Fernando Bermejo-Rubio latest article June 2024

[DCHindley]

I liked his Epilogue

How (Not) to Change a Paradigm

Throughout this book I have argued that we should not gullibly trust the Gospel stories as they
stand.

As in many other cases of ancient sources, they do not tell us what [really] happened regarding Jesus of Nazareth and other people,

• but only what the evangelists thought had happened,

• or what they wanted others to think [had happened],

• or perhaps what they wanted themselves to think had happened.

In these circumstances, what really occurred has still to be reconstructed in the mind of the historian or in that of any thoughtful person.

Formatting is mine.

FWIW, this is a position that Alun Munslow calls Reconstruction, with an acknowledgement that all narrative representations of history will ne by necessity always relative to the writer, not necessarily the facts of the matter.

DCH

[maryhelena]

I liked his Epilogue

How (Not) to Change a Paradigm

Throughout this book I have argued that we should not gullibly trust the Gospel stories as they
stand.

As in many other cases of ancient sources, they do not tell us what [really] happened regarding Jesus of Nazareth and other people,

• but only what the evangelists thought had happened,

• or what they wanted others to think [had happened],

• or perhaps what they wanted themselves to think had happened.

In these circumstances, what really occurred has still to be reconstructed in the mind of the historian or in that of any thoughtful person.

Formatting is mine.

FWIW, this is a position that Alun Munslow calls Reconstruction, with an acknowledgement that all narrative representations of history will ne by necessity always relative to the writer, not necessarily the facts of the matter.

DCH

Yes, David, that is all anyone can do - write a narrative. That is all that historians can do - write a narrative. A narrative built around historical facts, as far as they can be established. Even with Josephus we are dealing with a narrative; hence identifying what historical facts he is basing his narrative upon becomes
vitally important.

It is evident that the narrative of events contained in Josephus's texts should not be taken at face value. The interpretative framework as outlined indicates that to distinguish between the comments and the narration of events is not possible. It is not simply a matter of dismissing Josephus's interpretations, nor a matter of working out which version of an event is accurate. The interpretative process is more fundamental: it controls the entire choice of subject matter and, therefore, the overall picture that is being conveyed. We must now contend with the possibility that although we can make conclusions and observations regarding what Josephus narrates, what we can conclude is, in itself, the product of an interpretation. In other words, the picture being used to understand the first century CE in Judaea may not necessarily provide the reader with a 'full' or 'balanced' representation of what was happening in the territory. In effect, our major resource for examining the period is itself a constructed picture.

James S. McLaren: Turbulent Times ? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE. page 67.

What I like about Bermejo-Rubio is that he strives, as a historian, to get to grips with the gospel Jesus story. (albeit as of now confining himself to the time of Tiberius and Pilate.) I enjoyed his book far more than his article dealing with Jesse Nickel. That article, the reason for this thread, clearly displayed his frustration with the type of arguments put forward by Nickel - and by others who follow Nickel's approach with viewing the gospel Jesus story, the gospel narrative, as sort of sacrosanct. It is what it is - a narrative not an historical account.

Bermejo-Rubio’s last words from the Epilogue of his book:

Of course, these musings are, at the end of the day, irrelevant for historians, who honestly do their work irrespective of the corollaries or the echo they will find. The Jewish resisters who constitute the subject of this book belong, by definition, to the history of Judaism, not to that of Christianity. Although the disclosure of the extent of the ideological factors in this field should make us skeptical about the not very promising future, at least we can contemplate the story of the men crucified at Golgotha with a more lucid, insightful, and honest regard, far from narrow parochialism, strange oblivions, and blatantly distorting biases. After all, clearheadedness is, for secular-minded historians, their first intellectual imperative.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (pp. 384). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

All a historian can take out of that gospel Jesus narrative is historical content. That content takes the historian far away from the time of Tiberius and Pilate. It takes one all the way back to the Roman occupation of Judaea - to the Hasmoneans and to Herod.

Perhaps, at the end of the day, Bermejo-Rubio has his own personal mountain to climb regarding the full impact of recognizing the gospel Jesus story as a narrative - just as Thomas Brodie spoke about the penny finally dropping in regard to the figure of the NT Paul. For a historian true to his trade - Bermejo-Rubio has nowhere to go with his seditious Jesus hypothesis but to history. However, Tiberius and Pilate are no help here - but earlier Roman/Judaean history can provide a way forward in understanding the seditious elements of the gospel Jesus narrative.

[davidmartin]

"The Jewish resisters who constitute the subject of this book belong, by definition, to the history of Judaism, not to that of Christianity"

this assumes there was never a point where those two histories intersected, which if he still has to mention it this late in the book shows he hasn't proven it at all, nor was he trying to the fact he does shows he is lining up for a follow up book to part with more of your hard earned money. but if he can't prove it in his first book what is the point of buying another? It's more logical to simply assume the two histories do interconnect and not even buy his first book on the subject

[maryhelena]

"The Jewish resisters who constitute the subject of this book belong, by definition, to the history of Judaism, not to that of Christianity"

this assumes there was never a point where those two histories intersected,

An intersection, as you call it, was not the topic of Bermejo-Rubio's book. The above statement does not assume that an intersection between Jews and Christians never too place.

which if he still has to mention it this late in the book shows he hasn't proven it at all, nor was he trying to the fact he does shows he is lining up for a follow up book to part with more of your hard earned money. but if he can't prove it in his first book what is the point of buying another? It's more logical to simply assume the two histories do interconnect and not even buy his first book on the subject

[maryhelena]

Bermejo-Rubio, by confining his seditious Jesus hypothesis to the time of Tiberius and Pilate, is shortchanging his seditious hypothesis from being a viable historical narrative. To add historical substance to his hypothesis the historical framework of the gospel Jesus narrative has to be widened. The historical focus of the gospel Jesus narrative can be widened earlier than the time of Tiberius and Pilate.

1) The time of Herod ( Matthew’s gospel) runs from 40 b.c. when he was made King by the Romans. At that time the Hasmonean, Antigonus, was King of Judaea.

2) Lysanias of Abilene. (Luke’s gospel)

3) ''Lysanias was the ruler of a tetrarchy, centered on the town of Abila. This has been referred to by various names including Abilene, Chalcis and Iturea, from about 40-36 BC.''

4) ''The father of Lysanias was Ptolemy, son of Mennaeus, who ruled the tetrarchy before him. Ptolemy was married to Alexandra, one of the sisters of Antigonus,[1] and he helped his brother-in-law during the latter's successful attempt to claim the throne of Judea in 40 BC with the military support of the Parthians. Ptolemy had previously supported Antigonus's unsuccessful attempt to take the throne of Judea in 42 BC……In 33 BC Lysanias was put to death by Mark Antony for his Parthian sympathies, at the instigation of Cleopatra, who had eyes on his territories.[4] ……Coins from his reign indicate that he was "tetrarch and high priest". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysanias''

Lysanias was put to death of Marc Antony - the man who a few years earlier had put to death the last King and High Priest of the Jews. Antigonus II Mattathias in 37 b.c.

70 years from 40 b.c. and one arrives in the time of Tiberius, around 30 c.e. The gospel Jesus narrative is, as it were, a snapshot, of these 70 years.

It’s also possible to go back further than 40 b.c. The NT narrative places Paul in Damascus under Aretas. The Nabataean ruler who controlled Damascus from 85 b.c. to 72 bc. and from 69 bc. to 62 b.c. was Aretas III.

The relationship of Aretas III with the Hasmoneans is interesting:

‘’Aretas advanced towards Jerusalem at the head of 50,000 men, besieging the city for several months. Eventually, Aristobulus bribed Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, deputy of the Roman general Pompey. Scaurus ordered Aretas to withdraw his army, which then suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Aristobulus on the journey back to Nabatea.’’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aretas_III

Tiberius died in 37 c. e. Around 100 years from 63 b.c. when Pompey enter into the most Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem temple - thus desecrating the sanctity of the Jewish temple.

63 b.c. 40 b.c. 37 b.c. - These are the historical dates in Hasmonean/Jewish and Roman history. These are the dates that can be discerned to be of interest to the writers of the NT. Historical dates around which a NT narrative has been constructed.

Yep, easy to shake ones head and move on - but it's Jewish history here and therefore not for non-Jews to negatively question these dates. Dates of only historical interest but not dates around which a Jewish narrative could be developed. Living as they were under Roman occupation they would have had little option as to how to remember their dead 'seditious' freedom fighters. A narrative would be one way to tell their history.

≠========++++++

Added later.

Nothing in the above history suggest that any historical figure is the historical gospel related Jesus figure. On the contrary, what history does suggest is that the gospel Jesus figure is a composite figure. A composite figure reflecting whichever historical figures suited the gospel narrative.

Think James Bond and how Fleming created that literary figure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B ... n%20tastes.

