At What Point Does 'Based on a Historical Character' Become Unhistorical?

[Sinouhe]

So first, I think we have to tackle whether or not certain scenes in the Gospels are records of actual events. I provide an example of how I address that here: http://www.decipheringthegospels.com/examples.html

In that example, I compare the claims of scholars like Bart Ehrman and J. P. Meier regarding the Cleansing of the Temple to a literary assessment of the Temple cleaning scene. I think from this literary assessment we can conclude that the Temple cleansing scene is not in any way based on real events, rather it is an entirely fictional literary invention.

Did you read what Timothy J. Geddert wrote in 1989 about the cleansing temple being a reference to Hosea ?

[rgprice]

Many already have arrived at a minimal HJ, clinging by the fingernail of their left pinky

The thesis I put forward in the book is that the "reason" the first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, was written was reaction to the First Jewish-Roman War

I should have saved myself the trouble to initially take you seriously on your Mark-Marcion priority try out.
And you should have done likewise

There is no way to prove non existence, scientifically speaking. You can argue and reason, that's all. Reasonable doubt is the best we can get

That's clearly not true. To take an extreme example, what if we found an authenticated letter carbon dated to the early second century, stating that he had written an allegorical story about Jesus that placed the heavenly figure in a historical context, though it was of course not true and Jesus had never actually been to earth.

Of course such an outlandish thing was never written and will never be found, but it could have been written. And if it were, then it would provide pretty definitive proof. So to claim that it "cannot be proven" is quite an overstatement. And that's not the only such way to make a definitive case, I'm just pointing out the obvious extreme.

[rgprice]

So first, I think we have to tackle whether or not certain scenes in the Gospels are records of actual events. I provide an example of how I address that here: http://www.decipheringthegospels.com/examples.html

In that example, I compare the claims of scholars like Bart Ehrman and J. P. Meier regarding the Cleansing of the Temple to a literary assessment of the Temple cleaning scene. I think from this literary assessment we can conclude that the Temple cleansing scene is not in any way based on real events, rather it is an entirely fictional literary invention.

Did you read what Timothy J. Geddert wrote in 1989 about the cleansing temple being a reference to Hosea ?

No. Yeah, I will concede that some scholars may be aware of this. I should have said something more like, "The fact that this scene is based on a literary allusion rarely acknowledged, even by top theologians and Bible scholars."

[Sinouhe]

So first, I think we have to tackle whether or not certain scenes in the Gospels are records of actual events. I provide an example of how I address that here: http://www.decipheringthegospels.com/examples.html

In that example, I compare the claims of scholars like Bart Ehrman and J. P. Meier regarding the Cleansing of the Temple to a literary assessment of the Temple cleaning scene. I think from this literary assessment we can conclude that the Temple cleansing scene is not in any way based on real events, rather it is an entirely fictional literary invention.

Did you read what Timothy J. Geddert wrote in 1989 about the cleansing temple being a reference to Hosea ?

No. Yeah, I will concede that some scholars may be aware of this. I should have said something more like, "The fact that this scene is based on a literary allusion rarely acknowledged, even by top theologians and Bible scholars."

I'm not being critical
I found Timothy J. Geddert’s commentary on the cleansing temple by accident and i was happy to found a scholar pushing this idea. I think it’s important for us (mythicists) to quote scholars. It give us a little more credits.
I can post the commentary on the cleansing temple by Geddert if you are interested.

[mlinssen]

Many already have arrived at a minimal HJ, clinging by the fingernail of their left pinky

The thesis I put forward in the book is that the "reason" the first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, was written was reaction to the First Jewish-Roman War

I should have saved myself the trouble to initially take you seriously on your Mark-Marcion priority try out.
And you should have done likewise

There is no way to prove non existence, scientifically speaking. You can argue and reason, that's all. Reasonable doubt is the best we can get

That's clearly not true. To take an extreme example, what if we found an authenticated letter carbon dated to the early second century, stating that he had written an allegorical story about Jesus that placed the heavenly figure in a historical context, though it was of course not true and Jesus had never actually been to earth.

Of course such an outlandish thing was never written and will never be found, but it could have been written. And if it were, then it would . So to claim that it "cannot be proven" is quite an overstatement. And that's not the only such way to make a definitive case, I'm just pointing out the obvious extreme.

That would be nothing more than just a story, Geoff

How on earth would that "provide pretty definitive proof"?
What we need is evidence, and given the existing sources that we have, for instance even the Falsifying Fathers themselves attesting to the fact that there were no eye witnesses who left written accounts, it is guaranteed that none of that will ever turn up.
The best that we can - and will - do is to trace back the gospels to Thomas, and to demonstrate that Thomas is about anything but a historical Jesus

And even that will give us nothing more than reasonable doubt

[Paul the Uncertain]

Well, I have presumed to take on this issue of course, given that the title of my first book is (controversially) "Deciphering the Gospels Proves that Jesus Never Existed". Granted, this book actually barely scratches the surface of this topic, but I do believe that I did enough to in fact do what the title claims. Some will of course dispute that, but I think many also agree.

The general theory of most Jesus scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other non-Christians, is that the "reason the Gospels were written" was to record the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. The thesis I put forward in the book is that the "reason" the first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, was written was reaction to the First Jewish-Roman War. I contend that the Gospel of Mark is a fictional allegory, and the writer knew that Jesus was not a real person.

Thank you for the answer to my query.

I don't dispute the dependence of Mark on Paul and the Jewish Bible. In the absence of evidence that Mark was a practicing Christian at the time of composition or that his intended audience excluded non-Christians, I steer clear of instructive "allegory" explanations. There is compelling evidence that he was a well-read writer, and strong evidence that he was capable of independent creativity based on "prompts" from what he read. No further explanation of the dependence between his work and his sources seems called for.

For the narrow issue of whether Mark thought of Jesus as a real person who actually lived, I suspect "prompt process" and "allegorical process" would support each of the contending existence hypotheses equally well.

For rehearsal and technical support of performance purposes, I divided the gospel through 16:8 or 16:14 into 46 sections, about 3 per chapter on average (chapter 16 is very short). Of these, 45 showed thematic or word choice dependence on Paul or the Jewish Bible, 31 of them on both. The exception was 1:29 throgh 1:39, which can be explained as craftwork: announcing themes that recur throughout (especially sabbath healing and Jesus's character trait of solitude-seeking) plus a forward (announcing the "grand tour of Galilee").

Given the thoroughness of the dependencies identified (whether from a prompt perspective or an intentional allegorical perspective), I don't see much that betrays whether or not Mark had a real person in mind.

The clearest exception, IMO, is to name an eyewitness to the crucifixion who is not assciated with Jesus's entourage (Simon of Cyrene, described as a passer-by compelled to participate in the affair), and to name a family channel (his two sons, also named) for the tranmission of his story into the next generation, i.e. the usual estimated time of composition.

On the one hand, this is inconclusive evidence for Jesus's historicity, or even for Mark's opinion being that Jesus was historical. Obviously, Mark could make this up regardless for literary effect, just as any writer could. It is, however, evidence for an early awareness of concern about or interest in historicity, and suggestive of at least a "historicist party" among those aware of Jesus stories during the First Century. It is also difficult, for me anyway, to ground these details in either the Jewish Bible or Paul.

I am unimpressed by arguments in the Godfrey style that there is any significance in Mark not saying "here is an eyewitness whose sons I have interviewed for this story." It is very difficult, IMO, to explain naming the reluctant passer-by, and then interrupting the action further to introduce two more characters who have no role in the unfolding drama whatsoever, except as an effort to create an impression of historicity (possibly complementary to an impression of having been written during the next generation).

Whether that's because Mark believes this witness existed or he's made him up cannot be determined from what we have to work with. But then that's also true of not-otherwise-documented eyewitnesses whom other ancient writers, including self-proclaimed historians, claim to exist.

Bottom line: Speaking for myself, I cannot transmute Mark's ornamentation of his Jesus story into evidence against the historicity of Jesus. This, even though I am aware of how much ornamentation there is, and how little even hints at Mark seeking an impression of historicity.

Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter could hardly be evidence against Lincoln's historicity even if it, and works derived from it, were the only evidence we had that bears on whether or not Lincoln was a real person who actually lived (and who's to say that 2000 years from now, our descendants might not be lucky to have even that much about him?). Just my opinion, of course.

[neilgodfrey]

I am unimpressed by arguments in the Godfrey style that there is any significance in Mark not saying "here is an eyewitness whose sons I have interviewed for this story."

Translation:

I am unimpressed by arguments that require the identification of evidence for their support.

Actually P, my argument is that even if Mark did explicitly state Simon and co were eyewitnesses and dropped in a line saying Hello to his readers who knew A and R, that would not prove historicity. You really have missed the whole point of what those historians are saying about their methods and how to study their sources. (Did you even read them? Be honest. )

It is very difficult, IMO, to explain naming the reluctant passer-by, and then interrupting the action further to introduce two more characters who have no role in the unfolding drama whatsoever, except as an effort to create an impression of historicity (possibly complementary to an impression of having been written during the next generation).

