What is the case for the historicity of Jesus?
(1) Regarding the historicity of Jesus, the only two events subject to “almost universal assent” among New Testament Scholars are that (A) Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and (B) was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. (A) can somewhat be put into dispute because the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist seems to serve a theological function, and so can’t be traced back to the historical Jesus: Mark immediately interprets John the Baptist as a forerunner of the Messiah (a la Elijah in II Kings 1:8). Mark then clothes John similar to Elijah (Mark 1:6. II Kings 1:8.). He then says John ate locusts and wild honey,the food of the wilderness in which Elijah lived (and so on and so on). And it would make sense Mark would model John the Baptist on Elijah because Mark says “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ ; as it is written in the prophets.” And, as Price argues:
“Jesus’ Baptism ( Mark 1:9-11)
The scene has received vivid midrashic coloring. The heavenly voice (bath qol) speaks a conflation of three scriptural passages. “You are my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11) combines bits and pieces of Psalm 2:7, the divine coronation decree, “You are my son. Today I have begotten you;” Isaiah 42:1, the blessing on the returning Exiles, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights;” and Genesis 22:12 (LXX), where the heavenly voices bids Abraham to sacrifice his “beloved son.” And as William R. Stegner points out, Mark may have in mind a Targumic tradition whereby Isaac, bound on the altar, looks up into heaven and sees the heavens opened with angels and the Shekinah of God, a voice proclaiming, “Behold, two chosen ones, etc.” There is even the note that the willingness of Isaac to be slain may serve to atone for Israel’s sins. Here is abundant symbolism making Jesus king, servant, and atoning sacrifice. In view of parallels elsewhere between John and Jesus on the one hand and Elijah and Elisha on the other, some (Miller) also see in the Jordan baptism and the endowment with the spirit a repetition of 2 Kings 2, where, near the Jordan, Elijah bequeaths a double portion of his own miracle-working spirit to Elisha, who henceforth functions as his successor and superior.”
(B) can somewhat be put into dispute because Paul says Jesus died “According to scripture (1 Cor 15:3),” which could either mean that (i) Jesus’s crucifixion was fulfilling scripture, or (ii) that Paul discovered Jesus’ crucifixion through an allegorical reading of Hebrew scriptures. In either case Jesus’ crucifixion in Paul serves a theological function, so it can be doubted as to whether it can be traced back to the historical Jesus. Paul also doesn’t mention Pilate, so this may be a Markan invention.
(2) Elements whose historical authenticity is almost universally disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and details about the crucifixion (because of the apparent exegetical use of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 by Mark to construct the crucifixion narrative).
Any thoughts on if there are any indisputable data we have about the historical Jesus?
In terms of Josephus’ TF:
(1) Mythicists seem to have a point because When Ehrman reconstructs Josephus on page 61 of “Did Jesus Exist”, he takes out the word “messiah” as an interpolation and has, in part, “At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man … And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.”
Why would Josephus say a tribe of “Christians” were named after “Jesus?” That makes no sense. There should be no connection in Josephus’ mind between the Word “Jesus” and the word “Christian.” The word “Christian” is named after “Christ.” And “Christ” shouldn’t be here in Josephus. So there may be good reason to argue the last line is an interpolation. Christians are named after Christ, not Jesus.
(2) However, as historicist Dr. James McGrath points out even before we had Agapius’ version of the Testimonium Flavianum, some suspected that, rather than “He was the Christ” being an interpolation in its entirety, the original may have read “He was called/said to be Christ” or something along those lines. The later mention of James as the “brother of Jesus called Christ” would also fit well with this.
john76 said
In terms of Josephus’ TF:(1) Mythicists seem to have a point because When Ehrman reconstructs Josephus on page 61 of “Did Jesus Exist”, he takes out the word “messiah” as an interpolation and has, in part, “At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man … And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.”
Why would Josephus say a tribe of “Christians” were named after “Jesus?” That makes no sense. There should be no connection in Josephus’ mind between the Word “Jesus” and the word “Christian.” The word “Christian” is named after “Christ.” And “Christ” shouldn’t be here in Josephus. So there may be good reason to argue the last line is an interpolation. Christians are named after Christ, not Jesus.
