I've started reading a book called Jesus Never Existed. The author is Kenneth Humphreys. I'm on p67, so lots more still to go.

The book seems to be well researched, but its insufficiently referenced, so its hard to tell for sure. Very interesting argument so far:

Not only did jesus not exist, but the whole story of 'his' life is a fiction created centuries after 'his' alleged birth. Early christians viewed christ as a spirit, not as a human being at all. The whole bible story of 'his' life is a cut-'n-paste job using elements of already existing mythology- mainly but not exclusively jewish.

Anyway, I'm wondering:

- If anyone here has read the book, and if so what d'ya think of the argument?

- If anyone knows who the hell Ken Humphreys is. He's described as a 'British academic' on the back cover. Not very informative.

- What other literature exists in this area, ideally stuff with proper academic referencing? I'm not looking for a reading list here- just a couple of recommendations.

Thanks in advance,

Caecilian

http://www.metafysiko.org/index.php?modu...read&id=62

Quote:Kenneth Humphreys holds a Master's degree from the University of Essex in history and social sciences, a post-graduate pedagogic certificate from the University of Leicester, and a higher national certificate in business studies. He taught for many years both in the UK and abroad, the latter including periods in Turkey and Papua New Guinea, the former including a Senior Lecturership in Modern Languages. His career outside of academe includes sales management in the software industry. Religion, and in particular the claims of Christianity, have been a life-long interest. He is now fully occupied as a writer, radio broadcaster and public speaker, and campaigns energetically against the tide of resurgent superstition and unreason.
The website Jesus Never Existed was launched in December 2001. It receives more than a million visitors per year and is currently being made available in nine languages (including Greek).
The book Jesus Never Existed was published in 2005 by Iconoclast Press. It currently ships to thirty countries. An abridgment was republished in India in 2006 by Hindu Voice. A Spanish edition is likely in the near future.

I've read the book and still have it. Love to discuss it with you.

There is also a forum at jesusneverexisted.com which is no where near as active as this one.

Well, I haven't read the book itself, but the argument that you say has presented itself in it is a quite likely explanation for the Jesus story. However, I think that there is a pretty big leap between the proposition that "many of the aspects of the Jesus story were ripped off wholesale from earlier mythologies" and "Jesus of Nazareth never existed." I admit that I am inclined to believe that there really was a rabbi in Bethlehem/Nazareth (if it even existed, even if only as a small town that had little prominence for several centuries)/Galilee who preached many of the same things Jesus is said to have taught during the reign of Tiberius. At least that is within the realm of plausibility.
I have looked online, and found no information on Ken Humphreys' credentials, besides being the author of that book being discussed.

Many thanks for your reply, min.

I've checked out the forum now. Looks sloooow. I don't think I'll be joining it for that reason.

I too would love to discuss the book, and you seem like an ideal person to discuss it with.

However, I need to read more of it first. Will pm you when I'm ready. Assuming that I don't have any major unexpected distractions, that should be in maybe a weeks time.

Quote:I admit that I am inclined to believe that there really was a rabbi in Bethlehem/Nazareth (if it even existed, even if only as a small town that had little prominence for several centuries)/Galilee who preached many of the same things Jesus is said to have taught during the reign of Tiberius.

"Belief" would be the right word, Rev. There is no evidence of it outside the Big Book of Holy Horseshit.

Quote:"Belief" would be the right word, Rev. There is no evidence of it outside the Big Book of Holy Horseshit.

Agreed Min.

BUT,history is speculative discipline, not an exact science. The best any historian may ever say is 'X seems to be the case or is probably the case". [based on available evidence]* It is a brave and foolish historian who argues "X IS the case"

Was there a person called something like Yeshua/yoshua bar Yosef,who was a wondering Rabbi with a few followers who was crucified by the Romans? It's possible even likely. Such a person would be unremarkable within rabbinical tradition,then and now. Nor would have it been hard for him to become crucified. The Romans crucified THOUSANDS of Jews during their occupation of Judea.


There is little doubt in my mind that the Jesus of the New Testament is pure myth. I also think the historical existence of Jesus is irrelevant to Christianity.


*To quote the chestnut:

Quote: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Direct Roman rule over the various regions of Palestine was intermittent.

For whatever reason they kept trying to find a member of Herod's family to rule in their place.