[StephenGoranson]

When declaring which dates to consider and which to ignore, perhaps correct the death of Tiberius, not "...37 b.c....37 b.c...."
OK, you probably didn't mean 37 b.c.
Still, why think of it as if a 100-year anniversary? Who thought that then? Why try to impose that, as if it were evidence for your preferred story?

[maryhelena]

When declaring which dates to consider and which to ignore, perhaps correct the death of Tiberius, not "...37 b.c....37 b.c...."
OK, you probably didn't mean 37 b.c.

Thanks for the proof reading. Mistake corrected.

Still, why think of it as if a 100-year anniversary? Who thought that then? Why try to impose that, as if it were evidence for your preferred story?

63 bc to 37 ce is around 100 years. Nothing I can do about that. Evidence.... Simply acknowledging historical facts. Make of them as you will. Each to their own narrative after all. Don't like mine... no problem... Lots of others to choose from so you won't be left without options.

[maryhelena]

A recap of sorts on Bermejo-Rubio's seditious Jesus hypothesis - and where I think he has yet to go with it....

In an earlier post I made reference to a comment by Bermejo-Rubio in reply to Jesse Nickel:

Nickel: In essence, therefore, he [Bermejo-Rubio] expands Dunn’s statement: “to be ‘historical’ the Historical Jesus must have been crucifiable” … and to be crucifiable, the Historical Jesus must have been seditious.

BR: In other words, according to Nickel, I would imply that Jesus’ crucifixion is
enough to prove that he was involved in sedition.

Bermejo-Rubio’s focus in his seditious Jesus hypothesis is on a recurrent pattern:

.... recurrent patterns are an essential point in understanding the argumentative force of the hypothesis under discussion.........The hypothesis, such as I have articulated it, does not depend, nor is focused, on the historicity – or on the interpretation – of this or that pericope, but on the reliability of the whole broad impression.’’

However, in his book Bermejo-Rubio makes this statement in regard to the titulus crucis - the King of the Jews inscription placard used in the gospel Jesus crucifixion narrative.

In the light of the former survey, there are no serious reasons to doubt the historicity of this detail, which would have informed everyone in Jerusalem of the charge against the Galilean teacher. This conclusion is interesting, since it means that the only words written about Jesus during his lifetime contain an unmistakable charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 228). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

If the only words written in the gospels with a clear, unmistakable, charge of sedition against the Roman Empire it is the titulus crucis - then surely the gospel crucifixion story is the main event and not just one element of a general pattern of sedition. It is, after all, the ‘King of the Jews’ charge that would be highly relevant for a Roman crucifixion in occupied Judaea.

As some readers of this forum will know, I have over the years, considered the historical figure of the last King and High Priest of the Jews (Antigonus II Mattathias) as the relevant figure represented, remembered, in the gospel crucifixion story:

The statement by Cassius-Dio has been questioned.

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."[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonus_II_Mattathias

Josephus (quoting Strabo) says Antigonus was beheaded. Plutarch also says Antigonus was beheaded.

Josephan scholar Daniel Schwartz:

The chronology of Herod's conquest of Jerusalem has been studied in detail by
numerous scholars, including, in the past generation, Schalit, "Schiirer,"
Stern, van Bruggen, Smallwood and Baumann. Although Josephus {Ant.
14.487) dates it to the Day of Atonement (10 Tishri), all these scholars, as
others, agree that the conquest was in fact completed in ca. July 37."'
---------------
But Antigonus was executed in Antioch by Mark Anthony {Ant. 14.488-490; Strabo, apud Ant.15.9),"^ and, as is shown by the latter's movements, that occurred in the late autumn of 37, or perhaps early in 36. Anthony was still in Tarentum in September—October 37."' Thus, there is nothing here to contradict the usage of an autumn 37 era. Apparently, Josephus, or already Herod, was only willing to count the new king's regnal years after Antigonus was completely removed.
.....
However, as we have seen, in fact at least a few months went by between July 37 and Antigonus' execution.

Daniel R Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Page 176/177/178.

A few months between the fall of Jerusalem and the Roman execution of Antigonus - time here for a flogging on a cross, stake, or pole prior to being beheaded. Suspension of dead people and suspension of living people being referenced by David Chapman in his book. Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion.
Also worth keeping in mind the Josephan narrative about his friend, an unknown man, taken down alive from a cross during the war of 70 c.e.