(2) However, as historicist Dr. James McGrath points out even before we had Agapius’ version of the Testimonium Flavianum, some suspected that, rather than “He was the Christ” being an interpolation in its entirety, the original may have read “He was called/said to be Christ” or something along those lines. The later mention of James as the “brother of Jesus called Christ” would also fit well with this.
(3) Carrier disagrees with McGrath and argues “we know the Arabic of Agapius derives from Eusebius, via a later Syriac edition, and thus ‘he was believed to be’ is a later emendation and not an early form of the text. See On the Historicity of Jesus, pp. 336-37, esp. w. n. 88 where I show that proposing the sequence the other way around requires the most improbable conspiracy theory, to alter three different manuscript traditions, and not just three manuscripts but all existing manuscripts of all three texts—that of the Jewish Antiquities, the Historia Ecclesiastica, and the Praeparatio Evangelica—when we know a single alteration in a single later Syriac manuscript explains all the evidence without any such astronomical improbability. So we know Eusebius had no knowledge of a ‘believed to be’ being in the text. On the rest, see OHJ, Ch. 8.9.”
Of course the baptism story is made up. Of course it has theological elements. But the reason historians think there was a relationship between John and Jesus is because John is portrayed as Jesus’ spiritual superior. The gospel writer has to explain away why John baptized Jesus. If Mark made up the relationship why do that? It could have been anything remember? The simplest explanation is that it was because there was some incontrovertible historical memory that there was a relationship between John and Jesus and Mark felt the need to account for that.
The passage from Josephus is generally considered to be either a partial interpolation or a complete interpolation . It’s impossible that Josephus was a Christian. If it’s complete it is rather half assed. If it’s made up it could have been anything remember? It reads like a partial interpolation. Why is this issue so important to mythicists? Even if it’s a partial interpolation it doesn’t mean Jesus existed and even if it’s complete it doesn’t mean he didn’t. Either way it’s not proof of anything.
I would regard the strongest reason to think Jesus was a historical figure is that Paul knew his brother and his chief disciple Peter. Secondly the tradition of the crucifixion. The Messiah was supposed to be a political and spiritual conqueror. Jesus was portrayed as being executed like a common criminal. If you’re making it up and the story can be anything you want it to be why would you do that? Christianity is what happened when the believers had to go back and explain why things didn’t work out the way they expected. Christianity is a reinterpretation of the Hebrew scriptures to account for the fact the Messiah got creamed. If you’re making it up you’d get it right the first time.
Stephen said
Of course the baptism story is made up. Of course it has theological elements. But the reason historians think there was a relationship between John and Jesus is because John is portrayed as Jesus’ spiritual superior. The gospel writer has to explain away why John baptized Jesus. If Mark made up the relationship why do that? It could have been anything remember? The simplest explanation is that it was because there was some incontrovertible historical memory that there was a relationship between John and Jesus and Mark felt the need to account for that.The passage from Josephus is generally considered to be either a partial interpolation or a complete interpolation . It’s impossible that Josephus was a Christian. If it’s complete it is rather half assed. If it’s made up it could have been anything remember? It reads like a partial interpolation. Why is this issue so important to mythicists? Even if it’s a partial interpolation it doesn’t mean Jesus existed and even if it’s complete it doesn’t mean he didn’t. Either way it’s not proof of anything.
I would regard the strongest reason to think Jesus was a historical figure is that Paul knew his brother and his chief disciple Peter. Secondly the tradition of the crucifixion. The Messiah was supposed to be a political and spiritual conqueror. Jesus was portrayed as being executed like a common criminal. If you’re making it up and the story can be anything you want it to be why would you do that? Christianity is what happened when the believers had to go back and explain why things didn’t work out the way they expected. Christianity is a reinterpretation of the Hebrew scriptures to account for the fact the Messiah got creamed. If you’re making it up you’d get it right the first time.
As I wrote, John having the power and authority to baptize Jesus, where Jesus later turns out to be the superior, simply imitates Elijah bequeathing a double portion of his own miracle-working spirit to Elisha, who henceforth functions as his successor and superior. There is no reason to think there is any history here, because the writer could have just invented the pericope for theological reasons.
john76 said
“Vridar” just did a post on me an my thoughts about how The New Testament imitates the Greeks: ** you do not have permission to see this link ** . I’m famous! Autographs will start at $10.00 – lol
If you want to read a juicy conspiracy theory, click through to the comment section for my original post here: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
As I wrote, John having the power and authority to baptize Jesus, where Jesus later turns out to be the superior, simply imitates Elijah bequeathing a double portion of his own miracle-working spirit to Elisha, who henceforth functions as his successor and superior. There is no reason to think there is any history here, because the writer could have just invented the pericope for theological reasons.
Yes and no matter how many times you make the assertion it still doesn’t make any sense. In the early traditions it is Elijah who is associated with Jesus not Elisha. Remember the Transfiguration?
The kind of analogy you’re using is pulled out by someone who already is convinced of their theory beforehand and is just bending everything to agree with their opinion. This is why most real scholars don’t take any of this seriously.
Interestingly you have completely skipped over the situation where Paul knew James and Peter. I guess Paul was a myth too. His letters were written by aliens.
gmatthews said
Why keep engaging with him? The more people respond to him and steefen the more claptrap they post. I only respond to steefen because he’s got me blocked and can’t see my sarcastic responses anyway.
You’re right of course. I do have a masochistic streak I guess. I think it’s because the atheist/skeptic movement has been swept by this Jesus myth meme to the point where otherwise intelligent people now simply assume that it’s a done deal. It irritates me. Just at the moment when we can truly place Jesus in the context of his own time and understand him in that context we have people who think that simply denying his existence is some kind of devastating polemical blow that will bring superstition to its knees. I love history and hate bad arguments. But you’re right. This doesn’t really serve any purpose.
Stephen said
As I wrote, John having the power and authority to baptize Jesus, where Jesus later turns out to be the superior, simply imitates Elijah bequeathing a double portion of his own miracle-working spirit to Elisha, who henceforth functions as his successor and superior. There is no reason to think there is any history here, because the writer could have just invented the pericope for theological reasons.Yes and no matter how many times you make the assertion it still doesn’t make any sense. In the early traditions it is Elijah who is associated with Jesus not Elisha. Remember the Transfiguration?
The kind of analogy you’re using is pulled out by someone who already is convinced of their theory beforehand and is just bending everything to agree with their opinion. This is why most real scholars don’t take any of this seriously.
Interestingly you have completely skipped over the situation where Paul knew James and Peter. I guess Paul was a myth too. His letters were written by aliens.
In Mark, our earliest source, John The Baptist is identified with Elijah. And I am not a mythicist just because I point out the gospel writers made exegetical use of the Old Testament (so did Paul: Jesus died, was buried, and was raised “according to scripture.”). I am aware that Paul met James, the brother of the lord, and that there was an historical Jesus.
john76 said
Stephen said
As I wrote, John having the power and authority to baptize Jesus, where Jesus later turns out to be the superior, simply imitates Elijah bequeathing a double portion of his own miracle-working spirit to Elisha, who henceforth functions as his successor and superior. There is no reason to think there is any history here, because the writer could have just invented the pericope for theological reasons.Yes and no matter how many times you make the assertion it still doesn’t make any sense. In the early traditions it is Elijah who is associated with Jesus not Elisha. Remember the Transfiguration?
The kind of analogy you’re using is pulled out by someone who already is convinced of their theory beforehand and is just bending everything to agree with their opinion. This is why most real scholars don’t take any of this seriously.
Interestingly you have completely skipped over the situation where Paul knew James and Peter. I guess Paul was a myth too. His letters were written by aliens.
In Mark, our earliest source, John The Baptist is identified with Elijah. And I am not a mythicist just because I point out the gospel writers made exegetical use of the Old Testament (so did Paul: Jesus died, was buried, and was raised “according to scripture.”). I am aware that Paul met James, the brother of the lord, and that there was an historical Jesus.
