Historical Jesus and Historical Tank Man: A Similitude?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Everybody knows this image:





This is "Tank Man" the protester who stood in front of a line of Tanks at Tienanmen Square in 1989. It's an iconic image - heroic, inspirational, aspirational, a moment of pure good in history. This man's image has been seen all over the world by billions of people right here in modern history with all our modern technology and media, but here's the odd thing. Nobody knows who he was. He has never been persuasively identified. A name was reported early by a UK newspaper, but there was no confirmation. The Chinese Government says they never ID'd him and don't know what happened to him. There have been some scattered rumors or claims, including a claim that he was executed by a Chinese firing squad, but really nothing definitive or conclusive. He is a cipher. All we know about him is what he did for a few minutes on that one day.

At least some attempts to fictionalize identities and biographies have occurred (Wiki names a play called *Chimerica* written by Lucy Kirkwood) and other rumors and tales have popped up too. All are probably bullshit, no one has a clue, but as a thought experiment, what if a character and story were to be solidified around this character. Everything in it would be made up except for the part where he was standing in front of a column of tanks. One of the names tossed out early was somebody named Wang Weilin. Let's just shorten that to Wang, and say that somebody formulates a life of Wang, (using the I Ching and the Analects of Confucius to divine prophetic information) that portrays Wang as a paragon of morality and virtue who stands in front of the oppressors and, in the end, is executed for it. Let's say others pick up on this and start embellishing the life of Wang even more, perhaps even making him into a divine figure of some sort and an entire raft of heroic literature emerges about Wang, much of it contradictory, some interdependent, all of it made up, yet a consensus "canonical" Wang eventually arises which includes some aspects that "everybody agrees are facts," such as that he was executed by a firing squad, or that he was born in XYZ Province because nobody would make that up.

My question is this - is there still a "historical Wang," even though the legend created about him is completely fictional? Somebody still stood in front of those tanks.

My analogy to Jesus would be a moment like that. A basically unknown figure who attracted imagination and sympathy for something but whose legend was virtually all invented. Just as a hypothetical, imagine that some kind of disturbance happens at the Temple during Passover. Somebody has to take the rap for it. The wrong guy is arrested and basically takes the penalty even though he had nothing to do with it. The Romans need a body and don't really care. An innocent man being crucified engenders sympathy. Perhaps the execution even becomes seen as self-sacrificing - he chose to go to the cross to prevent violence against the Jews. he could have defended himself but didn't.

Let's say everything else about Jesus' life is invented. All that's REALLY known is that he got crucified. Let's say his name wasn't even Jesus. Would that still count as a "Historical Jesus?"

[GakuseiDon]

Let's say everything else about Jesus' life is invented. All that's REALLY known is that he got crucified. Let's say his name wasn't even Jesus. Would that still count as a "Historical Jesus?"

I'd say "no". It would be hard to use "historical Jesus" in a sentence, other than to state he was crucified. He may as well not have existed.

I think "everything else about Jesus' life is invented" is close to what we have anyway. It's certainly very difficult to say whether everything else about Jesus was invented or not, which comes to about the same. There is no certainty, only various degrees of (subjective) probabilities.

[toejam]

My analogy to Jesus would be a moment like that. A basically unknown figure who attracted imagination and sympathy for something but whose legend was virtually all invented. Just as a hypothetical, imagine that some kind of disturbance happens at the Temple during Passover. Somebody has to take the rap for it. The wrong guy is arrested and basically takes the penalty even though he had nothing to do with it. The Romans need a body and don't really care. An innocent man being crucified engenders sympathy. Perhaps the execution even becomes seen as self-sacrificing - he chose to go to the cross to prevent violence against the Jews. he could have defended himself but didn't.

Let's say everything else about Jesus' life is invented. All that's REALLY known is that he got crucified. Let's say his name wasn't even Jesus. Would that still count as a "Historical Jesus?"

Seems plausible. I can see what you're saying - a legend grows up around "that guy who was unfairly crucified". I only hesitate though due to Paul's letters. Paul seems to know personally some from Jesus' inner circle - Peter and James, specifically. Also, Josephus and Hegesippus seem to be aware of Jesus' brother/s being in some position of inheretence of Jesus' legacy. That's getting pretty darn close to the historical Jesus. Don't get me wrong - I agree that there is more legend and spin in the gospels than fact. But I think there's enough of a core to at least say he was some sort of Jewish cult-leader figure already with a following prior to his crucifixion - not a complete unknown like Tank Man. It also seems a little strange that if Jesus was the equivalent of Tank Man, that people would attribute so much apocalyptic material onto his lips and sayings such as "I have not come to bring peace but a division" etc. I still think the 'best fit' is the 'apocalyptic prophet' archetype.

