According to the Jesus never existed web site, Ken Humphreys is a real life figure. Extensive research, however, has failed to turn up anyone who actually knows him personally. He appears, at times, to be an educated scholar, but that is very difficult to validate. His blogs and articles make it even more difficult to accept Him as an actual person. One of His arguments, for instance, is in opposition to something that I have never heard anyone claim, which is that Jesus is better documented than any other ancient figure. According to Humphreys, Julius Caesar, unlike Jesus, has a mass of mutually supporting evidence.
Huh? Caesar was a political figure, born in an aristocratic family, who set up a dictatorship that covered North Africa, The Northern Mediterranean and the Middle East. Christ was not. Julius Caesar started wars. Jesus Christ did not. Julius Caesar made a point to be remembered by history. Jesus Christ did not. Historians loved to write about political figures, especially hated dictators. Very few write about quite, non political religious figures. Any real person would not find difficulty in understanding the difference.
Humphreys has been quoted as writing:
"As it happens, we have an excellent witness to events in Judea in the first half of the first century AD: Philo of Alexandria (c25 BC-47 AD). Yet Philo says not a word about Jesus or Christianity!"
Any real human that is familiar with the Bible and history would know that there were no Gospels written before 47 AD.and if there had been any, it is doubtful they would have reached Egypt before the death of Philo. No Gospels, no mention of Christians. Not having ever heard the word Christian or Christianity is a very good reason for not writing about them. If Humphreys was actually a real person, instead of a mythical figure, he would know that the followers of Christ, around 50 AD, were mostly Jews who referred to themselves as Jews. Philo could not have lived more than 15 years after Christ started His ministry. Christianity may have spread quickly, but not so quickly that those who called themselves Christians would have become prominent enough for a historian to write about. Philo did not write about any of the other small religious sects scattered around Egypt and the Levant and there were many of them during His lifetime.
There is reason to believe that Ken Humphreys, like the pagan gods he writes about, is a mixture of characters, some of which may be actual living scholars:
"The Israelites did not come from Egypt – a palpable myth – but emerged from the local population. There was no ancient 'Jewish Empire': the Jewish priests drew their inspiration from the empire of the Assyrians and "Judaism" was a reaction to the loss of the northern kingdom and an instructive period spent in Babylon.
Jerusalem in 10th century BC had been barely a village of huts and cave dwellings."
Any living person would know that there is a good possibility of someone knowing that the above is a direct quote from Israel Finkelstein. It would also seem that He would have read somewhere that the theories of Finkelstein are not accepted by mainstream archeologists. Anyone other than Finkelstein would have known that Jerusalem, from at least 1700 bc was surrounded by a 26 foot wall built with cut stones weighing up to five tons. It isn't difficult for a real person to find out that in the 10th century bc, another wall was added, which included gate houses and Royal quarters. That is quite a feat for cave dwelling villagers. The only way that Ken Humphreys would not have known that where there are Royal quarters there is Royalty, would be if He is not a real person. Normally where there is Royalty, there is a palace. Where there is a palace, there is a kingdom capital. Under normal circumstances a capital city would have an army. It is easy logic for a real person.
Humphreys belief concerning Herod the great is absolute evidence that He is not a real person.
"Herod the Great was a real king – but he did not massacre any babies. He was an astute and successful ruler."
The Massacre of the Innocents is not documented in official historical documents, but that does not mean it never happened. It is mentioned in the Saturnalia written in the 4th century by a Roman philosopher. All 2 year boys in the whole of Syria were killed, including the son of Herod. One Syrian texts claims there were
64,000 Innocents killed, while other sources put it at 14,000. There is a very good chance that it did take place, and history tells us that Herod was not only cruel, he was so paranoid about losing His throne that he had no problem resorting to murder if he felt it was threatened. Whether or not the Massacre of the Innocents ever took place, it is a fact that he burned alive 40 Jewish students for smashing His statue. The question might be why would they be protesting against such an astute and successful ruler. Herod was called King of the Jews. From the time he was born Jesus was called King of the Jews. It seems to me that Herod the Paranoid would have seen that as a very good reason to kill every male born around the same time as Jesus. Herod was very capable of doing that and would have had no remorse. If later Christians fabricated the story, they got very lucky and accidentally picked the one Jewish King their story would be the most likely to succeed with.
The "James Ossuary being found to be a fake is not even worth going into any farther than saying that all Bible scholars know that the names Jesus and James were two of the most common names in Israel. There are probably a lot of Jesses with brothers named James. No one really expected it to be "The Jesus". Fraud happens. It happens in religion almost as often as it happens in science. It happens in the articles of Bible critics and skeptics, but it isn't fraud that makes them look unrealistic. It's the absurd problems they invent and the ignorant way they try to solve them.
And that brings us to the virgins. According to Ken the Fraud, the pagan world was riddled with virgins who gave birth. One of those He mentioned, Isis, was never portrayed as a virgin and anyone who ahs ever read the critical views of the movie Zeitgeist knows that. Vesta was a virgin, hence the Vestal Virgins. Vesta was not "the virgin" and she never gave birth, although one of the Vestals did. Diana remained a pure virgin. I have no idea what happened to Arty, but knowing Ken's batting average, I would put my money on Her remaining a pure virgin.
I am still waiting on Ken to get back with evidence that Paul was not a real person. He seems absolutely positive that Paul was never shipwrecked, as if shipwrecks never happened back then. He is so certain that Paul's travels never happened that I will wait on His positive proof before commenting. I don't want to look as unintelligent as Ken does now, when he delivers the evidence that proves Paul never slept there. That is, of course, if Ken turns out to be an actual live person and not a mythical figure. The logic is that no real, living person could be that absurd and still have the ability to write intelligently. The truth is that the Bible, which is dismissed as being too ridiculous to be real, is a lot more realistic than Ken Humphreys. It is a lot more realistic than most skeptics. The Bible is filled with what has been called coincidences, which hit on the truth more often than skeptics.
Please Convince Me
