How do we know X existed?

[maryhelena]

In discussions with maryhelena and Giuseppe I referred to Jesus b Ananias in Josephus. I think I said that he met the two conditions:

Discussion with me referencing Jesus b Ananias ? - check the postings Neil......Jesus b Ananias is Giuseppe's problem not mine.....

#1 -- historical report by a contemporary
#2 -- other sources allow us to attribute credence to Josephus

But there is nothing mechanical about it. If those 2 "conditions" are needed to get us to first base, then what appears there still needs to be analysed.

Jesus b Ananias strikes me as too, too much like a Cassandra trope -- appearing among a list of miraculous signs pointing to divinely ordained doom, and the presumed madness, the failure of others to listen -- surely a literary trope more than a historical person.

Anyway, great to read that you find the Josephan figure of Jesus b Ananias is 'a literary trope trope more than a historical person'. I hope Giuseppe takes note.

[maryhelena]

Thinking more on what I wrote above:

We have the myth and whether it is historically based or not is immaterial to everything else available to us: it is the myth that had the presence and life in history.

Just as the Adam and Eve myth held sway for thousands of years......but science came along and ditched the myth. As for the Jesus myth - history, not midrash, has the potential to ditch that myth.

and

the question "Did Jesus exist" is not worth asking because we cannot even get to first base if we apply the standards used in other historical inquiries.

Just to be clear (hopefully) -- the question that our sources allow us to historically research is "What produced them?" or "What led to this collection of 'Christian' literature?"

I suppose we could ask, "What gave rise to Christianity?" but that one is more difficult because of the problem of defining Christianity and its relation to Judaism (whatever Judaism was). It is easier to ask what gave rise to Christian institutions in a later period of history.

Christian origins - was that not always your interest.....I'm sure I've read that dozens of times over the years....

If, on the other hand, we had reasonable grounds [i.e. conditions #1 and #2?] for thinking a "historical Jesus" did in fact do and say things that started the ball rolling then that would give us the possibility of asking different questions -- assuming that there would be some context to the sources that enable us to treat that Jesus as historical. But we don't, so the best the sources allow us to ask is: "Hello, What's this and how did it get here?"

[Giuseppe]

Anyway, great to read that you find the Josephan figure of Jesus b Ananias is 'a literary trope trope more than a historical person'. I hope Giuseppe takes note.

Note that I knew it already from Doudna's words:

Here is my analysis. Whereas Jesus b. Sapphat is historical (Josephus knew him well), Jesus b. Ananias is more ambiguous, as discussed by Wedeen. Although at first sight it may seem a tough sell as an argument, I think a credible argument can be made that whereas Jesus b. Sapphat is historical, Jesus b. Ananias as a distinct figure told by Josephus may be historically illusory, originating at the outset from florid hearsay accounts of survivors of the siege to Roman interrogators actually applicable to Jesus b. Sapphat, then shaped tendentiously for purposes suiting Josephus’s editorial interests. Anyway this is my take on the matters you raise.

[maryhelena]

Anyway, great to read that you find the Josephan figure of Jesus b Ananias is 'a literary trope trope more than a historical person'. I hope Giuseppe takes note.

Note that I knew it already from Doudna's words:

Here is my analysis. Whereas Jesus b. Sapphat is historical (Josephus knew him well), Jesus b. Ananias is more ambiguous, as discussed by Wedeen. Although at first sight it may seem a tough sell as an argument, I think a credible argument can be made that whereas Jesus b. Sapphat is historical, Jesus b. Ananias as a distinct figure told by Josephus may be historically illusory, originating at the outset from florid hearsay accounts of survivors of the siege to Roman interrogators actually applicable to Jesus b. Sapphat, then shaped tendentiously for purposes suiting Josephus’s editorial interests. Anyway this is my take on the matters you raise.

Perhaps the confusion over your position on Jesus b Ananias stems from what you wrote in an earlier post on this thread.

Giuseppe: I am expecting the reading of Doudna's case (independent from Gospels) for Jesus b. Ananias and Jesus b. Sapphat being one and the same person. If the case will be persuasive, then the immediate implication would be surprising, isn't it?

[neilgodfrey]

(I am not an extreme postmodernist here who denies the possibility and importance of "the actual past").

Neil, can an example of "post-modernist who denies etc" be the author of this book on history? Or do you mean others? Thanks for the info.

No, though I have only read an excerpt from that book (How History Gets Things Wrong) by Alex Rosenberg in Salon.com a few years ago. From that excerpt:

Just to be clear, historians are perfectly capable of establishing actual, accurate, true chronologies and other facts about what happened in the past.

