If Jesus was real then why isn't their any historical prof outside of the bible? If Jesus went around helping people and doing magic why isn't there volumes upon volumes of books written by every historian at the time ?

Apologists will be quick to assert that there are extra-biblical references to Jesus, though none date to his time and the few that are supposed references each have their own problems.

The strongest piece of evidence that there even was a historical Jesus on whom Christian mythology was based is from the Annals of Tacitus. This is a second century reference that explains this obscure religious group called "Christians" gain their name from a leader "the anointed one" ("Christos" in Greek) who was crucified by "procurator" Pilate. This reference is oblique (doesn't even mention "Jesus" by name), late (second century) and Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator. This is as detailed and close to the actual time of supposed events as the historical references get.

A weaker piece of evidence are the two supposed references in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. The first is the Testimonium Flavianum, which is such a frankly laughable piece of hyperbolic Christian propaganda (that fires off in bullet point fashion all the main doctrines of Christian theology in one paragraph) that even apologists are forced to admit there are problems with the authenticity. "Rank forgery" is one memorable quote from a Christian bishop in the 18th century.

Christian apologists are more likely to try to use the "Jamesian Reference" two chapters later that introduces a "brother of Jesus, James". Those who are unfamiliar with the passage may be unaware that the common name "Jesus" is clarified to belong to the "Son of Damneus", not the son of Joseph that Christians will want to hear about.

There's a small collection of even weaker extra-biblical references to Jesus, including:

- Seutonius: Places one "Chrestos" ("the good one") in Rome during the time of Claudius' reign.

- Bar Sarapion: Asks in about 70 CE what the Jews gained by killing an unnamed "wise king".

- The Talmud: A fourth century (!) reference to a "Jesus" who was tried for sorcery in a trial that lasted 40 days. Jesus was, again, a common name and this "Jesus" was some government official or otherwise well connected, which was why, the Talmud explains, the trial lasted so long. No date provided as to when this trail occurred. There are curiously no Jewish references to the Gospel Jesus at any time prior (odd for someone who caused so much controversy within the ranks of the Jewish clergy at the time).

- Thallus: This one is truly sleazy, even by apologist standards.
A Christian Africanus in the 3rd century offers a brief rebuttal of an alleged claim by Thallus that an eclipse created a darkness at the alleged time of the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. We have NO actual writings of Thallus. Even his name comes to us from apologist sources. We can't confirm what Thallus actually wrote or that his claims were faithfully presented by Africanus.

- Pliny: Confirms that there were Christians in the 2nd century. Why is this evidence for Jesus again?

There you have a complete catalog of all the questionable scraps offered by apologists. None of them date to the time Jesus allegedly performed miracles or causing tremendous upheaval in the political and religious landscape. Neither Jewish nor pagan sources apparently considered "the historical Jesus" worthy of mention.

My personal conclusion is that if Jesus existed, he was a wandering rabbi that was so obscure in his own time that no one paid any attention to him and good luck ever knowing what he really preached or what he really did.

He couldn't have been a Rabbi, that term wasn't being used until a century after his death, that he is called Rabbi in the NT is further evidence of his being fabricated.

Also likely he was just one of those drugged-up people claiming to be the messiah. Only problem is, for whatever reason, people believed him.

Quote:- Bar Sarapion: Asks in about 70 CE what the Jews gained by killing an unnamed "wise king".

Not to mention that jesus wasn't 'king' of shit.

(March 14, 2011 at 2:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:- Bar Sarapion: Asks in about 70 CE what the Jews gained by killing an unnamed "wise king".

Not to mention that jesus wasn't 'king' of shit.

But if anything said about him was to be believed then he was no mean candidate for king of bullshit.

(March 14, 2011 at 2:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:- Bar Sarapion: Asks in about 70 CE what the Jews gained by killing an unnamed "wise king".

Not to mention that jesus wasn't 'king' of shit.

Or wise for that matter

(March 14, 2011 at 2:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:- Bar Sarapion: Asks in about 70 CE what the Jews gained by killing an unnamed "wise king".

Not to mention that jesus wasn't 'king' of shit.

Out of curiosity, could the reference be more likely to the Maccabeean revolt against Selucid rule?

I've always thought that a more likely candidate would be Antigonus II.

In 40 BC, Antigonus, with Parthian support led a campaign to capture Jerusalem. Herod, with the support of the Romans re-took the city in 37 and either killed him himself or turned him over to Mark Antony for execution. Josephus puts the deed on Antony but frankly this seems like a lot of trouble for a simple murder of a Parthian supported claimant to the throne.

http://www.ecmarsh.com/crl/Josephus/Anti...ies_15.htm

Quote:At this time Herod, now he had got Jerusalem under his power, carried off all the royal ornaments, and spoiled the wealthy men of what they had gotten; and when, by these means, he had heaped together a great quantity of silver and gold, he gave it all to Antony, and his friends that were about him. He also slew forty-five of the principal men of Antigonus's party, and set guards at the gates of the city, that nothing might be carried out together with their dead bodies. They also searched the dead, and whatsoever was found, either of silver or gold, or other treasure, it was carried to the king; nor was there any end of the miseries he brought upon them; and this distress was in part occasioned by the covetousness of the prince regent, who was still in want of more, and in part by the Sabbatic year, which was still going on, and forced the country to lie still uncultivated, since we are forbidden to sow our land in that year. Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet. And Strabo of Cappadocia attests to what I have said, when he thus speaks: "Antony ordered Antigonus the Jew to be brought to Antioch, and there to be beheaded. And this Antony seems to me to have been the very first man who beheaded a king, as supposing he could no other way bend the minds of the Jews so as to receive Herod, whom he had made king in his stead; for by no torments could they he forced to call him king, so great a fondness they had for their former king; so he thought that this dishonorable death would diminish the value they had for Antigonus's memory, and at the same time would diminish the hatred they bare to Herod." Thus far Strabo.

Antigonus II was the last Hasmonean king and the Jewish elite were always pining for the Hasmoneans instead of Herod.

This would seem to match the Bar Serapion reference. Also note the motif of a Jewish leader turning over a criminal to the Romans for execution. Coincidence or just one more bit of fiction to be incorporated into a later story?

To put any weight on the literature of a superstitious iron age as an item of significance to support or refute a thing of overarching and pervasive cosmological pretentions is in itself profoundly perverse.