[MrMacSon]

Let's say everything else about Jesus' life is invented. All that's REALLY known is that he got crucified. Let's say his name wasn't even Jesus. Would that still count as a "Historical Jesus?"

I'd say "no". It would be hard to use "historical Jesus" in a sentence, other than to state he was crucified. He may as well not have existed.

I think "everything else about Jesus' life is invented" is close to what we have anyway. It's certainly very difficult to say whether everything else about Jesus was invented or not, which comes to about the same. There is no certainty, only various degrees of (subjective) probabilities.

I agree with Gukeseidon. The crucifixion of the Jesus-character may be myth-fiction, too.

[maryhelena]

Let's say everything else about Jesus' life is invented. All that's REALLY known is that he got crucified. Let's say his name wasn't even Jesus. Would that still count as a "Historical Jesus?"

I'd say "no". It would be hard to use "historical Jesus" in a sentence, other than to state he was crucified. He may as well not have existed.

I think "everything else about Jesus' life is invented" is close to what we have anyway. It's certainly very difficult to say whether everything else about Jesus was invented or not, which comes to about the same. There is no certainty, only various degrees of (subjective) probabilities.

Agreed!

So, it's one assumption on the historicists side - and another assumption of the ahistoricists side. Thus, take up the assumption that appeals to one (for whatever reason) and run with it. For myself, I think the ahistoricist assumption, no historical gospel Jesus (of whatever variant its supporters can create) has more going for it. It opens the door to investigating the historical background to that gospel story. It is not confined to the few short years of that gospel figure. It can spread it's canvas wide in a historical sense and also with sources. It takes on board Hasmonean history. In contrast, the historical JC is a dead end - going nowhere except around and around in circles. It's a futile search for a nobody.

Understanding the gospel story, understanding it for it's theology or philosophy or prophetic interpretations, is one thing. Identifying the when, the how and the why, of how that story came to be created is something else entirely. i.e. who said what and meant what in the story might be interesting in and of itself - but that's just playtime for interpretation games. Plenty of that going on every Sunday from the pulpit and the doorstep. View that gospel story as a literary creation, a drama played out on a stage or platform - and then ask oneself what is the support structure for that platform. Is it Pauline imagination - surely not, visions are two a penny - hence can't provide a quality, a durable and strong support structure. Plus they are prone to the the idiosyncrasy of fashion. History, on the other hand, does provide material that can be used as a support structure for a stage or platform. A stage upon which to play out a 'salvation' drama that draws upon known history. Historical memories dim with time; leading to the historical support structures becoming invisible to the naked eye. The result being that the 'salvation drama' itself became viewed as historical.

I'm not up on all things Shakespeare - but if this is what he was about, methinks, the gospel writers would be in agreement.

Besides his tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, his comedies, and an isolated history play, King John (1594-96), Shakespeare wrote a second sequence of plays on English history, going back to the kings who had preceded Henry VI and the Wars of the Roses. The first play in the new sequence, Richard II, was followed by the three plays known as the Henriad: Henry IV (in two parts) and Henry V. With his two tetralogies, or sets of four plays, on the English kings from Richard II to Richard III, Shakespeare perfected the dramatic genre known as "histories." Shakespeare's chief aim was to get his audience to reflect on England's past,

http://english.umn.edu/faculty/haley/shakesp.htm

my bolding

Thus, paraphrase the above: The gospel writers chief aim was to get their audience to reflect on Israel's past. Why? Because without a foundation in history, their gospel 'salvation history' would be without a strong and durable support structure.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Maryhelena,

Good point about Christian myth being a reflection on Israel's past. My one problem with the idea of Antigonus being tabbed as the crucified Christ is that it was in the so distant past. Could it be that Simon Bar Kokhbar was crucified? We never find out what happened to him. Could it have been kept quiet? That could have been the historical incident that set off the tremendous re-evaluation (or "retcon" - retroactive continuity as it is known in comic book theory) that the Jesus myth represents.

