charley63

One problem with the Mythical Jesus theory that occurred to me as I read Price's essay is 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 historical criticism that the gospels are laden with legend and myth. However, I find it very hard to entirely cast aside the presumption of historicity.

peace! Charley

Minimalist

Rabbinic Judaism did not begin until the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and took a long time to get itself together.

Oddly, it seems to be the same time period that the Jesus myths were being finalized.

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

Doug Shaver

This was a little before the dawn of the Information Age. By the time large numbers of Christians started believing the gospel stories, nobody was left alive who would have known he was only a myth. We're talking about sometime well into the second century. Nobody could have stated authoritatively that no such man had existed a hundred years earlier. Nor would anyone have had good reason even to suspect he had not.

BALDUCCI

Doug....but at the time most believers learnt through oral tradition and stories, not through reading texts. So there would have been some continuity from the death of Jesus through to the earliest days of Christianity.

Clivedurdle

But the alleged oral history is easily traced back to literary sources - like Psalm 22.

Is it OK to suggest this paper is published in national newspapers?

Jayrok

Great read.

Is this essay available online? I'm highly interested in this piece, but don't want to spend $300 on the Encyclopedia of Midrash to get to read it.

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?

BALDUCCI

jayrock:

another possibility is given the fact that Jesus was not the only messianic pretender, and that this sort of thing was quite common, the Jews at the time didnt grant it any special significance. Jesus's rebellion (ministry, or whatever) didnt even last that long, and other than the claims made about it later, it contained nothing which Jews would have found especially extraordinary. Yes, Jesus descended from David, but David would have had many hundreds of descendants who could claim to be king of the jews, and probably did. This was a time of military occupation by an enemy power, and both Judea and Galilee were buzzing with rebellions, revolutionary leaders, messiahs, etc. So given all of that, I wouldnt take the silence of the Jews on Jesus as good evidence of his non-existence

Jayrok

That could be true, as there were other messiah figures roaming the countryside. But did they have the following Jesus had as would have been claimed in oral tradition?

How many of those other messiah figures claimed to be God? And how many of the other messiah figures turned conventional Hebrew thought upside down and confounded the Jewish religious leaders?

How many of them had enough followers who claimed they not only saw him raised from the dead, but claimed he predicted he would do so in 3 days?

Perhaps the other messiah figures really did try to oust the Romans from occupying Israel. They were patterned after the messiah the Jews were looking for. Jesus wasn't the militant messiah to lead the revolt of the Jews, he was different.

The stories claimed multitudes followed him and were amazed. We have early documents (1 Cor) that claim he appeared from the dead to over 500 people.

It seems this particular messiah figure would draw a little more attention from the Jewish religious leaders than those other militant/political messiah figures who came and went unnoticed.

Simon Bar Kosiba actually went further than Jesus as messiah in the eyes of the Jews. He rallied a revolt 100 years after Jesus and even pushed the Romans, albeit temporarily, out of Israel. He even had coins minted. IIRC there are extant letters he actually wrote and there are writings about him in Jewish and even Roman lore.

It's interesting to note that the Jewish leaders, after the humiliating death of Simon Bar Kosiba, spoke out that he was actually a false messiah. During his successful revolt, he was nicknamed "Bar Kochba" or "Son of Star." He was named this by Rabbi Akiva, one of the premiere Jewish Rabbis of the day. After his defeat he was proclaimed a false messiah.

If Jesus lived and was called messiah by his Jewish followers... why then, after his death, do we not see anything from the contemporary Jewish authorities proclaiming he was another false messiah... similar to what happened with Bar Kosiba?

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.