The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

[outhouse]

• Nope

Paul was very close to said events

People who were part of a Marcan community had the possibility to be a witness and refute it.

Of course no one ever refuted any aspect.

• Maybe more myth than fiction, in most cases.

True

[Peter Kirby]

The rules for the verification of Jesus' historicity are the exception to how historians verify historical persons and events.

False.

The methods used applies to almost all history from this time period where there is less textual evidence.

It's basically a mirror image of the claim that mythicists are demanding more justification than usually is used for "comparable history."

Eventually one or the other side gets caught making hyperbole ("as much evidence as Tiberius" or "absolutely zero") and we lose the plot again.

[neilgodfrey]

The rules for the verification of Jesus' historicity are the exception to how historians verify historical persons and events.

False.

The methods used applies to almost all history from this time period where there is less textual evidence.

Your statement is false. Can you support it with evidence (as I supported my point with the evidence of how scholars approach the historicity of Demonax)? Or should we see who can contradict the other with ever increasing font sizes?

[neilgodfrey]

to Neil,

Yes and no. Events reported decades later are verified by independent primary evidence from the time of the events or persons. Jesus is the only exception I know of.

I beg to differ: what is that primary evidence from the time of the events or persons? orally transmitted knowledge? eyewitnesses verbal account or writings not available to us? What else?
How can you be sure Paul and "Mark" did not have access to at least one of the aforementioned?

I use the term primary evidence to refer to concrete, material evidence situated in the time and place in question. Coins, for example, official public monuments. We know our written records of Julius Caesar have some basis in historical fact because of this primary evidence. Primary evidence does not very every detail of our written (secondary) reports but it does allow us to read them with certain confidence or otherwise.

The expression 'primary evidence' can also be extended to apply to written reports that we have evidential grounds for believing were originally penned at the time and place in question. Here we get into testing the documents, their manuscript history, etc.

We can't know if Paul or Mark did not have access to writings not available to us. If we can't know we can't build a hypothesis on something we don't know.

What about Honi the circle drawer, a figure comparable to (the real) HJ?
Many decades later, we know about him through Josephus and the Talmud (but they do not agree on the manner of his death).

We don't "know" that there was a Honi the circle drawer (how could we?) but we do know certain Jewish authors believed there was, or wrote as if they wanted readers to believe there was. We can't say anything more than that without getting into the realm of speculation.

The Historical Jesus and the Demise of History, 2: The Overlooked Reasons We Know Certain Ancient Persons Existed

That chart of mythical and historical persons — with explanations

Paul boasted in the crucified Christ. He was never embarrassed by the crucified Christ. Offence is not embarrassment. The offence was over the significance of the crucifixion -- what Paul said it meant for the Law.

Yes, at the same time Paul was adopting the Crucifixion as the glorious sacrifice for atonement of sins. But still, at the time, the Crucifixion was considered an embarrassment by many, that Paul hoped (and succeeded) to overlay with that glorious theological concept.

Also from 'Hebrews':
Heb 6:6 "if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame."
Heb 12:2 "looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

Also from gMark:
Mk 15:34 "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ("Mark" had Jesus thinking his crucifixion is a sign of God abandoning him).

None of the above quotations are evidence for either Paul or Mark being in any way the least embarrassed by the crucifixion. If they were embarrassed by those quotes they would have suppressed them -- as biblical scholars continue to argue about the way subsequent evangelists suppressed details about the story of John the Baptist until finally John removes the baptism altogether. Mark demonstrates no embarrassment -- the later evangelists are embarrassed by Mark's lack of embarrassment.

Hebrews speaks of despising the shame. That's not embarrassment. That's glorying in the death of a classical hero, the one who is unjustly rejected and punished, like Socrates, or Plato's wise man who sees what's outside the cave.

Who reads the crucifixion scene in Mark and feels inclined to hide what they have just read, or deny it, or put it out of mind, because they are so darn embarrassed that they just read about Jesus being crucified. Nobody. The tale is a glorification of the "shame" -- that is the way of salvation, after all.

Was any Jew ashamed of the martyrdom of a Maccabean hero?

For your information, I am not siding with believer scholars. You can be an atheist and still think a very minimal HJ existed. Are you suggesting a true atheist has to be a mythicist?

You don't side with them but beginning with Mahlon Smith they compliment your work and your work is a more detailed repeat of theirs.

I'm not talking about atheism; I'm talking about the way historical inquiry is done among historians and classicists -- as distinct from biblical scholar who call themselves historians but appear on the whole to be quite ignorant of the methods used by their supposed "peers".