Consequently, although the statement of Cassius-Dio can be questioned - the possibility that Antigonus was bound to a cross/stake/pole and scourged prior to being beheaded is not without merit. Where would Cassius-Dio get this information about Antigonus from? Great question but because he does not say so we are left to either deal with it or ignore it as irrelevant. By the time Cassius-Dio lived (around c. 165 – c. 235) the gospel crucifixion story, re the consensus position on dating the gospels, was written. Thus, Cassius-Dio could have made the connection - gospel crucifixion narrative of a crucified King of the Jews - with the historical Roman execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews.

Modern commentators have made this connection when considering the statement of Cassius Dio.

''Dion Cassius says, 'Antony now gave the Kingdom to a certain Herod, and having stretched Antigonus on the cross and scourged him, which had never been done before to a king by the Romans, he put him to death'. The sympathies of the masses for the crucified king of Judah, the heroic son of so many heroic ancestors, and the legends growing, in time, out of this historical nucleus, became, perhaps, the source from which Paul and the evangelists preached Jesus as the crucified king of Judea.'' (History of the Hebrew's Second Commonwealth, 1880, Cincinnati, page 206)

Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise (1819-1900), scholar and novelist

http://collections.americanjewisharchiv ... wealth.pdf

John Robinson:

14. Possible Historical Elements.

The scourging and crucifixion of Antigonus, again, must have made a profound impression on the Jews; 2 and it is a historic fact that the similar slaying of the last of the Incas was kept in memory for the Peruvians by a drama annually acted. 3 It may be that the superscription "This is the King of the Jews," and even the detail of scourging, 4 came proximately from the story of Antigonus; though on the other hand it is not unlikely that Antony should have executed Antigonus on the lines of the sacrifice of the mock-king.

Pagan Christs, by John M. Robertson, [1911],

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/pch/pch41.htm

Greg Doudna on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Links Antigonus execution to a DSS figure hung up alive.

The major objection raised in secondary literature to this reading
of Pesher Nahum, as alluding to a doomed ruler of Israel hung up
alive, has actually been a non-textual reason: a perception that nothing
corresponds with such an image in known history. Was there ever a
Jewish ruler, a Hasmonean king or high priest, in the era of these texts
who was hung up alive? Actually, there was.
.....
There is only one context in the first century bce with which this portrayal of violent death at the hands of gentiles for a ruler of Israel corresponds, and that is the Roman invasion which ended the Hasmonean dynasty in 37 bce………
Antigonus Mattathias was captured in Jerusalem and killed by gentiles in a foreign country. And of particular interest in light of the allusion in Pesher Nahum is the fact that Cassius Dio, the Roman historian, says that Antigonus Mattathias was hung up alive on a cross and tortured in the process of being executed by Mark Antony. In his death at the hands of gentiles Antigonus Mattathias corresponds with the portrayal of the death of the Wicked Priest, and Antigonus Mattathias is the only Hasmonean ruler of the first century bce who does.
And so it seems to me that the wicked ruler of these texts reflects Antigonus Mattathias, and that the Lion of Wrath alludes to Mark Antony who hung up alive Antigonus...

https://www.academia.edu/12144236/_Allu ... Q169_2011_

Whether or not Cassius Dio’s statement on Antigonus; that he was hung up alive on a stake/cross/pole; can be historically verified is not the whole issue here. The gospel crucifixion narrative has used elements of the Josephan narrative regarding Antigonus. It is that use of the Josephan narrative by the gospel writers that brings into question the role, the connection, of the Roman execution of Antigonus to the gospel crucifixion narrative.

The chart below has had a number of posts on this forum. I repost it here in order to demonstrate how the gospel writers have turned to the Josephan narrative about the Roman execution of Antigonus.)

HISTORY and Coins	JOSEPHUS: War (about 75 c.e.) Antiquities: (about 94 c.e.)	Gospel Reflections
King Antigonus Mattathias: High Priest of the Jews: Hasmonean Bilingual Coins, Hebrew and Greek…(40-37 b.c.)	Antigonus enters Jerusalem: Antigonus himself also bit off Hyrcanus's ears with his own teeth, as he fell down upon his knees to him, that so he might never be able upon any mutation of affairs to take the high priesthood again, for the high priests that officiated were to be complete, and without blemish. War: Book 1.ch.13 (40 b.c.)........................Antony came in, and told them that it was for their advantage in the Parthian war that Herod should be king; so they all gave their votes for it. War: Book 1.ch.14 (40 b.c.)	John 18.10; Mark 14.47; Matthew 26.51; Luke 22.50. John and Luke specifying right ear, Mark and Matthew have 'ear'. gJohn stating that Peter cut off the ear the High Priest's servant.
	Now as winter was going off, Herod marched to Jerusalem, and brought his army to the wall of it; this was the third year since he had been made king at Rome; War: Book 1. ch.17 (37 b.c.).. Herod on his own account, in order to take the government from Antigonus, who was declared all enemy at Rome, and that he might himself be king, according to the decree of the Senate. Antiquities Book 14 ch.16	gJohn indicates a three year ministry for JC
Cassius Dio: Antigonus. These people Antony entrusted to one Herod to govern, and Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,—treatment accorded to no other king by the Ro-mans,—and subsequently slew him. Roman History, Book xlix, c.22	Then it was that Antigonus, without any regard to his former or to his present fortune, came down from the citadel, and fell at Sosius's feet, who without pitying him at all, upon the change of his condition, laughed at him beyond measure, and called him Antigona. Yet did he not treat him like a woman, or let him go free, but put him into bonds, and kept him in custody.... Sosius ......went away from Jerusalem, leading Antigonus away in bonds to Antony; then did the axe bring him to his end..War: Book 1.ch.18. ..Antigonus, without regard to either his past or present circumstances, came down from the citadel, and fell down at the feet of Sosius, who took no pity of him, in the change of his fortune, but insulted him beyond measure, and called him Antigone [i.e. a woman, and not a man;] yet did he not treat him as if he were a woman, by letting him go at liberty, but put him into bonds, and kept him in close custody.......	The soldiers mock Jesus: Mark 15.16-20; Matthew 27:27-31. Jesus flogged: John 19:1; Mark 15:15; Matthew 27:26. JC crucified. Trilinqual sign over cross: Aramaic, Latin and Greek. gJohn 19.19-21. JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Other variations: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS; THE KING OF THE JEWS; THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
...	...and then .but Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate, and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavored to persuade him to have Antigonus slain. Antiquities: Book 14 ch.16. (Slavonic Josephus has the teachers of the Law giving the money to Pilate...)	Judas betrays JC for 30 pieces of silver. Matthew 27.3
...	Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet. (37 b.c.) Antiquities: Book 15 ch.1	Acts: 11:16. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

(Yes, Antigonus died while the gospel Jesus crucifixion narratives has a resurrection, rebirth story. In other words - from historical tragedy a rebirth was possible. Not a rebirth of Hasmonean nationalism but a rebirth of a ‘spiritual’ kingdom not of this physical, material, world. Pauline philosophy of neither Jew nor Greek was the way forward…..)

…the fact that the hypothesis of a seditious Jesus elicits allergic reactions in the guild is not hard to glimpse: it comes as extremely upsetting for too many people, who see it as an affront to their most cherished beliefs. The view of Jesus as a man sharing the ideology and values of many of his contemporaries gives the lie to the myth of his uniqueness. The view of him as a nationalistic-minded Jew, showing partiality and not being indifferent to the Roman control gives the lie to the myth of his uniqueness. The view of him as a nationalistic-minded Jew, showing partiality and not being indifferent to the Roman control of his land, deals a fatal blow to the idea of the universal Lord. The view of him spearheading an armed group debunks the notion of the pacific and meek man of sorrows. The view that he was actively involved in anti-Roman resistance makes exceedingly implausible the idea that he went to his death voluntarily, and shatters to pieces the moving story of a helpless victim. Key elements of the Christian myth seem accordingly to collapse.

.....

Good history seeks the truth regardless of how it makes us feel, but too many in the field seem to be prone to opposing embarrassing ideas at all costs, even at the expense of consistency and plausibility. As to the minority of secular historians in the guild, they smile at the simultaneously disheartening and amusing sight of a field swarming with hoary howlers, but they are not embarrassed in the least by the most compelling results of centuries’ long research. After all, even if one feels a deep sympathy both for Jesus and for those who venerate him, according to the Latin motto, magis amica veritas: a better friend is truth.

Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance. A Reassessment of the Arguments
Fernando Bermejo-Rubio

Journal for the study of the historical Jesus 12 (2014) 1-105

https://www.academia.edu/10232441/_Jesu ... 2014_1_105

[maryhelena]

As noted in the above post Bermejo-Rubio, in response to the book by Jesse Nickel, makes the point that his seditious Jesus hypothesis is a hypothesis in which there are various elements and that the gospel crucifixion narrative is just one part of a pattern of incidents.

However, it is interesting to consider what he wrote in an earlier article - actually a speech to a convention in 2017. The speech has recently, last year, been included and published with other convention speeches. On his academic edu page Bermejo-Rubio only has available a download of the conference flyer.
(I googled the article but it’s only available within the combined conference ‘book’. It is available as a free pdf download . However, the file needs to be resaved as it won’t open otherwise. Chrome comes up with website ‘not secure’. However, I’ve had no problems - website is Italian - maybe that’s the issue…..)
http://www.fedoabooks.unina.it/index.ph ... g/book/425

The Bermejo-Rubio article is titled:

The Jewish Scriptures in the Gospels’ Construction of Jesus: The Extent of a Literary Influence and the Limits of Mythicism

The question of what information in the gospels might be used by historians to write a factual sketch of Jesus is, according to mythicists, a false one and a distraction. Given the heavy commitment of many scholars to the idea that the New Testament faithfully reflects historical facts, when we come to think about the intertextual development of the gospels and the extent of the influence of Jewish scriptures on Jesus’ story, our stance must be clarified in the face of the so-called mythicism. After all, the goal of this paper is—as its subtitle indicates—to make plain, at one and the same time, the extent of the literary influence of the Jewish scriptures on the gospels’ construction of Jesus and the limits of mythicism.
---
Some scholars have denied the historical existence of Jesus since the 18th century at least, usually claiming that he is a purely literary phenomenon. This topic was tackled by quite a few authors at the end of the nineteenth century and the first third of the twentieth century, but since then the notion that Jesus never existed is typically viewed as so weak, fanciful or bizarre that it is ignored within the guild, or, at best, its treatment is relegated to footnotes; until very recently it was unfamiliar to many New Testament scholars. I think this oversight is ill-advised. Although the issue of the non-historicity of Jesus is admittedly not a widespread position, it has been a long-running side current and nowadays it is no longer a strictly marginal one. Scholars like Thomas Thompson and Richard Carrier have carried out a revival of the non-historicity hypothesis. Moreover, along with mythicists, other scholars like Robert Price or Hector Avalos declare themselves ‘agnostic’ as to Jesus’ existence.19 Although sometimes these approaches have been blithely dismissed as ‘anti-Christian’,20 some recent works –like that of the Roman Catholic priest Thomas L. Brodie (a member of the Dominican order)– prove that they are making inroads into ‘normative’ Christianity and that they are not held simply because of purely ideological (polemical) reasons.

I guess most in the field tend to think that mythicist arguments are old and outdated (even outlandish), and that they were fairly dealt with one hundred years ago, so that mythicism does not deserve scholarly attention. Although by no means am I a mythicist, I disagree with this scornful treatment, because I think there is more than preposterous claims in this kind of approach. Its starting-point is indeed a fact, namely, the truly problematic nature of the sources available for the study of Jesus: their apologetic and tendentious
character, and the high percentage of non-historical material they contain, should give all serious historians food for thought.
----
According to Brodie, ‘Biblical studies are plagued by a premature rush towards historical issues, without taking the necessary time to do the detailed preliminary literary homework’.I think this is a reasonable and healthy warning, and this is the reason why we must pay attention to the extent of literary influences in the gospels.
---
The point I would like to make now is that, once we recognize the extent of the process of mythmaking, there are still several aspects left, and that these aspects are overlooked not only by mythicists but also—what is more revealing—by the overwhelming majority of mainstream scholarship. For the sake of brevity, here I will focus on just two aspects of the gospels, more particularly of the Passion accounts, namely, the arrest and the crucifixion. Both episodes are obviously connected, both are apparently historical, both are crucial for any reconstruction of the fate of Jesus and both present many problems of reliability when attentively surveyed, since both narratives are riddled with scripture allusions.
-------
Now, the interesting thing is that, as I have argued elsewhere, a close reading of the gospel accounts compels us to reconstruct the events of Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion in a way which is rather different from the version concocted by the evangelists or their forerunners. That reconstruction, which takes seriously into account the traces of a different story, is not reducible to the influence of the scriptures and is not only by far more plausible and meaningful, but also epistemologically and heuristically more satisfactory: the disturbing nature of that version for Jesus’ followers in the last third of the first century contributes to explaining the emergence of the gospels themselves as works whose authors tampered with the evidence.
----
As it has been argued above, some mythicist claims should be seriously taken into account, inasmuch as their proponents are right in pointing out the serious problems of the available sources and the great extent of their literary borrowings. This attention to an often hastily discarded trend can only improve the critical regard of the historian. At the same time, I have argued that the main contention of mythicists (and ‘Jesus-agnostics’) seems to be ultimately unconvincing. As proved in the survey of the episodes regarding Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion—whose details are never satisfactorily explained by mythicists —the hypothesis that an underlying story of a Galilean preacher involved in anti-Roman resistance has been tampered with and partially replaced by fanciful and embellished narratives accounts for the many gospel inconsistencies and makes sense of the whole evidence. This implies that a certain Jesus existed, although there is every indication that he was significantly different from the mythic hero created by the evangelists and the underlying tradition represented by Paul.
---------
Once more, Alfred Loisy’s concise formulation deserves to be cited: ‘We can explain Jesus, (but) we cannot explain those people who would have invented him’. To put it in a more qualified manner, it seems to be simpler and easier to account for the existence of a critically ‘reconstructed’ or ‘reformulated’ Jesus than to explain the identity, the methods and the reasons of those who would presumably have carried out a wholesale concoction of this figure.