Aside from Varus' crushing the revolts which broke out on the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC and the Great Revolt itself there were few serious armed outbreaks and most of them happened in the period after the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 AD.

Crucifixion was a punishment reserved for rebels and slaves. The Romans disposed of common criminals in far more cost-efficient ways.

One must guard against accepting the fiction of xtians and jews.

One of the first doubts I ever had about the veracity of the whole story was when I realized that if there was ever a time in their history when the Jews did not need a "deliverer" it was during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. The fact is they had it pretty good. If they could lie about that....they could lie about everything else.




P.S. - That chestnut is wrong.

(June 1, 2010 at 11:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Direct Roman rule over the various regions of Palestine was intermittent.

For whatever reason they kept trying to find a member of Herod's family to rule in their place.

Aside from Varus' crushing the revolts which broke out on the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC and the Great Revolt itself there were few serious armed outbreaks and most of them happened in the period after the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 AD.

Crucifixion was a punishment reserved for rebels and slaves. The Romans disposed of common criminals in far more cost-efficient ways.

One must guard against accepting the fiction of xtians and jews.

One of the first doubts I ever had about the veracity of the whole story was when I realized that if there was ever a time in their history when the Jews did not need a "deliverer" it was during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. The fact is they had it pretty good. If they could lie about that....they could lie about everything else.




P.S. - That chestnut is wrong.

http://truthbeknown.com/christ.htm

The Christ Conspiracy is a good book. I have it but have not read it all yet. As far as Jesus never existing well he most likely did not. Like was said he was created and built upon other mythological characters. For instance authorties rely upon the Four Gospels to prove Christ.The Encloypedia Biblica , one of the greatest Biblical works in the English langauge states " We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazerath in Jesus time."

Every leading Christian Scholar since Erasmus 400 years ago has maintianed that they were written in Greek. Which proves they were not written by Jesus disciples or by any other of the early Christians. What do we have? Good question. The Apostles wrote what they imagined not what they saw.

The Encloypedia Biblica states that the order of events in the life of Christ as given to us by the Evangelists are contradictory and untrustworthy and that the chronological framework of the Gospels is worthless.

The early Christians destroyed almost all records it was necessary to hide the lie. You might find this link interesting as well:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg00.htm

Its not so much the existence as it is the historical evidence which don't exist none of the historians alive at the time of Jesus even mention him. With the exception of Joesephus and that passage is a forgery created by Euseibus who even himself said it was OK to lie to advance the faith.

I've read the Christ Conspiracy and Acharya lost me at the end. This assertion of grand "conspiracies" is a modern thing. One does not need a "conspiracy" when the emperor decides that he wants a common religion for his empire.

One of the best is The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty. He gives an example of how the "gospels" were pieced together as a midrash on jewish scripture. "Mark" is just a story meant to tell a lesson. Somewhere along the line, someone decided that story was real.

Another excellent source on the gospels is Bart Ehrman's "Jesus Interrupted." "Misquoting Jesus" is also quite good if a bit technical in spots.

---

(June 1, 2010 at 7:29 pm)Caecilian Wrote: Many thanks for your reply, min.

I've checked out the forum now. Looks sloooow. I don't think I'll be joining it for that reason.

I too would love to discuss the book, and you seem like an ideal person to discuss it with.

However, I need to read more of it first. Will pm you when I'm ready. Assuming that I don't have any major unexpected distractions, that should be in maybe a weeks time.

Whenever you're ready, Caec.

Quote:P.S. - That chestnut is wrong.

You saying so does not make it so.

The assertion is a chestnut (cliche) precisely because it IS true. It is an accepted part of formal logic. The fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence is called 'argument from ignorance'.

Of course you may invent new rules of logic if you wish,but don't be surprised if they are not universally accepted.



It may be said; There is no evidence that Jesus existed, and that therefore I do not believe that he existed. However,to argue there is no evidence Jesus existed therefore he did not exist, is a logical fallacy.

I also consider the argument a red herring, as I make a clear distinction between a possibly historical Jesus and the mythical figure of the New Testament.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Wiki:

Quote:The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:

* Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen (often opposite) hypothesis is therefore considered likely or proven.
* Something is currently unexplained, or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) considered true, and the opposite position is considered likely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance