Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Don't forget that the Passion stories at least have clear evidence of being based on plays - I understand Nazarenus does prove that, although it is tendentious about who wrote it and how they got turned into the gospels we know now.

Originally Posted by Jayrok

I think this actually works against historicity.

Charley63 asked: why did the Jewish rabbis, with the most to gain by debunking their nearest rivals, never allege that Jesus was a myth?

I agree with Doug's response. By the time the gospel Jesus story circulated, there was no one around in a position to refute it. IIRC the Jews who make mention of it come much later.

The Jews at the time (circa AD 38-40) do not only remain silent about alleging Jesus as myth, they do not offer any defense against anything in the gospel narratives, i.e. the midnight trial, cleansing the temple money changers, the temple curtain ripping, etc. Nothing.

If the stories were true and the early christians passed the tradition of the gospel Jesus orally, it seems the contemporary Jewish leaders would have rebuttals to at least some of the claims. At least, we should expect to find some written record that would point to the gospel stories.

The fact that the Talmud was written around 150 years later (approx) is odd... if this is the first mention of Jesus by Rabbinic Jews. And they paint him in a bad light for their purposes. But the Jewish leaders contemporary to Jesus or even Paul remain silent on the gospels stories when it would benefit them to at least rebut some of the claims against them.

This seems to go in line with Earl's thesis. If the christians were learning and speaking about Paul's Jesus, who wasn't the one in the gospels, the Jews would have no reason to rebut those stories for the same reasons the Jews didn't feel the need to rebut stories about Mithra or any other mythical God.

It isn't claimed in Mithraism that the Jews killed Mithra. If the oral tradition floating around Palestine in the 30s or 40s was that the Jews killed Jesus after an illegal midnight trial, on Earth in Jerusalem, it seems we'd have literary evidence of a Jewish rebuttal from contemporary Jews. Where is the Sanhedrin mention of Joseph of Arimithia and his venerated tomb?

Originally Posted by Jayrok

.I have "THE JESUS THE JEWS NEVER KNEW Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the Quest of the Historical Jesus in Jewish Sources" by Frank R. Zindler on order.

There's a review (by Earl Doherty) here that includes a precis.

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Don't forget that the Passion stories at least have clear evidence of being based on plays - I understand Nazarenus does prove that, although it is tendentious about who wrote it and how they got turned into the gospels we know now.

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Lets have comments from the HJers please. Chris Weimer, GDon, Ben Smith, Zeichman, Andrew Criddle, Stephen Carlson...any comments regarding Price's overview?

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Price sounds like an HJer to me. What's there to comment about?

Stephen

Originally Posted by last para of piece by Price

I have not tried to amass every argument I could think of to destroy the historicity of Jesus. Rather, I have summarized the series of realizations about methodology and evidence that eventually led me to embrace the Christ Myth Theory. There may once have been an historical Jesus, but for us there is one no longer. If he existed, he is forever lost behind the stained glass curtain of holy myth. At least that’s the current state of the evidence as I see it.

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

Do you not know what the word 'embrace' means? :huh:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

I'm not sure what he means by it, since he's still hedging his bets ("There may once have been an historical Jesus, but for us there is one no longer."). A one-armed hug?