[neilgodfrey]

It's basically a mirror image of the claim that mythicists are demanding more justification than usually is used for "comparable history."

What are some "comparable histories"?

[Peter Kirby]

It's basically a mirror image of the claim that mythicists are demanding more justification than usually is used for "comparable history."

What are some "comparable histories"?

Apollonius of Tyana, Apsethus the Libyan, Hillel the Elder.

[neilgodfrey]

It's basically a mirror image of the claim that mythicists are demanding more justification than usually is used for "comparable history."

What are some "comparable histories"?

Apollonius of Tyana, Apsethus the Libyan, Hillel the Elder.

Do we do "histories" of any of those as founders of religious cults?

Do you mean that "we" accept these persons as having a certain historical existence?

[neilgodfrey]

On Hillel the Elder: It is a fact that the name appears in rabbinical writings and is said to be the source of various sayings. That is the fact that historians work with. The context (including genre of the sources) in which he appears informs us that authors expected his name to be understood as an authority. Was he a literary creation or did he really go back to the first century? In other words, was he an eponymous figure for a particular school of thought? I simply don’t know. No one can know with absolute certainty. Others more familiar with the evidence may have more to offer here. But I’m quite prepared to accept he was “historical” if that’s what most specialists in the field say for the following reason:

Our earliest testimonies about Hillel, as far as I am aware of them, are not inconsistent or ambiguous about his identity or role. Contrast Jesus: we have no definition of Jesus as we do of Hillel (a rabbi) so we don't know what we are looking for in the first place with Jesus; our earliest testimonies of Jesus are at best ambiguous and vague as to when and where he functioned and what sort of figure he was. He appears first in the record as some sort of theological cipher. The manuscript records pertaining to Jesus appear to be corrupted in many places.

If our earliest evidence for Jesus were in fact as straightforward and relatively consistent as we have for Hillel I can imagine the debate would be of a different nature than it is today. If I recollect correctly some scholars can question the literal historicity of Hillel and what was said about him without any fuss. What difference would it make if he was an eponymous fabrication or a historical person? None that I can see.

[neilgodfrey]

Apollonius of Tyana: To elaborate on the reasons for questioning the historicity of Apollonius would take far too much time and space here. I will try to prepare some full length posts. Suffice to say that there are numerous clues throughout Philostratus's Life to indicate fabrication, including, or especially, of his so-called sources. Apollonius is an ideal Pythagorean figure for whom we lack any external or independent contemporary witness. It is quite reasonable for scholars to raise questions about his historical existence. Again, what difference would it make to any "history" or questions of historical research and inquiry if he turned out to be definitely historical or imaginative fiction?

Recall Demonax and the discussion around his historicity. One can debate the historicity question of Demonax without any rancour and within the bounds of legitimate historical evidence and methods.

It is quite reasonable, even professional, to question the historicity of Jesus using the same standards as are applied to any other ancient historical figure. Raising the question is by no means a call for "more" or "stronger" evidence than for any other person in ancient history. On the contrary, assuming the existence of Jesus as a historical figure is grounded in a setting aside of standards ancient historians and classicists use when working at their professional best.

[andrewcriddle]

Apollonius of Tyana: To elaborate on the reasons for questioning the historicity of Apollonius would take far too much time and space here. I will try to prepare some full length posts. Suffice to say that there are numerous clues throughout Philostratus's Life to indicate fabrication, including, or especially, of his so-called sources. Apollonius is an ideal Pythagorean figure for whom we lack any external or independent contemporary witness. It is quite reasonable for scholars to raise questions about his historical existence. Again, what difference would it make to any "history" or questions of historical research and inquiry if he turned out to be definitely historical or imaginative fiction?

Recall Demonax and the discussion around his historicity. One can debate the historicity question of Demonax without any rancour and within the bounds of legitimate historical evidence and methods.

It is quite reasonable, even professional, to question the historicity of Jesus using the same standards as are applied to any other ancient historical figure. Raising the question is by no means a call for "more" or "stronger" evidence than for any other person in ancient history. On the contrary, assuming the existence of Jesus as a historical figure is grounded in a setting aside of standards ancient historians and classicists use when working at their professional best.

I agree that Philostratus's Life of Apollonius is historical fiction. However Philostratus certainly did not invent the figure of Apollonius and the pre-Philostratean traditions are probably based on a real figure. See a discussion at livius Apollonius . (The author believes a little more than I do. I doubt that Apollonius ever traveled to India or Egypt.)

Andrew Criddle