Bermejo-Rubio seems to think the gospel crucifixion narrative is able to fault the non-historical Jesus of mythicists.

‘’The point I would like to make now is that, once we recognize the extent of the process of mythmaking, there are still several aspects left, and that these aspects are overlooked not only by mythicists but also—what is more revealing—by the overwhelming majority of mainstream scholarship……
For the sake of brevity, here I will focus on just two aspects of the gospels, more particularly of the Passion accounts, namely, the arrest and the crucifixion.’’

However, as noted in the chart in the previous post, it is history that faults his own seditious Jesus hypothesis. Yes, seditious elements are within the gospel narrative - primary the King of the Jews title being a seditious charge under Roman occupation. But these seditious elements point not to the time of Tiberius and Pilate but to the time of Herod and Marc Antony (the time of Caesar.) Bermejo-Rubio has conceded that: ‘’This fabrication seems to have taken place through several means. One of them is the anachronistic projection of later events and ideas into Jesus’ . If later events are accepted as meaningful for the writers of the gospel narrative.. - Why are not earlier events meaningful for the writers of the gospel narrative. ??

In his book Bermejo-Rubio said this:

Therefore, it is highly likely that the reports placing Jesus in the middle reflect a historical fact that was deep-rooted in tradition. Now, a person occupying a middle place within a group is, as is well known, its leader. In an account of Philo (In Flaccum 6.36–41), which is often cited in the interpretations of Mark, the pagan populace of Alexandria dressed up a certain Carabas as a mock king, and “young men carrying rods on their shoulders as spearmen stood on either side of him in imitation of a bodyguard.”

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 345). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

This, as far as I know, is the only place Bermejo-Rubio makes mention of Philo’s narrative about Carabas. A narrative that has been used in connection with the mocking of the gospel Jesus. (Matthew 27: 27-31)
But is this all there is to this Carabas narrative ? A case of one mocking being compared to another mocking. Similarity but of no further significance.

The speech of Agrippa I to Gaius is viewed as not from the mouth of Agrippa I but from the pen of Philo. In that speech, Philo has Agrippa I say this:

And I am, as you know, a Jew; and Jerusalem is my country, in which there is erected the holy temple of the most high God. And I have kings for my grandfathers and for my ancestors, the greater part of whom have been called high priests, looking upon their royal power as inferior to their office as priests; and thinking that the high priesthood is as much superior to the power of a king, as God is superior to man; for that the one is occupied in rendering service to God, and the other has only the care of governing them. Accordingly I, being one of this nation, and being attached to this country and to such a temple, address to you this petition on behalf of them all; on behalf of the nation, that it may not be looked upon by you in a light contrary to the true one; since it is a most pious and holy nation, and one from the beginning most loyally disposed to your family. (Philo: Embassy to Gaius)

Philo is stating that Agrippa I has ancestors in Hasmonean history.

