(June 25, 2015 at 6:04 pm)tonechaser77 Wrote: Mara bar Serapion (ca. AD 73)
“What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in just one hour? Or the Jews [by killing] their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time? God justly repaid the wisdom of these three men: the Athenians died of famine; the Samians were completely overwhelmed by the sea; and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every nation. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the new laws he laid down.” (Letter in Syriac to his son; Van Voorst, page 54)
While Jesus is not named, and 'wise king' is not a common Christological title, there is little doubt that the author is speaking here of Jesus because the loss of the Kingdom of the Jews coincides with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple while the "new laws he laid down" refer to the doctrines of the Christian faith.
Further, it was well known that Pilate ordered a sign to be hung on the cross above Jesus' head which read "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" in several languages. Mara, a Jew in captivity, was writing to his son, and he speaks of this 'wise' Jew as a king...echoing Pilate's own words. The fact that Mara probably doesn't mention Jesus directly is understandable because it was the Romans who desolated and dispersed the Jews; Mara does not want to offend his captors.
Assumptions can't be made on this either. Why would someone give two philosophers by name but then not name Jesus? Instead, we just get this vague "the wise king".
I gave the answer to that question: because Mara was in Roman captivity and other members of his family may have been in prison, also. Why antagonize them?
Quote:Furthermore we know the letter was composed after 73 AD but before the 3rd century. Even if we take the conservative estimate of 70 AD this is some 35 years after the alleged death of Jesus it proves nothing.
The Letter is almost certainly after AD 70 since the author speaks of the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem when he writes, "their kingdom was taken away at that very time." At what time did the Jews lose their kingdom? AD 70.
Quote:The author mentions nothing about being an eye witness or how he was brought to this information. It does nothing to prove that an actual Jesus really existed. At best it only suggests that a "story" about him did.
I was not an eye-witness to the sinking of the Titanic, but I can recount the details of what happened with great accuracy.
Quote:Your remaining two examples, Lucian and The Talmud do nothing to add to the fluff either as they are over 100 years after the alleged event and only support "stories" not actual evidence.
I suppose. But the story is the one in which Jesus died by crucifixion. Apparently, a LOT of people were telling that story - early and often.
That's what historians refer to as independent multiple attestation.
