Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John2 »

Neil wrote:
it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that Josephus' James could have been clubbed" -- that line, the whole ballast of the argument, is the killer: analytic process = 5.53%

It's entirely speculative, seizing any detail that can be imagined as a possible prop for any fancy one likes to believe.
Yes, it is speculative, but it fits the context of the times (and the "house of Hanin" was the family of the priest who sentenced James to death).
With regard to the prominent priests and those like them, Abba Shaul ben Batnit said in the name of Abba Yosef ben Ḥanin: Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Baitos, woe is me due to their clubs. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Ḥanin; woe is me due to their whispers and the rumors they spread. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Katros; woe is me due to their pens that they use to write lies. Woe is me due to the servants of the High Priests of the house of Yishmael ben Piakhi; woe is me due to their fists. The power of these households stemmed from the fact that the fathers were High Priests, and their sons were the Temple treasurers, and their sons-in-law were Temple overseers [amarkalin]. And their servants strike the people with clubs, and otherwise act inappropriately.

https://www.sefaria.org/Pesachim.57a?lang=bi
This is supported by what Josephus says in Ant. 20.9.2 right after the James passage.
But as for the high priest, Ananias [the father of the "house of Hanin"], he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by neilgodfrey »

John2 wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:05 pm Neil wrote:
it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that Josephus' James could have been clubbed" -- that line, the whole ballast of the argument, is the killer: analytic process = 5.53%

It's entirely speculative, seizing any detail that can be imagined as a possible prop for any fancy one likes to believe.
Yes, it is speculative, but it fits the context of the times (and the "house of Hanin" was the family of the priest who sentenced James to death).
With regard to the prominent priests and those like them, Abba Shaul ben Batnit said in the name of Abba Yosef ben Ḥanin: Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Baitos, woe is me due to their clubs. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Ḥanin; woe is me due to their whispers and the rumors they spread. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Katros; woe is me due to their pens that they use to write lies. Woe is me due to the servants of the High Priests of the house of Yishmael ben Piakhi; woe is me due to their fists. The power of these households stemmed from the fact that the fathers were High Priests, and their sons were the Temple treasurers, and their sons-in-law were Temple overseers [amarkalin]. And their servants strike the people with clubs, and otherwise act inappropriately.

https://www.sefaria.org/Pesachim.57a?lang=bi
This is supported by what Josephus says in Ant. 20.9.2 right after the James passage.
But as for the high priest, Ananias [the father of the "house of Hanin"], he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them.
Oh damn, I'm sorry, John 2. I confused you with JohnT. That was the reason I bothered with that silly LIWC thing. Only JohnT is worthy of that treatment, sorry.

But back on to your argument, when you say "is supported", do you mean, more precisely, that other details make the argument "permissible" or "possible"?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John2 »

Neil wrote:
But back on to your argument, when you say "is supported", do you mean, more precisely, that other details make the argument "permissible" or "possible"?
Yes, all I mean is that it is plausible, given the context of the times (according to Josephus and the Talmud), that James was clubbed.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John2 »

Painter sees another possibility for James being clubbed (though he also brings up a host of other issues regarding the clubbing), one which I bear in mind given James' priestly attributes in Hegesippus and which also fits the context of the high priests beating lower priests in Ant. 20.9.2:
Given that there is a tendency to portray James as a priest or even a high priest (HE 2.23.6), it is possible that the punishment was specifically related to some supposed priestly related offense. According to tractate Sanhedrin 81b, a priest performing Temple service while unclean was to be taken out the Temple by the young priests and his skull was to be split with clubs.

https://books.google.com/books?id=HQGsx ... ub&f=false
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Secret Alias »

There is nothing in the Torah like this. The actual context

IF ONE STEALS THE KISWAH,23 OR CURSES BY ENCHANTMENT, OR COHABITS WITH A HEATHEN [LIT. SYRIAN] WOMAN, HE IS PUNISHED BY ZEALOTS.24 IF A PRIEST PERFORMED THE TEMPLE SERVICE WHILST UNCLEAN, HIS BROTHER PRIESTS DO NOT CHARGE HIM THEREWITH AT BETH DIN, BUT THE YOUNG PRIESTS TAKE HIM OUT OF THE TEMPLE COURT AND SPLIT HIS SKULL WITH CLUBS. A LAYMAN WHO PERFORMED THE SERVICE IN THE TEMPLE, R. AKIBA SAID: HE IS STRANGLED; THE SAGES SAY: [HIS DEATH IS] AT THE HANDS OF HEAVEN.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by neilgodfrey »

John2 wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:25 pm Neil wrote:
But back on to your argument, when you say "is supported", do you mean, more precisely, that other details make the argument "permissible" or "possible"?
Yes, all I mean is that it is plausible, given the context of the times (according to Josephus and the Talmud), that James was clubbed.
This is where our views diverge. One can imagine any number of hypothetical explanations or background scenarios and find details that give them a "pass" (they are permissible, possible) . . . .