As far as Tank Man is concerned. His five minute show of angry courage would have been totally meaningless without CNN broadcasting it to hundreds of millions of people repeatedly for days and years afterwood. CNN created the myth. CNN is owned by Time-Warner. It made 3 billion dollars in profit last year on revenues of 13 billion dollars. CNN simply picked out the symbols it wanted to use to create the myth of the lone individual standing up to communist/government military power. The five minutes of street theater was entertaining enough, but nobody would have remembered it ten minutes later if CNN had not used the material to create the myth.
Tank Man appears to be one of the ten thousand or so student demonstrators that had been demonstrating against the government for weeks. Everybody knew that the demonstrators were angry that the government was ending their protests with military force. There was no new information in the report at all. It was not even news let alone history.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Let's say everything else about Jesus' life is invented. All that's REALLY known is that he got crucified. Let's say his name wasn't even Jesus. Would that still count as a "Historical Jesus?"

I'd say "no". It would be hard to use "historical Jesus" in a sentence, other than to state he was crucified. He may as well not have existed.

I think "everything else about Jesus' life is invented" is close to what we have anyway. It's certainly very difficult to say whether everything else about Jesus was invented or not, which comes to about the same. There is no certainty, only various degrees of (subjective) probabilities.

Agreed!

So, it's one assumption on the historicists side - and another assumption of the ahistoricists side. Thus, take up the assumption that appeals to one (for whatever reason) and run with it. For myself, I think the ahistoricist assumption, no historical gospel Jesus (of whatever variant its supporters can create) has more going for it. It opens the door to investigating the historical background to that gospel story. It is not confined to the few short years of that gospel figure. It can spread it's canvas wide in a historical sense and also with sources. It takes on board Hasmonean history. In contrast, the historical JC is a dead end - going nowhere except around and around in circles. It's a futile search for a nobody.

Understanding the gospel story, understanding it for it's theology or philosophy or prophetic interpretations, is one thing. Identifying the when, the how and the why, of how that story came to be created is something else entirely. i.e. who said what and meant what in the story might be interesting in and of itself - but that's just playtime for interpretation games. Plenty of that going on every Sunday from the pulpit and the doorstep. View that gospel story as a literary creation, a drama played out on a stage or platform - and then ask oneself what is the support structure for that platform. Is it Pauline imagination - surely not, visions are two a penny - hence can't provide a quality, a durable and strong support structure. Plus they are prone to the the idiosyncrasy of fashion. History, on the other hand, does provide material that can be used as a support structure for a stage or platform. A stage upon which to play out a 'salvation' drama that draws upon known history. Historical memories dim with time; leading to the historical support structures becoming invisible to the naked eye. The result being that the 'salvation drama' itself became viewed as historical.

I'm not up on all things Shakespeare - but if this is what he was about, methinks, the gospel writers would be in agreement.

Besides his tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, his comedies, and an isolated history play, King John (1594-96), Shakespeare wrote a second sequence of plays on English history, going back to the kings who had preceded Henry VI and the Wars of the Roses. The first play in the new sequence, Richard II, was followed by the three plays known as the Henriad: Henry IV (in two parts) and Henry V. With his two tetralogies, or sets of four plays, on the English kings from Richard II to Richard III, Shakespeare perfected the dramatic genre known as "histories." Shakespeare's chief aim was to get his audience to reflect on England's past,

http://english.umn.edu/faculty/haley/shakesp.htm

my bolding

Thus, paraphrase the above: The gospel writers chief aim was to get their audience to reflect on Israel's past. Why? Because without a foundation in history, their gospel 'salvation history' would be without a strong and durable support structure.

[maryhelena]

Hi Maryhelena,

Good point about Christian myth being a reflection on Israel's past. My one problem with the idea of Antigonus being tabbed as the crucified Christ is that it was in the so distant past. Could it be that Simon Bar Kokhbar was crucified? We never find out what happened to him. Could it have been kept quiet? That could have been the historical incident that set off the tremendous re-evaluation (or "retcon" - retroactive continuity as it is known in comic book theory) that the Jesus myth represents.