Yet not so difficult for theologians and historians to identify evidence-based interpretations that do not resort to unevidenced interest in historicity.

But that's for theologians and historians. Ordinary people don't think or talk like they do, I have learned from Uncertain Paul, so the arguments of theologians and historians don't count. Right, P?

Whether that's because Mark believes this witness existed or he's made him up cannot be determined from what we have to work with. But then that's also true of not-otherwise-documented eyewitnesses whom other ancient writers, including self-proclaimed historians, claim to exist.

Oi, no fair! Herodotus clearly informs us that there were eyewitnesses of Heracles in his day!

Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter could hardly be evidence against Lincoln's historicity even if it, and works derived from it, were the only evidence we had that bears on whether or not Lincoln was a real person who actually lived (and who's to say that 2000 years from now, our descendants might not be lucky to have even that much about him?). Just my opinion, of course.

I simply love these flights of fancy from one so uncertain about anything as Paul. If we only had a vampire story about Abe, well, it is reasonable to think that the story was based on a real person, so it is reasonable on that lack of evidence to think he may well have existed. . . . Sure beats "Godfrey style arguments" that think evidence is important.

---
Edited to add link and explanation of historical method.

[Sinouhe]

Oi, no fair! Herodotus clearly informs us that there were eyewitnesses of Heracles in his day!

True, Simon of cyrene is not an evidence for Jesus.

And Julius of Ascanius is not an evidence for Romulus' historicity or Romulus' resurrection :

DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS - ROMAN ANTIQUITIES
For​ while the Romans were yet in doubt whether divine providence or human treachery had been the cause of his disappearance, a certain man, named Julius, descended from Ascanius, who was a husbandman and of such a blameless life that he would never have told an untruth for his private advantage, arrived in the Forum and said that, as he was coming in from the country, he saw Romulus departing from the city fully armed and that, as he drew near to him, he heard him say these words: 4 "Julius, announce to the Romans from me, that the genius to whom I was allotted at my birth is conducting me to the gods, now that I have finished my mortal life, and that I am Quirinus."

And Chaereas being "the son of Ariston" from Syracuse in the greek novel "Chariton, De Chaerea et Callirhoe" is not an evidence for the historicity of the character :

Chariton, De Chaerea et Callirhoe - Livre 1
Il y avait en effet un certain Chéréas, un adolescent d'une grande beauté, qui surpassait tous les autres, et tel que les artistes et les écrivains représentent Achille, Nirée, Hippolyte et Alcibiade; son père était Ariston, qui, à Syracuse, ne le cédait qu'à Hermocrate.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Translation:

I am unimpressed by arguments that require the identification of evidence for their support.

OK, American English to Australian. Correct in either form.

15:21 (received): They compelled one passing by, coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go with them that he might bear his cross.

15:21 with a twist: They compelled one passing by, coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go with them that he might bear his cross. They would know what their father told them about that day.

15:21 with more twist: They compelled one passing by, coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go with them that he might bear his cross. They would know what their father told them about that day. Here's what they confirmed.

Not much difference in bearing on the historicity of Jesus or the extent to which Mark's Jesus is "based upon" a real person. Who can make up the one, can make up the others, as far as that goes. Mark has told me how he might know what happened to Jesus. That's all he can tell me anyway that has any probative value to me, since I can't verify any of it anyway, in any version.

If unverifiable self-serving claims about sources meant anything to me, then I'd get all excited about John.

(Did you even read them? Be honest.)

That's it. I practice zero tolerance of accusations of dishonesty, including gutless weasel words to the same effect. I don't do it and I don't tolerate it being done to me. This discussion ends here.

[rgprice]

The difference I see is in "proving that X didn't exist" or in "proving that all of the evidence for existence is false or misunderstood."

If you find what you think is a fresh giant footprint, and based on that giant footprint you conclude that there is a giant person roaming the area, but someone else comes along and they show definitively that what you thought was a footprint is not actually a footprint, it was actually made by log, then at that point, it has been proven that the giant didn't exist.

You can't at that point say, "Well, just because yo proved that this isn't a giant footprint doesn't mean anything. It's still possible for the giant to exist!"

Once all of the evidence for existence is debunked, then that's it. What I grow tired of is people acting as though it is impossible to prove, and thus can never be debunked. That's not true at all. The belief that Jesus existed is based on a finite set of fairly well defined evidence. If all of that evidence for his existence is debunked, then he didn't exist.