The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

[Ben C. Smith]

To deny that Josephus (once we have pinpointed him in history) is good evidence that a war between Judea and Rome took place, and even of the overall flow and outcome of said war, would seem silly

We don't rely upon Josephus to inform us that there was a war between Judea and Rome. We have non-Josephan sources for that, including primary evidence (hard stones in both Rome and Jerusalam) to tell us that.

Granted, we do not have to rely on Josephus for this basic fact. But I think there are certain kinds of information which people give us (both ancient and modern) that we can fairly confidently bet on, for or against. The fact that Josephus' war can be confirmed by archaeology, and that many, many other, similar assertions about such events made in similar ways (as common knowledge about which the author does not expect to be contradicted, for example) can also be confirmed, might well give us good rules of thumb in the cases for which there is no confirming evidence.

There is no guarantee that every single one of the unconfirmed cases will pan out that way, but we might well be running a very good percentage of hits versus misses.

(This kind of approach is, unfortunately, perfectly vulnerable to cases of deliberate fraud, since the fraudster is capable of mimicking the style of delivery of information that people usually, and with good reason, accept as fact even without further corroboration.)

If what Josephus wrote did not have at least some independent evidence to at least corroborate that a war of the scale he wrote about did take place then we would really have to wonder about his narrative. But we do have independent confirmation.

In the case of the war as a whole, certainly. But what about individual battles? What about Masada? Can we not, even if all evidence of a siege at Masada had been deleted by the ravages of time and happenstance, accept on good faith the basic assertion(s) of Josephus' account, based simply on our sense that he is unlikely to have invented it from scratch? Now, as it happens, archaeology can confirm that the siege happened, if I understand correctly, but many of the finer details do not line up with Josephus' account (but, then again, he was not an eyewitness of this part of the war). But we cannot be confident that archaeology will always be able to confirm such things, in which cases we will be relying on our reading of the relevant histories and other texts.

I don't think we can go very far past Mason's description of what is involved. One reads of the same methods by historians by other historians, too, but Mason is singled out because he addresses a time and event of interest to most of us here.

I am very interested in matters of historical methodology, but I do not always feel like I fully understand the points that you make about it. Hence my probing, including the following question for you. Do you always require independent confirmation of every single alleged fact, or are there times when you evaluate the intrinsic probability of what is being claimed, the overall reliability of the writer in other and/or similar matters, and the manner in which the claim is being made and come to the conclusion that it probably happened?

[neilgodfrey]

. - deleted

[neilgodfrey]

Granted, we do not have to rely on Josephus for this basic fact. But I think there are certain kinds of information which people give us (both ancient and modern) that we can fairly confidently bet on, for or against. The fact that Josephus' war can be confirmed by archaeology, and that many, many other, similar assertions about such events made in similar ways (as common knowledge about which the author does not expect to be contradicted, for example) can also be confirmed, might well give us good rules of thumb in the cases for which there is no confirming evidence.

Basically agree.

The more we can confirm independently the more our confidence in details that cannot be confirmed. Yes. Exactly.

But there are of course other factors since what you (and I) have just agreed on is only a general rule of thumb, "all other things being equal" - such as that we are dealing with a certain genre indicative of a certain author-reader agreement or understanding, for starters.

(This kind of approach is, unfortunately, perfectly vulnerable to cases of deliberate fraud, since the fraudster is capable of mimicking the style of delivery of information that people usually (and with good reason) accept as fact even without further corroboration.)

Exactly. It is indeed. (I have discussed this previously, too, by the way.) And that's exactly why we need independent confirmation to test for fraud. We want to know as much as possible about the author, his circumstances, background, motivations, audiences, etc. We need to carefully analyse the text - literary criticism.

If we had a foolproof rule for fraud detection we would not need courts and detectives etc.

If what Josephus wrote did not have at least some independent evidence to at least corroborate that a war of the scale he wrote about did take place then we would really have to wonder about his narrative. But we do have independent confirmation.

In the case of the war as a whole, certainly. But what about individual battles? What about Masada? Can we not, even if all evidence of a siege at Masada had been deleted by the ravages of time and happenstance, accept on good faith the basic assertion(s) of Josephus' account, based simply on our sense that he is unlikely to have invented it from scratch? Now, as it happens, archaeology can confirm that the siege happened, if I understand correctly, but many of the finer details do not line up with Josephus' account (but, then again, he was not an eyewitness of this part of the war). But we cannot be confident that archaeology will always be able to confirm such things, in which cases we will be relying on our reading of the relevant histories and other texts.

Correct. Exactly. So we can't do a "history" on the details of Masada. We know that much of J's account is fiction.

I don't think we can go very far past Mason's description of what is involved. One reads of the same methods by historians by other historians, too, but Mason is singled out because he addresses a time and event of interest to most of us here.

I am very interested in matters of historical methodology, but I do not always feel like I fully understand the points that you make about it. Hence my probing, including the following question for you. Do you always require independent confirmation of every single alleged fact, or are there times when you evaluate the intrinsic probability of what is being claimed, the overall reliability of the writer in other and/or similar matters, and the manner in which the claim is being made and come to the conclusion that it probably happened?

As we said above, the more we can independently confirm the higher our confidence grows in details we cannot confirm.

But there are no guarantees, of course. Our primary interest always has to be, I think, on the interests, motivations and circumstances of the author.

And of course we look for the author's interest in assuring us of the reliability of his account, giving us some idea of his sources, sharing and acknowledging our scepticism when relating most remarkable events, etc. Not that these are guarantees --- but such factors go in to the big bag of variables that need to be considered in any reading.

[neilgodfrey]

to Neil,

Twisting the evidence?

May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. - Galatians 6:14

For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. -- 1 Corinthians 2:2

There is a difference between "offence" and "embarrassment". They have different meanings and it is wrong to conflate them.

I covered that already: Paul was overlaying the embarrassing crucifixion by suggesting some redemptive value of it, going against the grain, that is against the negative perception of Jews & Gentiles about Christ crucified.

This is circular, or at least question begging. It is the idea that the crucifixion was embarrassing that is being questioned. We can't assume it in order to make our case for it.

Here are the verses in the Pauline epistles where there is an occurrence of 'skandalon' (as in Galatians 5:11):

Rom 9:33 "As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence ['skandalon']: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."

Rom 11:9 "And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock ['skandalon'] and a recompence unto them:"

Rom 14:13 "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall ['skandalon'] in his brother's way."

Rom 16:17 "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences ['skandalon'] contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock ['skandalon'], and unto the Greeks foolishness;"

Gal 5:11 "And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence ['skandalon'] of the cross ceased."

I do not see where 'skandalon' would refer to (as you wrote): "The offence was over the significance of the crucifixion -- what Paul said it meant for the Law.".
'skandalon' is always negative, as bad and detrimental.

For Gal 5:11 (RSV "But if I, brethren, still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? In that case the stumbling block of the cross has been removed") the overall meaning of the verse would be: if Paul preached orthodox Judaism, then the "scandal"/offence/stumblingblock about a Christ crucified would not be part of his preaching (because Jews --and Paul as a hypothetical conventional Jew-- would not think a Christ could be crucified).

Nice list, but what's it's point? I have acknowledge Paul's description of the cross as an offence. That's been a mainstay of my argument, even. Why do you seem to assume that "offence" must in some way suggest an "embarrassment" somewhere among some people? What's wrong with my interpretation that I believe I supported by reference to Paul's words, too. What's wrong with the argument that IF Paul was addressing at some level the "embarrassment" of the crucifixion, THEN why does he nowhere discuss embarrassment and why the crucifixion should not be seen as an embarrassment? He doesn't explicitly address embarrassment at all in any of the passages you have cited -- or any others.

Yet he has addressed in lots of places that the reason for offence is that the crucifixion meant an end to the law. Now that was the offence of the message of the cross.

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.

A Jewish peasant, preacher and credited to be healer, would not be expected to be depicted in coins and monuments during or soon after his lifetime.

Correct. So there are not very many ancient peasants we can write biographies about. Ancient history cannot explore many of the sorts of details that modern history can.

If Paul thought that crucifixion of a messiah was an embarrassment because Jews thought a messiah could never be crucified then we would expect Paul to make arguments at some point addressing that concern. He doesn't. He nowhere attempts to address a belief that a messiah could not possibly be crucified. But he does address the controversy over his teaching that the crucifixion of the messiah meant an end to the law for salvation for gentiles. That's where the offence was.

Paul did not have to make arguments at some point addressing that concern, because he superimpose/transform Jesus' demise (shameful death) with the concept of a glorious crucifixion for salvation of all.

I don't think you have any evidence to support the claim that he had any such concern to begin with.

The idea that he saw shame and glory as two sides of the same event stands on its own. There is nothing embarrassing about it for anyone, it is a glorious thing that everyone can be thrilled about. The only people who didn't like it are those who objected to Paul saying it also meant the end of the law for salvation.

But he did regardless: Christ could be crucified because that enables salvation for the believers:
1Co 1:18 "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

Again, we don't need to introduce embarrassment to explain any of this. There is no embarrassment at any point, only glory. Were readers or witnesses to the Maccabean martyrs "embarrassed" at any point? Were Socrates' companions "embarrassed" by their teacher's fate? No, they were upset, fearful, angry, but they admired the courage of their hero for what he endured. And they gloried in his courage and the final outcome glorifying God or righteousness, etc.