And there are so many allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures in Mark that it is not surprising Jesus would be presented as the new and greater Elijah in some places and the new and greater Elisha in others. See: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Stephen said
Of course the baptism story is made up. Of course it has theological elements. But the reason historians think there was a relationship between John and Jesus is because John is portrayed as Jesus’ spiritual superior. The gospel writer has to explain away why John baptized Jesus. If Mark made up the relationship why do that? It could have been anything remember? The simplest explanation is that it was because there was some incontrovertible historical memory that there was a relationship between John and Jesus and Mark felt the need to account for that.The passage from Josephus is generally considered to be either a partial interpolation or a complete interpolation . It’s impossible that Josephus was a Christian. If it’s complete it is rather half assed. If it’s made up it could have been anything remember? It reads like a partial interpolation. Why is this issue so important to mythicists? Even if it’s a partial interpolation it doesn’t mean Jesus existed and even if it’s complete it doesn’t mean he didn’t. Either way it’s not proof of anything.
I would regard the strongest reason to think Jesus was a historical figure is that Paul knew his brother and his chief disciple Peter. Secondly the tradition of the crucifixion. The Messiah was supposed to be a political and spiritual conqueror. Jesus was portrayed as being executed like a common criminal. If you’re making it up and the story can be anything you want it to be why would you do that? Christianity is what happened when the believers had to go back and explain why things didn’t work out the way they expected. Christianity is a reinterpretation of the Hebrew scriptures to account for the fact the Messiah got creamed. If you’re making it up you’d get it right the first time.
It is often claimed that Jesus’ baptism by John passes the criterion of embarrassment. Historical minimalists reply that just because later gospel writers were embarrassed by John’s baptism of Jesus, there is no reason to think this embarrassed Mark. Claiming Mark was embarrassed because later gospel writers were embarrassed is a non sequitur.
Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist is generally considered to be historical fact because it meets the criterion of embarrassment. However, historical minimalists point out that just because Jesus’ baptism was embarrassing for later gospel writers, we have no reason to think it was embarrassing to Mark. In fact, Miller has argued the Markan baptism pericope may be making a theological point, relating Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan and the endowment with the spirit to a repetition of 2 Kings 2, where, near the Jordan, Elijah bequeaths a double portion of his own miracle-working spirit to Elisha, who henceforth functions as his successor and superior.
john76 said
“Vridar” just did a post on me an my thoughts about how The New Testament imitates the Greeks: ** you do not have permission to see this link ** . I’m famous! Autographs will start at $10.00 – lol
Interesting read, thanks. I had no idea the Jesus storyline had been played 500 years before …
john76 said
Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist is generally considered to be historical fact because it meets the criterion of embarrassment. However, historical minimalists point out that just because Jesus’ baptism was embarrassing for later gospel writers, we have no reason to think it was embarrassing to Mark. In fact, Miller has argued the Markan baptism pericope may be making a theological point, relating Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan and the endowment with the spirit to a repetition of 2 Kings 2, where, near the Jordan, Elijah bequeaths a double portion of his own miracle-working spirit to Elisha, who henceforth functions as his successor and superior.
If the core of the Jesus story in Mark is historic, that it is a story about a real sect leader within Judaism, supernatural embellishments subtracted, one should expect a narrative that connects it with its Jewish roots. A very early gospel tradition whose believers thought that Jesus was the crown and culmination of Judaism, would of course allude to Scripture. So would also a smart forger do. This means that the detection of possible parallels or similarities with Scriptural passages cannot be used as a criterion of in-authenticity in isolation.
The question of whether the Baptism story was embarrassing is not whether it was embarrassing to Mark – one may perhaps assume that it entered his writings by a kind of “redaction fatigue”, accepting the common scholarly view, that Mark created his Gospel by editing individual pericopes and stories taken over from various unknown traditions post-dating eyewitnesses. Or perhaps he was no deep theological thinker, and did not see the problem. Or perhaps it absolutely made sense in his theological outlook, which we unfortunately do not completely understand.
The criterion application in this case is that the Markan story created difficulties and embarrassment for the early Church, and this is proven by the later use of his story as the Church was evolving. Accordingly it increases the plausibility of not being invented by the early church. Taken together with other criteria of a. we can assume that the baptism episode is one of the harder “facts”.
