duretti

Have been reading through it recently. Was wondering about the historical accuracy of its many claims - seems very professional, but you have to be careful with things which rail so strongly against the consensus of mainstream historians.

Would be very interested in the oppinions of anyone better versed in its field than I, or any important evidence which ken ommits.

Cheers.

Toto

That's a very broad question. Could you make it more specific?

I don't recall any specific errors charged against www.jesusneverexisted.com but there very well might be.

Malachi151

My take on JNE is that it is "okay". I think that overall each of the independent facts are correct, though I'm not as keen on the analysis and the style, though I think that Ken is a good guy and I like his interviews.

JNE is sort of a shotgun approach, it throws out lots of little bits of information, but doesn't really create a cohesive understanding of it.

Though I can't think of them off the top of my head, I think there are a couple of points that I question as accurate, but they were minor and debatable.

rob117

The claim that Nazareth was not inhabited in the 1st century is false. There is pottery there from the 2nd century BC onward. The idea that tombs supposedly preclude Jewish settlement is false; see here. According to rabbinic law, the bodies had to be 50 ells (less than 200 feet or so) from human habitation. That is more than enough room for tombs to be at an inhabited site.

spamandham

One of the strongest arguments he makes I think, is that Nazareth did not exist in the first century. I've seen this claim poo poo'd many times, but it's always via speculative arguments that sound like religious apologetics to me.

Last time I checked a couple of years back, I could not locate any salient evidence to refute the claim, and it seems clear to me that even the Biblical authors were confused about this city - it's a city so small and insignificant that people scoff if you say you came from there, yet it has a synagogue, and everyone seems to be aware of it.

I don't think his site disproves some sort of vague historical Jesus, as much as it argues that the Gospels are works of fiction. But works of fiction can include historical people and events. I think the best we can say at present, is that if there was a historical person intertwined in the Jesus stories, we have no idea who it was, and such a person is certainly not necessary to explain the existence of Christianity, nor does adding such a person aid to arguments of parsimony as far as I can tell. A HJ seems to me to be an unnecessary hidden variable.

(i guess I was composing on nazareth as rob was posting!)

There is little reason to believe that the city presently known as Nazareth, is the Biblical Nazareth. The early church discovered a well, and declared it to be the lost city of Nazareth, and that declaration has remained unchallenged ever since. The idea that Nazareth had been 'lost', even though it was god's home town, is just plain rediculous.

rob117

Can you source this?

Malachi151

I think what his site does best is present a lot of other information, not so much that Jesus never existed, but it goes into a lot of the religion of the time, and also the crimes and negative aspects of the early church.

spamandham

Which part?

I assume you mean the lack of archaeological evidence?

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

(see the section titled New Testament Times and Associations for reference to the well)

Riverwind

I've been there and seen what was referred to as a first century olive press.

Aside from this, if one visits, one will soon find out why little has been discovered or even excavated in the large city of Nazareth. White, multi-storied apartments cover most of the land. I don't even know how or where one would begin looking.

rob117

I mean the assertion that early Christians found a well and decided it was Nazareth.