How do we know X existed?

[maryhelena]

Just corrected a date in the above chart - from 4 b.c.e. to 40 b.c.e. (an obvious typo.....chart has been copied and pasted a number of times.)

As to the two video links - the 100 year memorial of the first World war in 2014 at the Tower of London - and the 2016, 100 year anniversary of the Easter Rising in Dublin - two 100 year remembrance periods that indicate past tragedies are kept in mind.

One could perhaps think that both Philo and Josephus were doing something similar: Philo is interested in the year 37 c.e. Tiberius is dead, Gaius/Caligula makes Agrippa a King. Philo tells the story about Carabbas and the mocking of a Jewish King with Hasmonean ancestry. 100 years since 63 b.c. and the loss of Hasmonean sovereignty to Rome.

Josephus also has a story about 37 c.e. Tiberius dead, the war between Herod/Antipas and Aretas (and his linking that war with his John the baptizer story) Aretas III having been involved with the civil war between the two Hasmoneans, Hyrancus and Aristobulus - around 63 b.c.

Josephus further has a story 100 years from 37 b.c. and the Roman execution of the last Hasmonean King. Josephus places his James story around the time of Albinus - 62-64 c.e. This time slot including the 100 year anniversary of the events of 37 b.c. Josephus places Jesus ben Annias around 63 c.e. - 7 years prior to the fall of Jerusalem. (Josephus dates Herod's execution of Hyrcanus to around 30 b.c. - 7 years after the execution of Antigonus)

I think it fair to say that both Philo and Josephus were well aware of past Hasmonean history and it's tragic ending. In their stories regarding the years 37 c.e. and 63 c.e. their stories are doing what the above two youtube links have done. They are remembering their history - in this case 100 years of Hasmonean history taking in the years 63 b.c. and 37 b.c. Keeping in mind that both Philo and Josephus were writing their stories of remembrance under Roman occupation.

Bottom line - if two prominent Jewish figures of the lst century are remembering past Hasmonean history with their stories placed 100 years from past historical events - then, methinks, we have little reason not to think that the gospel writers were not doing the same thing with their Jesus allegorical stories.

(gLuke remembering past Hasmonean history by placing his Jesus story in/from the 15th year of Tiberius - which is around 70 years from 40 b.c. when Antigonus was made King and High Priest of Judea....leading to his execution, beheading, hanging on a stake 3 years later....))

[maryhelena]

There are a number of figures in the writing of Josephus that have no external evidence for historicity: Judas the Galilean, the Egyptian and Jesus ben Saphat. That Josephus in his writings mentions historical figures - Tiberius, Gaius, Hasmonean rulers, does not allow one to assume other figures Josephus writes about are historical figures. That is taking Josephus on trust. Developing theories around Josephan figures that have no external evidence for historicity is mistaken. Particularly so when one's intent is to link such figurers to the gospel Jesus story. In this case - gospel story - historical evidence for historicity is essential for any Josephan figure one seeks to link to that gospel story. Otherwise - one is simply blowing in the wind....

How do we know X existed? Historical artefacts - coins in particular. If understanding the gospel story is our aim - we should not be shortchanging ourselves by assuming such and such a Josephan figure was a historical figure. The goal before us - understanding the gospel story - is too big an issue within our cultural heritage to be dependent upon trusting Josephus. Yes, one can't get past Josephus as a window to the first century - but as James McLaren says, it's time we left the official Josephan tour. It's time to question Josephus, to put Josephus in the dock of historical inquiry, to stand apart from him. Trust is not a replacement for historical evidence.

The first century CE is like an ancient monument. It is a place of interest with riches that the visitor wants to stand among, their ambience to imbibe. Unfortunately, access to the site is limited to one point of entry. Most of the sources only provide a mere glimpse of the site. The only point of entry which allows you to view the site from within is the narrative of Josephus. The problem is that, once inside, we are offered an ‘official’ guided tour of the site. Josephus takes us to the various locations that he deems are the highlights. Our excitement at entering the site, therefore, is balanced by the requirements of Josephus that he shows us the official tour. It is time we left the official tour party. We have been given access to the site by Josephus but to ensure we are able to explore its contents in detail we must stand apart from him. As such, our visit to the site may take more time than the official tour program allows. But who wants to stay on a tour that does not let you stop and take your own pictures? James S. McLaren: Turbulent Times? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Afterall, I remember that Neil wrote somewhere that if we are discussing yet about the historicity of Jesus is precisely because we (would) have Mark as first gospel and not the Fourth Gospel, where the principal hero is easily judged as: never existed.

I assume that you know the saga of Wilhelm Tell and the stories of Till Eulenspiegel. At first glance, one might assume that the legend of Wilhelm Tell could have a historical kernel while no one would assume that of Till Eulenspiegel.

Interestingly, so far I know, it's the other way around. While Swiss scholars, despite great efforts, could not prove any historical Tell, it seems that the robber Till van Cletlinge was the historical Eulenspiegel. It teaches us that the type of literature and the literary portrait do not show whether there is a historical kernel or whether it is just pure literature.

[Giuseppe]

Interestingly, so far I know, it's the other way around.

if we assume that the first gospel started with the descent of a divine entity from above in Capharnaum, I think that we are titled to a mythicist position with more certainty than if we assume a baptism of a mere pious Jew in the incipit of the first gospel.

Accordingly, I would follow your invitation to prudence of judgement only if we had Mark as first gospel.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Everyone who thinks that Jesus was a real person does so because they assume or believe that the Gospels are accounts of his life and death, no matter how exaggerated. That's fine.