He’s already admitted that he finds it impossible for the NT to have more than 2 words strung together without it having inspiration from the OT. I don’t think you’re going to change his mind. Other than that though, I totally agree and have used the same argument, less elegantly, against Steefan’s nuttiness.
I think it is time for the parallelists to present a methodology. The Universe of real historical events is very rich in parallels, and this is caused by similarities in social structure. Everywhere there are stories about aspiring princes struggling their way to power, only to be overthrown by rivals later. Have a look at the urban legend of the similarities between the ** you do not have permission to see this link **. It is too easy to produce valueless “parallels”.
Did Josephus borrow descriptive elements from the conquest of Jerusalem in 63 BCE when describing the conquest around 37 BCE? If so, this may have some interest for those who want to date exactly the first month (possibly year) of Herod’s rule , but it does not disprove the Roman conquest of Jerusalem some time during 37 BCE. Authors describe real events in terms of past real ( or legendary) events all the time. This is a problem to historians who want to sift facts from non-facts, but it does not mean that every story with some borrowings in literary style or minor/major details are completely untrue.
Naive listings of alleged parallels have little value without a scientifically based method which so far has not been presented here.
gavriel said
I think it is time for the parallelists to present a methodology. The Universe of real historical events is very rich in parallels, and this is caused by similarities in social structure. Everywhere there are stories about aspiring princes struggling their way to power, only to be overthrown by rivals later. Have a look at the urban legend of the similarities between the ** you do not have permission to see this link **. It is too easy to produce valueless “parallels”.Did Josephus borrow descriptive elements from the conquest of Jerusalem in 63 BCE when describing the conquest around 37 BCE? If so, this may have some interest for those who want to date exactly the first month (possibly year) of Herod’s rule , but it does not disprove the Roman conquest of Jerusalem some time during 37 BCE. Authors describe real events in terms of past real ( or legendary) events all the time. This is a problem to historians who want to sift facts from non-facts, but it does not mean that every story with some borrowings in literary style or minor/major details are completely untrue.
Naive listings of alleged parallels have little value without a scientifically based method which so far has not been presented here.
I am going to put a giant Like button on this post, but mythicists are way too busy reciting each others mistakes to ever consider it. What is interesting here is that advocates of Dennis MacDonald’s hypothesis, for example, never tire of rattling off “parallels” Macdonald, on the other hand. confesses that “These parallels may at first seem forced or arbitrary, but I use six criteria to test the relationship of any text to another….” (My Turn pg 3 ** you do not have permission to see this link **)”
In sum, his followers have got to be the worst thing to ever happen to his hypothesis. Mimesis, on the face of it, seems very difficult to prove. Add in the poor intellectual habits of people who want to popularize his thesis and he’s in real trouble on the credibility front.
To paraphrase the renowned philosophers, Def Leopard, Drive me crazier, no serenade
No fire brigade, just Paralellomania!
What do you want? What do you want?
We want rmethodology, yes we do
Long live methodology!
There’s another method for determining the veracity of the Baptism. It’s a somewhat laborious process–like a math problem–but it can yield a rather rigorous proof of sorts.
We need to start off with a few assumptions.
Assumption #1: Jesus lived during the same time period as John the Baptist and within a reasonable distance of where John was baptizing. (and vice versa). I think this is a reasonable assumption.
Assumption #2: Jesus and John were both apocalypticists who thought that God was about to smack down his enemies and deliver his chosen people, and if you wanted to be a member of the latter, you must (re)turn to God. Indeed, the Gospels make it very difficult to avoid this assumption.
Assumption #3: Jesus believed John’s baptism was a real step in (re)turning to God. This assumption isn’t as solid as the others, but I think it’s safe to say that if Jesus didn’t believe this, then his followers were unlikely, themselves, to assume any significance to John’s baptism. That is, the disciples thought it was significant because Jesus thought it was significant.
Now, if we take all three assumptions into account, we must conclude the following.
Conclusion: Jesus believed that John’s baptism was a necessary step in being saved on Judgment Day, so it would be in Jesus’ interests to be baptized ASAP. Therefore, it would be contrary to Jesus’ interests and to our expectations that Jesus would not be baptized by John. Ergo, based on those assumptions, it would be reasonable to suppose that Jesus was baptized by John.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)