Indeed. (And note, Alex does not say they are adept at working with what they think probably happened or investigating persons they think probably existed!)

The problem is how those facts are mixed and woven through stories. Historians do not so much "discover" the past as "create" a version of it, one that usually has special political or social or ideological or racial or economic meaning for many of us today.

The history that concerns us here explains the past and the present by narrative: telling stories — true ones, of course; that’s what makes them history, not fiction. . . .

It’s crucial to disabuse ourselves of the myth that history confers real understanding that can shape or otherwise help us cope with the future. . . . .

Because the narratives that the field of history has provided have been harmful to the health, well being, and the very lives of most people down through the chain of historical events. Stories historians tell are deeply implicated in more misery and death than probably any other aspect of human culture. . . .

[E]volutionary anthropologists know enough about human cultural evolution to be confident that most histories have motivated and continue to motivate people and peoples to take from — or refuse to share with — others.

And here is the clincher:

indeed, what most faculty members produce in the history departments of the world’s universities is not my target. But the celebrated popular historians whose explanations turn out to be mainly wrong will protest just as vigorously. . . .

Although narrative historians may be able to offer cogent explanations for their revisionism, the succession of these explanations and their lack of convergence, in stark contrast to explanations in the natural sciences, should give us pause for thought.

"the succession of these explanations and their lack of convergence" --- and I bet he hasn't even looked across to that other building where wildly contradictory and even incomparable "recoveries" of "the historical Jesus" are produced.

From https://www.salon.com/2018/10/07/why-mo ... -is-wrong/

[neilgodfrey]

Christian origins - was that not always your interest.....I'm sure I've read that dozens of times over the years....

It is indeed. My latest remarks point to some modification in my understanding of what it is I am looking for. I don't think I would know how to recognize "Christian origins" per se -- what would they look like? If they were as distinct as Luther nailing his 95 theses to a church door then we might be able to do it, but I don't think it happened as obviously as that. We have writings. First task: try to assess how they originated. That would be a big first step, I think.

[maryhelena]

Christian origins - was that not always your interest.....I'm sure I've read that dozens of times over the years....

It is indeed. My latest remarks point to some modification in my understanding of what it is I am looking for.

Yep, thought there was some 'modification' in your position over seeking christian origins......

I don't think I would know how to recognize "Christian origins" per se -- what would they look like? If they were as distinct as Luther nailing his 95 theses to a church door then we might be able to do it, but I don't think it happened as obviously as that. We have writings. First task: try to assess how they originated. That would be a big first step, I think.

First step, Neil, is to put history on the table - history as far as it can be evidenced. From the historical facts a narrative can be put together. Is that not the problem with the gospel Jesus story - it's purely a narrative without any historical fact, historical evidence, for it's figure of Jesus.

How did the writings originate. Some people wrote words on papyrus. Why did they do that - because they had a story to tell. What's the point of the story, what relevance does the story have for us today - what relevance did the story have for the writers of the story........

[neilgodfrey]

First step, Neil, is to put history on the table

You keep saying that. I don't know what you mean -- or at least what I think you think history means is not what I think history means.

What's the point of the story, . . . - what relevance did the story have for the writers of the story........

That indeed is what we are looking for. But assuming, on the basis of some parallels, that the story is about a person who lived at any time in the past is not a valid way to find the answer. We need more than parallels and assumptions about their significance.

[maryhelena]

First step, Neil, is to put history on the table

You keep saying that. I don't know what you mean -- or at least what I think you think history means is not what I think history means.

What's the point of the story, . . . - what relevance did the story have for the writers of the story........

That indeed is what we are looking for. But assuming, on the basis of some parallels, that the story is about a person who lived at any time in the past is not a valid way to find the answer. We need more than parallels and assumptions about their significance.

History Neil, history, precedes any parallels and assumptions.

Antigonus II Mattathias

Josephus states that Mark Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8–9). Roman historian Cassius Dio says that he was crucified and records in his Roman History: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[6] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."

A King of the Jews executed by the Roman Marc Antony - there is enough history there to write many a historical narrative.

Yes, allusions to the Roman execution are evidenced in the gospel crucifixion story - call them parallels if that is what you prefer. But that fact does not change the history upon which they depend - the historical fact that the Romans executed a King of the Jews.

As far as the gospel story is deemed to have been writen many years after the historical execution of a King of the Jews - par for the course here - it's done all the time in writing historical biographies.

[neilgodfrey]

Yes, allusions to the Roman execution are evidenced in the gospel crucifixion story - call them parallels if that is what you prefer. But that fact does not change the history upon which they depend - the historical fact that the Romans executed a King of the Jews.

But how do you know that's what the gospels relying on?