<snip>

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

But, PhilosopherJay, World War 1 is the distant past to most of us - and yet there are lots of commemorative events being organized today, 100 years later. The Simon Bar Kokhbar war was the footnote, so to speak, of Jewish resistance to Roman control, the beginning of that Roman involvement in Judea goes back to 63 b.c. and Pompey. gLuke, with his mention of Lysanias ruler of Abilene is going backwards with his story; back to around 40 b.c. and the execution of Antigonus three years later. His birth nativity in 6.c.e. is around 70 years back to the events of 63 b.c. (Archelaus is removed as earlier Aristobulus was removed). It is Jewish history, Hasmonean Jewish history, that the gospel writers are pointing to as being relevant to their literary gospel Jesus 'salvation story'.

And what would be the Hasmonean interest in a 'salvation story' derived from their history? I could well imagine that one thing they would have learned is that war with Rome was futile - that war was, in and of itself, futile. An earthly, physical kingdom, was no longer a possibility. A spiritual kingdom, a kingdom without end, would begin to raise possibilities. That is simply to say that a theology, a new theology, could provide 'salvation' of a sort that physical realities denied them. Which is simply to say that a philosophical approach to their tragedy would move them towards a realization that all is not lost. There was/is meaning to be grasped from their historical context. What that meaning was - well then, that would be up to how we are going to go about interpretating that gospel JC story....

[ficino]

Despite all the conversations, I still have trouble with the phrase, "historical Jesus." So far, my understanding is that we mean, someone named Jesus, of whom at least one thing said in the portrayal of the gospel Jesus can be established as true -- or even, as likely -- by methods of historical inquiry.

The Tank Man analogy isn't even like this. At least we have a photo of Tank Man.

-------------------
edited to add:

Actually, scratch the "at least one thing" requirement. I think we need a minimum set of nuclear properties sufficient to link any supposed HJ to the gospel figure. "Guy named Jesus who was crucified" won't be enough.

If Shakespeare knew someone who was depressed, and S. drew on that acquaintance when he constructed his character, Hamlet, "Depressed Chap" won't serve as a "historical Hamlet" because there isn't enough overlap of nuclear properties. We could only say that Depressed Chap provided S. with inspiration for aspects of his portrayal of the character.

This is the problem some of us were debating with srd44 a few months ago.

But we can't get any nuclear properties except from the gospel stories, which, I think, most of us think are already fictionalized. Even to think that HJ might have been a guy who caused a ruckus in the Temple court and was arrested, etc. relies on the gospel stories for this guess.

I don't see a way out of the circle, but perhaps others have seen it.

[Bernard Muller]

Even to think that HJ might have been a guy who caused a ruckus in the Temple court and was arrested, etc. relies on the gospel stories for this guess.

I don't see a way out of the circle, but perhaps others have seen it.

Let's consider:

a) "Mark" described very quickly the 4 elements of this incident in general terms (NO "some", "few", "many", "most " or "all " in his narration). He did not draw any theological conclusion from the story.

b) Soon after the narration of the ruckus, "Mark" wrote "And the scribes and chief priests heard it and sought how they might destroy Him; for they feared Him, because all the people were astonished at His teaching." (11:18 emphasis mine)
Let's notice "Mark" avoided to say theses scribes and chief priests began to look for way to have Jesus killed because of the "disturbance".

c) Allegedly one day later, Then they came again to Jerusalem. And as He was walking in the temple, the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders came to Him.
And they said to Him, “By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority to do these things?”
The doings (likely meaning the disturbance) are not treated by "Mark" as an offence but just as a statement.

d) Later "And they sought to lay hands on Him, but feared the multitude, for they knew He had spoken the parable [of the tenants] against them. So they left Him and went away." (12:12 emphasis mine)
Again no mention of the ruckus. The reason for the chief priests wanting to arrest Jesus is again because of the teaching, not the disturbance.

e) After the arrest, during the interrogation by the chief priests and the so-called trial by Pilate, again the disturbance is never mentioned as a cause for punishing Jesus.

All of the above makes me think the ruckus in the temple by Jesus was not an invention by "Mark", but rather something heard from eyewitness(es), which he felt compelled to put in his gospel (for sake of bringing an air of authenticity), reducing it as just an incident with little or no consequences. As a matter of fact, "Mark" treated that ruckus as, yes I dare to say it, embarrassing.

Cordially, Bernard

[ficino]

The Criterion of Embarrassment has been hard hit in recent years, for its methodology doesn't seem to avoid begging the question. Can you defend the CoE in general, before seeking to apply it to the ruckus in the Temple scene?