[Giuseppe]

WRONG, if you mean by historical a human who lived on earth in the past:
Cordially, Bernard

I mean that Paul was entirely silent about the life of a person loved by him so much: it is a contradiction even if Paul assumed that that person was crucified in the recent past. 'To love' here means to receive a great spiritual impact by that person.

Therefore I believe that Demonax is historical because Lucian received a great impact from him and he gave us some historical details about him.

But assume for a moment that about Jesus we have only Mark as earliest evidence and not Paul. In that case it is impossible to infer that Mark loved Jesus, since his Jesus is only a means to vehicle his theology: who can be said to love a so cold character as the Gospel Jesus? Even so, in that case I would conclude that Jesus is surely historical (the same reason why van Manen's historicist faith received a lot of comfort by the his proof -- in his view -- that Paul is II CE invention).

@outhouse:

Without a center of origin, they all fail, and no mythicist agree on origin. Even if they pick paul alone they lose.

At Lourdes and Medjugorje the center of origin is a single hallucination by one or more people. And a phantasm is a more simple entity than a human being of flesh and blood, if not other because the former is composed by a unique 'substance', differently from the latter.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Neil

And of course we look for the author's interest in assuring us of the reliability of his account, giving us some idea of his sources, sharing and acknowledging our scepticism when relating most remarkable events, etc. Not that these are guarantees --- but such factors go in to the big bag of variables that need to be considered in any reading.

And yet, a staple of counterapologetics is to mock Paul for saying that he is not lying. Perhaps rightly so, perhaps unfairly. We lack the other side of the correspondence, so for all we know, he was accused of lying. The mockery is that "I am not lying" is just what a liar would say.

There is a heuristic proverb in the theory of constant sum games, that in a situation where cooperation cannot be rationally motivated, "Any message worth sending isn't worth reading."

It is entirely possible for anybody at any time to know this heuristic; we differ from our ancestors only in that we have a formal system in which it would be a theorem. But, it encodes common sense, not anything culturally or temporally bounded. If you prefer, the heuristic can be shorn of its tie to formal game theory, "All communication is self-serving."

Evidence persuades because observing it is more likely under one uncertain hypothesis than under an alternative. A liar will claim to be somebody in the know, a liar will claim to have sources, especially when we cannot verify them, a liar will pretend to share our feelings, including "I know it's hard to believe, but dude walked on water," etc.

He knows it's hard to believe, so therefore we are more confident that he's telling the truth? Holy criterion of embarrasment!

If "historical method" is to believe more readily some unverifiable claim because other unverifiable claims were made at the same time, then "historical method" needs some work. In the meantime, among the many things I respect Mark for is not wasting my time with irrelevancies that could not possibly change a rational person's estimate of the truth of what he asserts. (I have no idea whether achieving his reader's belief was among Mark's goals, I only know the uses to which his writing has been put.)

There is a lot of loose talk about how much better other historians are than "New Testament scholars." Well, maybe so. But on this point of "method," achieving credibility by the author multiplying unverifiable claims is pretty much the NTS Guild's principle of reading charitably.

The best that can be said is that it relies on a faulty analogy with situations where I can verify the things I am told. In that situation, the more somebody says, the better chance I have of catching her in a lie if she is lying. The two factors work in concert, remove the possibility of checking, and the only point in encouraging talkativeness is that the liar might more easily logically contradict herself. Lucky if so; if not, so what?

Got a story to tell me? Tell me. Spare me what a stand-up guy you are, how it pains you to relate the unusual parts, and how awesome your sources are. Unless, of course, I can check those things; otherwise forget it.

For example, I love it that Mark identifies Simon of Cyrene's kids (a fact claim) and doesn't waste my time connecting the dots babbling about whether they are among his sources. His claim can accomplish only one thing: to establish that it is possible for him to know what happened that day, and the claim is self-proving as to that possibility (yes, it is possible, no, I don't know what any "Simon of Cyrene" would tell me, if I could ask him, which I can't).

[Ben C. Smith]

Basically agree.

The more we can confirm independently the more our confidence in details that cannot be confirmed. Yes. Exactly.

....

And of course we look for the author's interest in assuring us of the reliability of his account, giving us some idea of his sources, sharing and acknowledging our scepticism when relating most remarkable events, etc. Not that these are guarantees --- but such factors go in to the big bag of variables that need to be considered in any reading.

Thanks, Neil. I think we are basically on the same page.

[Bernard Muller]

to Neil,

The idea that he saw shame and glory as two sides of the same event stands on its own.

I did not say that. Paul certainly saw the glory of the crucifixion but not its shame/folly/embarrassment. But he acknowledged the later negative view was perceived my many, Jews & Gentiles:

1 Co 1:23-28 "we preach Christ crucified, to Jews, indeed, a stumbling-block, and to Greeks foolishness,and to those called -- both Jews and Greeks -- Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God,
because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men;
for see your calling, brethren, that not many are wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;
but the foolish things of the world did God choose, that the wise He may put to shame; and the weak things of the world did God choose that He may put to shame the strong;
and the base things of the world, and the things despised did God choose, ..."

