of other scholars I respect, over your proclamations that his work is patently absurd.

He is a fairly amiable guy (or at least that was my experience with him) but a crackpot nonetheless.

[_Kishkumen]

Also, I would expect a pensioned encomiast/historian of the Flavians who lived in Rome to know Roman administration, especially concerning his homeland, quite well.

Then, you are expecting way too much, and you are probably wrong. The question is whether he would know the conditions of the administration of Judea decades before he wrote. His connection with the Flavians doesn't do that much to bolster his credibility where such knowledge is concerned. It is like expecting Suetonius to get things right simply because he had been one of Hadrian's secretaries before he was dismissed. Often Suetonius was wrong, but he was both a Roman and very close to the court of Hadrian. You simply can't expect that Josephus got it right for the reasons you suggest.

I'm not sure that you can entirely rule out such an approach in Judea.

Do you have anything more compelling than "can't rule it out"? What sort of evidence can you bring forward?

No, they are crackpots.

Yes, that would be so easy for you. But there is really nothing wrong with testing assumptions about historical data generated in antiquity. In fact, those who put such questions to the test, instead of merely assuming they are facts, do their historian colleagues a real service.

He is a fairly amiable guy (or at least that was my experience with him) but a crackpot nonetheless.

I really like Bob. And, frankly, I'll take his expertise over yours any day of the week. But then, I think there is a distinct difference between those who are daring with a serious purpose and those who are merely crackpots.

[_Joseph]

Of course Jesus was real. Why even today we have people who don't believe The Three Nephites are real but we have witnesses who have seen them alive!