# Jesus: Myth, or Man? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 7, 2016, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392 "2016-01-07T03:02:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/181 "2016-01-08T04:19:02Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > He was there in Jerusalem at that time, and was a leader of the Jews. Hardly “2 towns removed, 2 decades removed”. :rolleyes: > In any case, whoever he heard it from\*, was certainly not some “early Christian”. :rolleyes: > > You clearly know nothing at all about Josephus. Or Roman history. > > - Likely other members of the Sanhedrin, to whom he was related and met with regularly. You have no idea who he heard it from, and he wrote it down in 90 C.E., after Christianity was, you know, a thing. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/182 "2016-01-08T04:21:09Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Here are some good books from mainstream scholars on the subject of historical study of the life of Jesus: > > _[Jesus as a Figure in History](http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Figure-History-Historians-Galilee/dp/0664257038/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1452224301&sr=1-2&keywords=Jesus+as+a+Figure+in+History)_, by Mark Allan Powell. A survey of recent scholarship. > > _[Lord of Legend](http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Legend-Wrestling-Jesus-Dilemma/dp/0801065054/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1452224398&sr=1-1&keywords=Lord+or+Legend)_, by Greg Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy. Written for a general audience, presenting a wide variety of analysis of whether Jesus existed. > > _[The Historical Reliability of the Gospels](http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Reliability-Gospels-Craig-Blomberg/dp/0830828079/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1452224548&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Historical+Reliability+of+the+Gospels)_, by Craig Blomberg. A scholarly book by an evangelical professor. Obviously the author leans towards reliability, but the book is very strong. > > There is a strong argument to be made the gospels are historical writings about a figure named Jesus, whose life did meet the general outline therein. There was a well-established genre of historical biography by the first century AD. All four gospels fit well within that genre, in terms of length, organization, and style. They fit much less well within any other genre present at the time. > > One way that historians can separate ancient writing that is genuinely historical non-fiction versus fiction is to examine levels of detail. Historical works tend to be rich in detail of all kinds, such as direct quotes versus short summaries of what a character said, named versus unnamed characters, exact locations versus unnamed locations, and the level of physical detail in the writing. By all of these standards, the gospels are rich in details, especially when compared to the majority of other writings from around the same time period. The statement above that is closest to true is the first one–and it’s still a difficult statement, as “mainstream” tends to imply, sans context, more general acceptance of views than is in fact the case for many of these authors. The rest of the statements above are false, as far as I know. But even if one doesn’t accept that, it is certainly true that each of those statements is legitimately questionable within the field of biblical studies itself. None are clear consensus statements. This doesn’t make them wrong, but rather I emphasize it in order to highlight my main point in all of this discussion–that _we simply can’t claim any kind of certainty_ that Jesus existed. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/183 "2016-01-08T04:22:35Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The random details are more likely, in my estimation, to be the result of the early Balkanized church and a thousand different voices selling Jesus in a thousand churches. Which would still imply a Jesus. It would be hard for there to be a large split-up without an initial core group, and what would bring that initial core group together? The rampant desire to develop a mythical person on whom to base a new religion? Why come up with a Jesus at all? Most cults have one or two founders (if it’s a couple). The only cult leaders presented are John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul. John was dead, and everyone seemed happy with him as a central religious figure. Paul was too late. We would expect one founder for the original cult. The one we’re presented with would exist at the right time, in the presence of the right group. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/184 "2016-01-08T04:33:43Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You have no idea who he heard it from, and he wrote it down in 90 C.E., after Christianity was, you know, a thing. No. He started writing his books in AD 71, but from his memoirs. In any case, there were very few Christians around at that time. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/185 "2016-01-08T04:43:31Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > He was there in Jerusalem at that time, and was a leader of the Jews. Hardly “2 towns removed, 2 decades removed”. :rolleyes: > In any case, whoever he heard it from\*, was certainly not some “early Christian”. :rolleyes: > > You clearly know nothing at all about Josephus. Or Roman history. > > - Likely other members of the Sanhedrin, to whom he was related and met with regularly. Josephus Born 37AD Died 100AD He was not even alive at the time of Jesus’s “Resurrection”. Hence, 2 decades removed. Jesus moved around a lot, right? Hence, 2 towns over. You’re right. I don’t know much about Josephus. The only thing I know about him was his chronicling of some Jewish revolt whereupon, if memory serves me correct, he knew both the General/leader on the Roman side and also knew the rebels and the rebel leaders on the Jewish side. You know, proper historical events backed by proper historical sources. That being other non biased third party accounts. Since his comments about Jesus are the very definition of Hearsay, I shall continue to remain unimpressed on that particular topic… Hearsay - information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/186 "2016-01-08T04:44:48Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Which would still imply a Jesus. It would be hard for there to be a large split-up without an initial core group, and what would bring that initial core group together? The rampant desire to develop a mythical person on whom to base a new religion? > > Why come up with a Jesus at all? Most cults have one or two founders (if it’s a couple). The only cult leaders presented are John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul. John was dead, and everyone seemed happy with him as a central religious figure. Paul was too late. We would expect one founder for the original cult. The one we’re presented with would exist at the right time, in the presence of the right group. It doesn’t seem that hard. A group starts. Splinters apart. The slivers develop for a time independently, and then a few hundred years later, a group of dudes are forced to lock all this into a coherent story. They’d throw a bunch of crap away, and keep stuff from a myriad of sources. As for why even make up a Jesus? I have no idea. Why make up Moroni the angel? Maybe he was a parable at first. Maybe he was like Keyser Soze, a story that a story that everyone has heard, but no one knows the details. Maybe he was a real dude. Maybe he was a dozen real dudes conflated together as one. I dunno. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/187 "2016-01-08T05:44:18Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Why make up Moroni the angel? Moroni was made up by one person, not a group. Groups don’t come up with bland, money-hating prophets. If you ask a group of people to come up with something, the least creative member will start going, “And he’s a million feet tall! And he’s got a cock a three miles long! And he shoots fire out his ass!” Design by committee is going to create a pretty grand creation straight from the gate. But instead, the earlier in documentation that you go, the closer you get to a non-magical, plain ol’ boring human. First, Jesus goes from being the inheritor of John the Baptist’s messages to being more just “good pals”. Then he gains various miracles, becomes the Son of God, gains some miracles, and finally is resurrected. These are all later additions. The original tale is of a man who goes around preaching, follows John the B, takes on some of his followers after his death, and later gets the axe too. Pretty realistic. > [@](#): > > The slivers develop for a time independently, and then a few hundred years later, a group of dudes are forced to lock all this into a coherent story. Except the story starts much earlier than that. The pre-cohesion era groups all portrayed there as being a Jesus and, as noted above, generally a less grandiose version, but far more chatty. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/188 "2016-01-08T05:47:59Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > The statement above that is closest to true is the first one–and it’s still a difficult statement, as “mainstream” tends to imply, sans context, more general acceptance of views than is in fact the case for many of these authors. Have you read any of the three books that I listed? Do you have any knowledge of how widely accepted the views expressed therein are? > [@](#): > > The rest of the statements above are false, as far as I know. If you’d like to present any evidence that any the statements in my post are false, I’ll be happy to look at it. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/189 "2016-01-08T05:59:50Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > But instead, the earlier in documentation that you go, the closer you get to a non-magical, plain ol’ boring human. This is simply not true. An extremely controversial claim at best. The earliest records we have are from Paul’s letters, and those records do not depict a non-magical, plain ol’ boring human. They depict a cosmic figure. Many scholars–Ehrman himself, for example, the guy who recently wrote an anti-mythicism book–think Paul’s Jesus _was_ a god. The evolution is in the opposite direction–later texts make him _more_ human, not less. (John seeming to be against that grain here assuming it is in fact a late gospel.) ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/190 "2016-01-08T06:01:18Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Have you read any of the three books that I listed? Do you have any knowledge of how widely accepted the views expressed therein are? No. Yes. > [@](#): > > If you’d like to present any evidence that any the statements in my post are false, I’ll be happy to look at it. Nah, **ITR**. Sentence deleted. Have you been in the Pit lately? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/191 "2016-01-08T06:01:47Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Have you read any of the three books that I listed? Do you have any knowledge of how widely accepted the views expressed therein are? View= a particular way of considering or regarding something; an attitude or opinion Fact= a true piece of information So, perhaps, if there were actual facts that supported the existence of a preacher type figure named Jesus, we wouldn’t have to rely upon a “widely accepted view” to validate his existence. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/192 "2016-01-08T06:14:11Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > One way that historians can separate ancient writing that is genuinely historical non-fiction versus fiction is to examine levels of detail. Historical works tend to be rich in detail of all kinds, such as direct quotes versus short summaries of what a character said, named versus unnamed characters, exact locations versus unnamed locations, and the level of physical detail in the writing. By all of these standards, the gospels are rich in details, especially when compared to the majority of other writings from around the same time period. Other things being equal, historical detail is great. But it fails miserably when most of the details contradict what is known about history, or at best are uncorroborated even when they are so unusual that you would expect other historians to mention them. We know that Quirinius was not governor of Syria until ten years after Herod died, that Galilee was not part of his province even after he became governor of Syria, and that a list of censuses(censi?) during the reign of Augustus Caesar does not include one that required everyone in the Roman Empire to drop whatever he was doing for up to a year so that he could make a pointless journey to his ancestral home. Parenthetically, we know that the purpose of a tax is to raise money, and there could be nothing less helpful to that than forcing everyone to take a year off work for a pointless journey. We know that Matthew (using the traditional name) is the only person who reported a brilliant star that did things that no heavenly body has ever done before, including stopping in Jerusalem to ask directions before leading the Magi to the exact house where the baby Jesus was (and no, neither a comet, nor a meteor, nor a planetary conjunction, nor a supernova could possibly fit the description of the Star of Bethlehem). Matthew is also the only person who noted Herod slaughtering all male infants in the region of Bethlehem, and the invasion of Jerusalem by zombie Saints. Maybe **Jayhawker Soule** can correct me, but AFAIK we have no record of either a Roman or Jewish custom that freed a prisoner condemned to death, according to the whim of the mob. It seems that almost every “historic detail” that can be checked, other than completely mundane things like the existence of cities, makes the Gospels less believable, not more. The details aren’t even internally consistent. Luke says that Jesus was publicly presented in the Temple in Jerusalem at the age of six weeks, and was recognized as the Messiah by various holy people who spread the news, and then his family returned home to Nazareth, completely unmolested by Herod, and returned to Jerusalem every year for Passover. Matthew says that they had to flee to Egypt to escape Herod, and even after they returned to Palestine when Herod died, which might have been years later, they were warned by God to stay out of Judea as long as Herod’s son ruled there, a period of ten more years. The details aren’t even internally consistent in two consecutive chapters. Matthew 14 says that Jesus fed 5000 with a few loaves and fishes, with his disciples distributing the miraculously multiplied food. The _very next chapter_, Jesus is again preaching to a crowd (of 4000 this time) in the middle of nowhere, and he wants to feed them. And his disciples, hand-picked by Jesus himself for the most important task ever given to a human, say, “Duh, how are we going to feed them with only a few loaves and fishes?” I can just see Jesus smacking his forehead. So yeah, details are great — that’s one of the reasons I like the _Song of Ice and Fire._ But if they don’t correspond to known history, and don’t even have any internal consistency, then they don’t help your case. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/193 "2016-01-08T06:31:00Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I disagree with your analysis. It seems like it’s begging the question; you’re essentially arguing that Jesus the man couldn’t have existed because Jesus the divine being couldn’t have existed. No. I’m just pointing out that it wasn’t _Jesus_ who wrote about Jesus. Like I said already, A Jesus likely did exist. But you can’t cast Jesus as his _own_ documentarian, as that analogy did, because _that_ would be counter to the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/194 "2016-01-08T06:33:56Z")
> [@ITR Champion](#): > > Have you read any of the three books that I listed? Do you have any knowledge of how widely accepted the views expressed therein are? > [@Frylock](#): > > No. Yes. If you haven’t read the three books that I listed, then obviously you don’t know what views they express. If you don’t know what views they express, then how can you know whether those views are widely accepted or not? > [@](#): > > Nah, **ITR**. Sentence deleted. Indeed. You’ve been lecturing others in this thread about logic; do you have any actual desire to debate on logical and factual grounds? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/195 "2016-01-08T06:38:06Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > If you haven’t read the three books that I listed, then obviously you don’t know what views they express. If you don’t know what views they express, then how can you know whether those views are widely accepted or not? > Indeed. You’ve been lecturing others in this thread about logic; do you have any actual desire to debate on logical and factual grounds? Do you have any actual facts to contribute to the debate? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/196 "2016-01-08T06:38:31Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > If you haven’t read the three books that I listed, then obviously you don’t know what views they express. If you don’t know what views they express, then how can you know whether those views are widely accepted or not? > Indeed. You’ve been lecturing others in this thread about logic; do you have any actual desire to debate on logical and factual grounds? This is a debate thread, I for one don’t intend to do homework. I don’t see how throwing out, “Did you read this book?” is debating on logical and factual grounds. Why not summarize the arguments in the book, instead of assuming the title is a persuasive argument? Also, you can know the views a book expresses without reading it. And you can find out if the views are fringe, or the strong consensus. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/197 "2016-01-08T06:56:05Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > If you haven’t read the three books that I listed, then obviously you don’t know what views they express. What a strange inference. > [@](#): > > If you don’t know what views they express, then how can you know whether those views are widely accepted or not? What an odd question. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/198 "2016-01-08T07:03:34Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > This is simply not true. An extremely controversial claim at best. The earliest records we have are from Paul’s letters, and those records do not depict a non-magical, plain ol’ boring human. They depict a cosmic figure. Many scholars–Ehrman himself, for example, the guy who recently wrote an anti-mythicism book–think Paul’s Jesus _was_ a god. > > The evolution is in the opposite direction–later texts make him _more_ human, not less. (John seeming to be against that grain here assuming it is in fact a late gospel.) Paul never met Jesus. To Paul, Jesus was just a figure that appeared to him one day while he was deathly ill and being taken care of by a Christian man. It makes sense that Paul’s Jesus would be a mythical creature, since he had very little knowledge on which to base his stories. The Jewish-Christians, however, tightly link Jesus to his family - like St James. They tightly link him to John the Baptist. There is no Bethlehem birth. The documents they share are mostly about Jesus’ wisdom. The miracles all come from the Pauline church. The illusion that a realistic Christ is a later development is due to the Gnostic and Jewish-Christian works all being marked down as 2nd Century works and they’re marked that way because Gnosticism is a 2nd Century development. Except for all the Gnostics/Jewish-Christians that we happen to know existed in the 1st Century ([Cerinthus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerinthus#Jesus), [John the Baptist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeans), [Ebion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebion), etc.) and the Gnostic groups that we know existed in the 1st Century ([Ophites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophites), [Dositheans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dositheos_(Samaritan)), [Nazarenes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)), etc.), as told to us by 1st century documents. You will note, for example, that both Ebion and Cerinthus - undisputed 1st century sources - both taught that Jesus was largely just a man. The name “Nazarene” is a reference to Jesus as a man from Nazareth - a shanty town on the edge of Sepphoris - again pointing to undignified and uninteresting beginnings of the protagonist they favored. I’m willing to grant that we probably don’t have documents that are in their pristine 1st century form, but it’s a good bet that a number of the Nag Hammadi documents have histories that go back to the 1st century. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/199 "2016-01-08T07:03:54Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Other things being equal, historical detail is great. But it fails miserably when most of the details contradict what is known about history, or at best are uncorroborated even when they are so unusual that you would expect other historians to mention them. Going down this road would allow us to hash out the same debates that have been had on this board and many other places countless times. I’ve read all the arguments and find most of them unconvincing. Regarding the dates of Quirinius and Herod not overlapping, that’s true provided we believe the dates for Herod and Quirinius provided by the separate sources, Josephus and Tacitus. It is possible that Luke was wrong about who was in office when Jesus was born, and many bible scholars prefer that explanation, but it’s hardly a slam dunk. It’s [also a possibility](http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-1/JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf) that one of the other sources for information was wrong. Regarding the census, Luke’s Gospel does not say that the census “required everyone in the Roman Empire to drop whatever he was doing for up to a year so that he could make a pointless journey to his ancestral home”, as you seem to think. Emperor Augustus required that there be censuses of populations, leaving timing and details to local governors and officials. This is fully consistent with what Luke writes on the matter. The argument that other historians would have mentioned X, Y, and Z has already been dealt pretty well in this thread and others. The main point is that other historians were few and far between in the Roman world. Those that did exist were generally not interested in anything the Jews did, other than Josephus. The slaughter of the innocents at Bethlehem, if it occurred, would not have been at all noteworthy. By the standards of acts of cruelty in Roman times, it would have been very minor. So any of those three topics might be errors in the gospels, or might not be. And lots more fun could be had, but I have to go to bed now. I highly recommend the books already mentioned for anyone who wants to read more on these topics. ---
**Author:** ![fridolph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/85f322/32.png) [@fridolph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fridolph)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/200 "2016-01-08T08:32:07Z")
As much as possible, I want to avoid religious evidence on Jesus existence. So, I checked about Pontius Pilate biography if he was exist before and his writings. I found this site that claimed writing of Pontius Pilate. http://owen\_eir.tripod.com/pilatetext.html [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392.md?page=11)