(bolding mine)

Granted, at least for most people. Some may think differently. My own considerations would probably go in a different direction.

1. The seven letters of Paul are authentic.
2. Mark was a Pauline follower.
3. Paul's Cephas is Mark's Simon Peter.
4. Therefore, Cephas and James were historical persons.
5. Cephas "knew" Jesus before Paul did.
6. Mark criticized Cephas (and his followers) for thinking that Jesus was just a human being.
7. Therefore, Jesus was a human being

However, there are some, who even after accepting that the Gospels aren't based on the life of Jesus, accepting one theory or another of how they are entirely made up, still say, "But that still doesn't prove that he didn't exist."

That's how we humans are!

I think everyone knows that Juliet's balcony in Verona is a fake but everyone goes and looks at the balcony and "believes" in it. It is real to us because it is nevertheless old and a symbol of love. That's why we want to see Juliet's balcony in this faked balcony. You will never change that.

[andrewcriddle]

If you agree with this, (and the other point argued by Sherwin-White that things were markedly different in the mid 2nd century CE), then it probably follows that the NT documents (mostly) date from before the mid 2nd century CE.

Andrew Criddle

Can you clarify how this impacts on the question of historical methods for determining how historians come to "know their facts"?

We disagree on the rhetorical status of Finley's specific point in the way he phrased his response to Sherwin-White but that is not the same as engaging in a discussion on what Finley "believed" more generally -- and any approach directed towards that end is surely getting away from the point of the thread. I assume Finley "believed" the general consensus of much of NT scholarship when the case for that consensus was based on sound historical reasoning. -- as do I. But focusing on F's "beliefs" is surely a form of ad hominem fallacy and I'd rather focus on everything F had to say about methods.

Not that I think that we should be alarmed at any conclusion that valid historical methods might open up as possibilities, but let me offer reassurance have no reason to think anything other than "that the NT documents (mostly) date from before the mid 2nd century CE".

And for the record, I really have no idea whether the Gospel of Mark was a product of the first or (early) second century. Certainly one can count more points in favour of it being first century than the second. But in my own mind, whatever way it falls, it was most decidedly before the mid second century.

What I am trying to say is that the historical methods as expressed by historians and philosophers of history do not guarantee a common set of conclusions about hypotheses (including hypotheses on dates of sources) built upon a common understanding of "the facts".

I suggest that a discussion on methods by which historians date documents belongs to another thread. Until then, a good starting point is a"minimalists" take on how its "normally" done.

Hi Neil

I think you are probably right that we are drifting off-thread or off-topic. My argument about Finley was that New Testament scholars and non-Biblical Ancient Historians use similar methods to determine the dates of ancient documents, whether or not they agree on the historical reliability of such documents,

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

My argument about Finley was that New Testament scholars and non-Biblical Ancient Historians use similar methods to determine the dates of ancient documents, whether or not they agree on the historical reliability of such documents,

Andrew Criddle

If only that were so -- though I am quite sure New Testament scholars generally use the same methods for dating when it fits their models of Christian origins. Unfortunately, I don't think all of them do use the same methods when it comes to dating the gospels and Paul's writings. Niels Peter Lemche wrote of the discrepancies between NT and nonbiblical historians wrt dating "Old Testament" works in Did Moses Speak Attic? -- but I believe his points apply in their own way to NT scholars, too: https://vridar.org/2012/01/01/scientifi ... e-gospels/

Maybe I should start a new thread on "How do we know When X existed?" (sigh ... )

[schillingklaus]

No, there is absolutely no need for Mk to have read the Jewish bible, as it may have just copied from sources which did.

[mlinssen]

No, there is absolutely no need for Mk to have read the Jewish bible, as it may have just copied from sources which did.

That's not a very convincing possibility as it is dependent on those alleged sources for which you naturally can't provide any evidence.
It is absolutely evident that Mark not only read the Hebrew bible, but even a very specific version of it: the mangled Greek translation that we know as Septuagint. And in all likelihood that was combined with the very creation of said Septuagint, driven by the same impetus that drove Mark

[Leucius Charinus]

I have a problem with some discussions here that attempt to identify or establish the hsitorical existence of figures like Paul, James son or brother of x y or z, Teacher of Righteousness, and others whose names escape me at the moment.

In other areas of ancient history it seems to me that a person is known to have existed or event known to have happened where the following conditions are found:

1. a source that is justified in some way (justified as being from eyewitness or other contemporary person known to have been in a position to know) is referred to;

2. there is an independent contemporary source confirming the first or at least reassuring us of the credibility of the claim in the first source (#1 above). This confirmation may not always refer explicitly to the person whose historicity we are questioning, but it will help us evaluate the overall reliability of source #1.

///

Sometimes #1 can be met but not #2. Example, we have the claim of Philostratus that he used the eyewitness testimony of Damis for his information about Apollodorus of Tyana but we have no independent evidence to confirm the reliability of this eyewitness source.

Archaeological evidence needs to be added into the mix. For example we do apparently have a "generous" inscription attesting to Apollonius.

http://mountainman.com.au/Apollonius_Inscription.htm

'This man, named after Apollo,
and shining forth Tyana,
extinguished the faults of men.
The tomb in Tyana (received) his body,
but in truth heaven received him
so that he might drive out the pains of men
(or:drive pains from among men) .'

--- Ancient inscription, translated C. P. Jones
https://www.jstor.org/stable/630745