1 Co 1:18 "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

Are you still contending that, through Paul's epistles, the crucifixion of Christ was not seen by non-believers as a negative concept, a repulsive folly, a despised thing, an embarrassment, preventing them to accept Pauline Christianity?

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Ditto for the gospels. It is naive to take the narrative at face value, merely allowing for a bit of poetic licence, exaggeration, etc. If we take the gospels as "primary" sources for the times they were actually composed, as witness to what somebody wanted to write at that time, and why, etc. --- starting from that perspective, and not from the naive default ideological assumption that the writer was a "saint" of some sort who surely wanted to glorify the memory of his saviour.

I certainly agree with that. And I never thought the writers of gospel were "saints", far for that. On the contrary they were mainly dishonest.
Well before Mason wrote his piece about history, I had that as part of my methodology (I highlighted the points of concern of Mason):

a) Stay always within the historical, social, cultural & religious (ancient) contexts, when studying each event & writing.
b) Acknowledge that people in the 1st/2nd century (most of them illiterate) had some common sense (& religious aspirations) and were living mostly in a secular, "low-tech" (& unscholarly!) world: they thought in real time (their own day to day present).
c) Consider the (early) Christian texts as written by "flesh & blood "persons (and not necessarily scholars!) likely to have human motives (sometimes very obvious), and as addressed to contemporaries. Then research the circumstances surrounding their compositions.
d) Have an all-encompassing view: everything of any pertinence has to be investigated, from all sources available, more so the closest (in time) to the facts.
e) Determine with accuracy (and great efforts!) the sequence of events, timing and the dating of writings (that's lacking into many scholarly works), because that provides another dimension, the most crucial one: many (preceding & following) points are considerably affected by the dating & sequencing.
f) Do not charge with some theory/concept (yours or borrowed) because it suits you (unfortunately, agenda-driven works are prevalent nowadays).
g) Sort out the evidence and check it in depth (accuracy, validity, context, correct translation, etc., for each bits), by way of critical analysis. Justify any rejection with good reasons, preferably many of them.
h) Do not ignore "down to earth", obvious, mundane or trivial details (usually considered unworthy of scholarly interest). Do not overlook contradictions and oddities (as you would for the work of a subordinate, as a detective would for a suspect, as a legal officer would for an eyewitness!). Pay attention to "against the grain" and embarrassing bits (they might be telling!).
i) Follow the evidence, stay close to it, allow it to "discipline" & direct you: avoid free intellectual extrapolations & speculations (we have enough of those!).
j) Practice reality checks along the way: avoid absurdities.
k) Stay on the right track, on solid ground; do not hesitate to turn back when a trail is disappearing; explore all options, but remember, only one can be correct (& not necessarily the first one which pops out from the top of your head!).
l) Accept what you discover, rather than decide first what to find & reject.
m) Be scrupulous: "fudging" & "ignoring" NOT allowed (why should I fool myself & my readers? And this website will not advance my career or make money for me!).
n) Reject ill-substantiated assumptions, even if they are widely "swallowed" (beware of "studies" which accept them, either unannounced ("transparent") or with a short introduction!).
o) Look somewhere else if you need long discussions to justify your position.
p) Provide (concisely & accurately) the whole evidence & argumentation for each step (to keep you honest and prevent unproven claims to creep in): each piece of the puzzle must stand on its own.
q) Go back over all the preceding points because later findings are bound to have implications on previous understandings (and vice versa. I never said it was an "auto-pilot" one-way process. Beware of simplistic methodologies!). Examine back everything, including the options you chose along the way (everything has to fit, but keep observing all the points!). Do it over & over, again & again ...

As a result, I eliminated most of the material in gMark & Q, almost everything in Lukan & Matthean & gJohn material and still, with the little which was left, found a Jesus, who in his last year of his life, accidentally and unintentionally, ignited the development by others of a new religion:
http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

Cordially, Bernard

[andrewcriddle]

Or read Steve Mason's own more detailed explanation of historical method:

What is History? Using Josephus for the Judaean-Roman War

It is a very interesting article, but it seems to be dealing with a somewhat different issue. Mason is emphasising that in the absence of independent corroboration, although most of the raw facts in an account may well be based on actual events, the selection and presentation of those events by the uncorroborated source is likely to prevent the reconstruction of a reliable narrative by a modern historian. E.G. Titus' intentions about the Jerusalem temple were in reality tentative and changing. It is a mistake to imagine that Josephus could tell us whether or not Titus really genuinely intended to destroy the temple.

Andrew Criddle