The Carabas narrative:

VI. (36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas, afflicted not with a wild, savage, and dangerous madness (for that comes on in fits without being expected either by the patient or by bystanders), but with an intermittent and more gentle kind; this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths; and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him; (38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state. (39) Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign; (40) when Flaccus heard, or rather when he saw this, he would have done right if he had apprehended the maniac and put him in prison, that he might not give to those who reviled him any opportunity or excuse for insulting their superiors, and if he had chastised those who dressed him up for having dared both openly and disguisedly, both with words and actions, to insult a king and a friend of Caesar, and one who had been honoured by the Roman senate with imperial authority; but he not only did not punish them, but he did not think fit even to check them, but gave complete license and impunity to all those who designed ill, and who were disposed to show their enmity and spite to the king, pretending not to see what he did see, and not to hear what he did hear. (Philo: Flaccus)

In 37 c.e, re Josephus narrative, Gaius makes Agrippa a King - of the territory of Philip the Tetrarch. Territory that, re Josephus, on the death of Philip, became part of Syria. What Hasmonean ancestor of Agrippa I was connected with Syria? Antigonus - who was executed in 37 b.c.by Marc Antony in Syrian Antioch.

The mocking of Carabas links Agrippa I to the mocking and Roman execution of his Hasmonean ancestor. And if it is that Carabas narrative that the gospel writers were using for their crucifixion narrative - well then, Philo’s narrative belies any claim that its just fun and games in Alexander rather than a serious political allegory.

As an aside: Josephus is also interested in what happened in Syrian Antioch: The Josephan TF is placed within a context of 19 c.e. - from the death of Germanicus to the expelling of Jews from Rome. The connection of Germanicus to Antioch ? He was poisoned there on the 10th October 19 c.e.

(Eusebius would have been out of his mind to place a whole cloth TF within a context of 19 c.e. His reading of Josephus re the appointment of Pilate to Judea can no longer be upheld. Josephan scholars, Daniel Schwartz and Steve Mason supporting the earlier date of around 18/19 c.e.)
======================================
Bermejo-Rubio does need to be commended for his years of research and articles on his seditious Jesus hypothesis - but this hypothesis does not do what he seems to think it can do - it does not support a gospel Jesus (of whatever clothes one dresses him in) - it supports a historical execution, a beheading of the last Hasmonean King and High Priest of the Jews, in Syrian Antioch in 37 b.c. A beheading that does not negate the words of Cassius Dio:

Wikipedia: 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."

Josephus: Life. I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered.

Is Josephus writing history here - or is he remembering an earlier siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c. ? History forward from the time of Tiberius and Pilate and history backword to the time of Herod and Marc Antony. There is all to play for here - setting down the framework for researching the full scope of Roman occupation of Judaea is vital for any investigation into early Christian origins.
==============

footnote:

The crucifixion is only one element in the gospel Jesus narrative. Rather than thinking one man was both a seditionist and a prince of peace (possible of course - think Nelson Mandela) but within a short span of the adult years of the gospel Jesus hardly likely. A composite literary Jesus figure allows much more scope for a historical approach to the gospel story. So then - all you historical Jesus followers - have your prince of peace by all means - but don't attempt to crucify him....

[Giuseppe]

Thank you, maryhelena, it seemed very impossible to find that speech!

It is interesting the note 2 of page 124:

For instance, it has been recently argued that the Synoptic narratives of the Passion contain a stratum composed in Judaea on the eve of the Great Revolt, and that they anachronistically reflect some facts which actually took place in the 60s in that province; see Jonathan Bourgel, ‘Les récits synoptiques de la Passion préservent-ils une couche narrative composée à la veille de la Grande Révolte Juive?’, NTS 58 (2012): 503-21.

(my bold)

Unfortunately I have not found the article but a review of it:

Les annexes s’ouvrent avec un chapitre intitulé « Les récits synoptiques de la Passion préservent-ils une couche narrative composée à la veille de la Grande Révolte Juive ? » (p. 187‑203), qui reprend et modifie un article publié dans New Testament Studies 58/4 (2012), p. 503‑521. L’idée est que l’écriture du récit de la comparution de Jésus devant le sanhédrin est inspirée par ce qui est arrivé à Jacques et a marqué la communauté chrétienne de Jérusalem. Quant à l’épisode de Barabbas, il est repris de la libération de « Jésus fils d’Anan » en 62 par Albinus. Cela permet de conclure l’ouvrage par une boucle : la vie de la première communauté chrétienne influence la rédaction des évangiles.

(my bold)

Hence possibly the idea is arisen independently in Greg Doudna, that Barabbas is Jesus ben Ananias released by Albinus. While the arrest and the trial of the Gospel Jesus is based not only on Jesus ben Ananias, but also on the trial of James "the brother of Jesus" by the high priest Ananus.


The implication is that, even if that James was a Christian, then the Gospel story is designed to allegorize the parable of a group, not of a single person.