But 'scientific research' cannot (does not) function that way. Such an approach allows for any number of hypotheses to be argued without any means of testing or disproving any of them.

We need positive evidence that clearly establishes a point we are making; not simply an escape-door that allows us to argue a point.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Ulan »

The online translation by W. Whiston et al. carries this comment by the way:

"2 Of this condemnation of James the Just, and its causes, as also that he did not die till long afterwards, see Prim. Christ. Revived, vol. III. ch. 43-46. The sanhedrim condemned our Savior, but could not put him to death without the approbation of the Roman procurator; nor could therefore Ananias and his sanhedrim do more here, since they never had Albinus's approbation for the putting this James to death"

Of course, something like this happens if you want to make all texts you have ring true.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John2 »

Neil wrote:
This is where our views diverge. One can imagine any number of hypothetical explanations or background scenarios and find details that give them a "pass" (they are permissible, possible) . . . .

But 'scientific research' cannot (does not) function that way. Such an approach allows for any number of hypotheses to be argued without any means of testing or disproving any of them.

We need positive evidence that clearly establishes a point we are making; not simply an escape-door that allows us to argue a point.
I agree, but I don't think I'm imagining anything that isn't plausible (and I would venture to say even likely), since Josephus (in the same chapter as the James passage) and the Talmud say that the servants of the family of the priest who sentenced James to death beat people with impunity during this period, so it is no great stretch to suppose that it could have happened to James too. For me it is like imagining that Josephus' James could have been pushed off of a platform because it is part of the procedure for stoning in Rabbinic Judaism.

Given that we are in a position of not knowing exactly what happened to Josephus' James, I suppose we could leave it at that, but I think these are reasonable suppositions.

Stephan wrote:
There is nothing in the Torah like this. The actual context

IF ONE STEALS THE KISWAH,23 OR CURSES BY ENCHANTMENT, OR COHABITS WITH A HEATHEN [LIT. SYRIAN] WOMAN, HE IS PUNISHED BY ZEALOTS.24 IF A PRIEST PERFORMED THE TEMPLE SERVICE WHILST UNCLEAN, HIS BROTHER PRIESTS DO NOT CHARGE HIM THEREWITH AT BETH DIN, BUT THE YOUNG PRIESTS TAKE HIM OUT OF THE TEMPLE COURT AND SPLIT HIS SKULL WITH CLUBS. A LAYMAN WHO PERFORMED THE SERVICE IN THE TEMPLE, R. AKIBA SAID: HE IS STRANGLED; THE SAGES SAY: [HIS DEATH IS] AT THE HANDS OF HEAVEN.
I didn't have time to check San. 81b last night, and it looks like you've since corrected your post regarding the date of it, but I see now that the above passage is from the Mishnah and not the Gemara, which would make this no later than c. 200 CE (for what it's worth).

And Sefaria gives the translation as "pieces of wood" instead of "clubs," which I assume means wood that was used on the altar, and if that is the case then this passage would not apply to James the Just because he is said to have been struck by a fuller's club ("with which he beat out clothes"), and that seems more in line with the servants of the High Priests who beat people with impunity in Ant. 20 and Pes. 57a.
In the case of a priest who performed the Temple service in a state of ritual impurity, his priestly brethren do not bring him to court for judgment; rather, the young men of the priesthood remove him from the Temple courtyard and pierce his skull with pieces of wood.

https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.81b.1 ... l&lang2=en
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Secret Alias »

While the idea that this action against the priests might have been with a club is interesting it turns out to be based on a misrepresentation of the Aramaic and - in fact - we can be almost certain that the terminology suggests a spear rather than a club. The legal precedent if you will is Numbers 25.6 where - as part of the purging from Baal Peor - an Israelite married to a foreigner (Midianite) was killed by zealots armed with a spear (רמח).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Secret Alias »

ומפציעין את מוחו בגזירין is not 'struck with clubs' per se but pierced with pieces of wood, axes, iron shears (= so Sokoloff)
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply