Historicity of Jesus. Now serving Atwil.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can certainly speculate that, maybe, despite the evidence, Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist. You can speculate like that about pretty well any historical fact, however well evidenced. Did Alexander the Great really exist? Did Emily Brontë write Wuthering Heights, or was it really her brother Branwell? Did Adolf Hitler know about the Holocaust? Did the Holocaust really happen? Did the moon landings really happen?

All of which are rather minor leaps of faith by comparison to the existence of an omniscient and omnipresent being called God. Like any pieces of history, our understanding of these events is open to change as more information is presented.

I think arguing the historicity of Jesus with such a broad brush doesn't lead anywhere. Probably more productive to investigate the specific events attributed to him and decide on the probability of same person being involved in all of them as stated. Mythology is often based loosely on actual events, which are subsequently altered to suit the preferred story and characters, much the same as military history is typically written to favour the victor as being on the side of good. Personally, I accept the probability of a historical Jesus figure, though suspect there could have been more than one person involved in the events attributed to him, and would suggest that the bulk of what is presented in the bible as historical event is actually mythology.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

All of which are rather minor leaps of faith by comparison to the existence of an omniscient and omnipresent being called God. Like any pieces of history, our understanding of these events is open to change as more information is presented.

I think arguing the historicity of Jesus with such a broad brush doesn't lead anywhere. Probably more productive to investigate the specific events attributed to him and decide on the probability of same person being involved in all of them as stated . . . Personally, I accept the probability of a historical Jesus figure, though suspect there could have been more than one person involved in the events attributed to him, and would suggest that the bulk of what is presented in the bible as historical event is actually mythology.

As best as I understand it, the academic consensus, to a fair degree of probability, is something like this:

Biography: Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure. He was so called because he came from Nazareth; it is not historically established that he was born in Bethlehem, and some historians consider it unlikely that he was. He had a mother called Mary, a brother called James and other siblings. He was an itinerant preacher and teacher in first-century Palestine. His teachings were sufficiently radical/challenging, and attracted a sufficient public following, that he was considered a disruptive influence and he was executed in Jerusalem under Roman authority.

Following: His execution did not succeed in eliminating his following; some at least of his followers regrouped and from relatively shortly after his death there was an active Jesus-movement, initially in Jerusalem but fairly soon spreading to Antioch and other places. James, the brother of Jesus, was probably a significant figure in this movement. There was significant tension between the Jewish Temple authorities and the Jesus movement, but there’s no evidence that, once Jesus was executed, the Roman authorities took any further interest in his followers. (At least, not until the Jesus movement reached the city of Rome itself, but that’s skipping forward a bit.)

Teachings: The teachings attributed to Jesus in the gospels , very broadly speaking, are rooted in teachings Jesus actually delivered, but that is by no means known to be true of every teaching attributed to Jesus. Plus, the gospels also incorporate some degree of subsequent reflection and digestion of what Jesus taught, and it can be difficult to disentangle what Jesus taught from what the Jesus-movement decided that Jesus meant. This is especially true of the Gospel of John. There’s a fair degree of academic dispute over exactly which teachings are more authentic (not as in, objectively true, but as in, an authentic reflection of something Jesus actually taught), and which less so. In regard to some particular teachings there is a degree of consensus on this one way or the other; in regard to others there is no consensus. Taken as a whole, the teachings attributed to Jesus in the gospels suggest that he emerged from the pharisaic sect of Judaism. The gospels also suggest that he started off as a follower of John the Baptist before establishing an independent ministry of his own, and most historians of the period think this is probably what happened. (And, by implication, they accept the historicity of John the Baptist.)

Miracles: The miracles attributed to Jesus are, naturally, not considered to be historically established. Nor is it necessarily accepted that miracles were even attributed to Jesus during his own lifetime. What I think is accepted as historically established is that from fairly shortly after his death miracles were being attributed to him by his followers, and these included (a) that he was born of a virgin, (b) that he rose from the dead, and (c) that numerous people had encounters with him after his supposed resurrection. In other words, if these particular stories are inventions, they are not inventions from long after Jesus’s time, but from shortly after it. It's more possible that other miracle stories (e.g. healings by Jesus, multiplication of loaves and fishes etc) arise later.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can certainly speculate that, maybe, despite the evidence, Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist.

That speculation is, epistemologically, just as useful as the positive assertions by the religious that Jesus certainly did exist.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno B, Buddhism these days gets a bit of a "free ride" in my humble. Many set out to divest Buddhism of it's magical thinking by suggesting it's a pure philosophy with surprisingly modern thinking on human psychology, however it is chock full of magical thinking in the original of the species. Reincarnation is but one biggie. Demons another. Mara the evil one is seen as an actual reality as well as a psychological state. Today westerners ignore the mara as real and concentrate on the psychology, but both are present originally. Buddha himself was agnostic on the subject of a deity, however he described himself as the human embodiment of natural law/truth/path to enlightenment. "whoever sees the dhamma, sees me and whoever sees me sees the dhamma". Not unlike "I am the way and the light" minus the Abrahamic stuff. IMHO Both are claims that deserve some "eh wut Ted?". Philosophically there are quite a few parallels between them to the degree that many have feverishly sought to claim a Buddhist connection with Jesus and that he may have gone east in his travels as a youth.

Right, but rebirth and the like weren't new concepts when he showed up. None of them requires that he ever existed.
I'm not claiming any of it is pure philosophy, it's a religion, but the very basis of the religion isn't solely dependent on him having existed, not in the same way as the claims of jesus' divinity. The whole idea is that you see for yourself if it makes sense to you and if it doesn't, you can probably find another way of doing things. If it turned out that it was actually Bob down the road who came up with the teachings, they'd still stand on their own and the whole thing wouldn't fall apart.
Same true for jesus/christianity? I doubt it

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, right.

Except, of course, if we’re being absolutely anal, the statement is correct. It is a demonstrable fact, as in, it is in principle capable of being demonstrated.

Is it a demonstrated fact? Well, that’s not a simple binary, since there are gradations of satisfaction with regard to whether we judge a fact to be adequately demonstrated or not. But the only fair and dispassionate answer is, well, it’s pretty solidly demonstrated by the standards of demonstration that academic historians apply to facts of the class concerned.

You can certainly speculate that, maybe, despite the evidence, Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist. You can speculate like that about pretty well any historical fact, however well evidenced. Did Alexander the Great really exist? Did Emily Brontë write Wuthering Heights, or was it really her brother Branwell? Did Adolf Hitler know about the Holocaust? Did the Holocaust really happen? Did the moon landings really happen?

The thing is, these counter-evidential speculations are mostly pretty much at the margins of serious discussion, and - as a couple of the examples I cite illustrate - they’re frequently proposed by someone with an ideological axe to grind rather than by someone motivated by a dispassionate consideration of the historical sources.

I’m not asserting, of course, that those who question the historicity of Jesus are similarly driven by ideological bias rather than sober assessment of the evidence. But that’s an impression they may risk creating by continuing to flog this particular dead horse.

As an academic historian I would say it is not a demonstrable fact as we have yet to discover a primary source which provides contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus -until such time it remains a probable and not a fact according to the rules of historical research - that anal enough?

There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence but a complete absence of conclusive evidence - and therein lies the issue I am addressing.

I find that in the main those with an ideological axe to grind are those who are invested in Christianity and proving it's legitimacy - my only interest is in ensuring the rules of my trade are adhered to when people are throwing the word 'history' around.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

That speculation is, epistemologically, just as useful as the positive assertions by the religious that Jesus certainly did exist.

But, again epististemologically, by no means as useful as the evidence pointing towards his existence.

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As an academic historian I would say it is not a demonstrable fact as we have yet to discover a primary source which provides contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus -until such time it remains a probable and not a fact according to the rules of historical research - that anal enough?

Not quite! Even if we did have a primary source providing contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus, we can still speculate that he might not have existed, since the primary source could be simply wrong, couldn't it? There is actually no conceivable historical evidence, however primary, however contemporary, which would irrefutably establish this fact - or any other.

What we have with Jesus is multiple independent sources pointing to his existence which, while not contemporary, are fairly close enough in time. This comfortably exceeds the standards of evidence that academic historians of the period expect and accept and, as already pointed out, the historicity of a great many people is widely accepted on considerably less evidence.

Is the existence of Jesus a fact? Well, you'll appreciate, whether it's a fact doesn't depend at all on the quantity or quality of evidence that we have, since there are presumptively many facts of which we are wholly unaware, and probably quite a few facts in relation to which we believe the diametric opposite on abundant, convincing but as it happens misleading evidence. Whether a thing is true or not does not depend on whether we know it to be true. As the radical sceptics point out, we can never actually conclusively know that anything is a fact, but that doesn't mean there are no facts.

Are we justified in taking the existence of Jesus to be an established fact? Depends on the standards of evidence we require to establish the fact, which is a matter of subjective preference and may sometimes be influenced by whether we want to take it as established fact or would prefer not to. But, by the standards of evidence customarily applied by professional historians who have no axe to grind one way or the other to fact-claims of this type, are we justified in taking the existence of Jesus to be an established fact? Yes, absolutely, we are. Abundantly justified.

Doctor DooM

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, by the standards of evidence customarily applied by professional historians who have no axe to grind one way or the other to fact-claims of this type, are we justified in taking the existence of Jesus to be an established fact? Yes, absolutely, we are. Abundantly justified.

As a matter of interest- are you a professional historian?

Because you seem to be telling one how to do their job.

Bannasidhe

Doctor DooM wrote: »

As a matter of interest- are you a professional historian?

Because you seem to be telling one how to do their job.

Yeah - I get that a lot...never used to happen to me back when I was a chef. Funny that.

Turtwig

I don't wish to derail this but I am very curious. How does the historicity of the actual crucifixion hold up? Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of all humanity.
All of Christianity, to borrow from Kierkegaard, is dependent on whether Jesus died on that cross or not. If He didn't everything changes. Regardless of whether a person known as Jesus existed or not. Though obviously if Jesus didn't exist then Christianity falls apart too.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, again epististemologically, by no means as useful as the evidence pointing towards his existence.

Indeed. But that wasn't the point I was making.

Peregrinus

Doctor DooM wrote: »

As a matter of interest- are you a professional historian?

No.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Because you seem to be telling one how to do their job.

Actually, no. Read carefully; Bannasidhe and I are not really contradicting one another in what we say about the discipline of history. Bannasidhe’s point is, essentially, that because the available evidence does not irrefutably prove the existence of Jesus, therefore we cannot say that his existence is an established fact. My point is that the same is true of every claim examined by history, but that the available evidence for the existence of Jesus meets and comfortably exceeds the evidentiary standards expected by historians when assessing claims of this nature. Bannasidhe has never disputed this. In regard to the application of historical method we may be choosing to emphasise different points, but I don’t think there is any fundamental disagreement between me and Bannasidhe.

The point of dispute is whether we can speak of a claim which has been established to the standards expected by the academy as “established”, without further qualification. I’d say that’s a reasonable usage and not misleading. Bannasidhe disagrees. In other words, it’s a question of the meaning and usage of words, which is not something on which historians have any particular claim to authority.

It may be the case that Bannasidhe’s restrictions on the use of the word are shared by all historians and that academic historians never speak of established facts (though Bannasidhe has never claimed this). But even if it were the case, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that people who were not academic historians, and not engaged in an academic historical discourse, were unjustified or unreasonable in speaking of a historical fact as “established”.

Peregrinus

Jernal wrote: »

I don't wish to derail this but I am very curious. How does the historicity of the actual crucifixion hold up? Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of all humanity.
All of Christianity, to borrow from Kierkegaard, is dependent on whether Jesus died on that cross or not. If He didn't everything changes. Regardless of whether a person known as Jesus existed or not. Though obviously if Jesus didn't exist then Christianity falls apart too.

It's broadly accepted by historians that Jesus of Nazareth was executed under Roman authority, and in that context the claim that the mode of execution was crucifixion is plausible, even likely.

As to the sacrificial and redemptive nature of that death, of course, that's a theological claim rather than historical one, and I think most historians would take the view that the discipline of history has no light to shed on this claim. It would have something to say about when followers of Jesus first began asserting that his death had this quality.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

No.


Actually, no. Read carefully; Bannasidhe and I are not really contradicting one another in what we say about the discipline of history. Bannasidhe’s point is, essentially, that because the available evidence does not irrefutably prove the existence of Jesus, therefore we cannot say that his existence is an established fact. My point is that the same is true of every claim examined by history, but that the available evidence for the existence of Jesus meets and comfortably exceeds the evidentiary standards expected by historians when assessing claims of this nature. Bannasidhe has never disputed this. In regard to the application of historical method we may be choosing to emphasise different points, but I don’t think there is any fundamental disagreement between me and Bannasidhe.

The point of dispute is whether we can speak of a claim which has been established to the standards expected by the academy as “established”, without further qualification. I’d say that’s a reasonable usage and not misleading. Bannasidhe disagrees. In other words, it’s a question of the meaning and usage of words, which is not something on which historians have any particular claim to authority.

It may be the case that Bannasidhe’s restrictions on the use of the word are shared by all historians and that academic historians never speak of established facts (though Bannasidhe has never claimed this). But even if it were the case, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that people who were not academic historians, and not engaged in an academic historical discourse, were unjustified or unreasonable in speaking of a historical fact as “established”.

Queen Elizabeth I died in 1603 - that is an established fact. There is no probable about it. We can state this with certainty due to the amount of conclusive evidence available.

The existence of Gráinne Ní Mháille is an established fact. There is no probable about it. We can state this with certainty due to the amount of conclusive evidence available. However I have seen claims that she was born in 1530 and died in 1603 - there is no evidence to support these claims so the period of time we can state she was alive with absolute certainty is between 1576 and 1601 during which time her name appears in a myriad of primary sources.

Because no such evidence is available for the existence of Jesus anyone who claims his existence is an established fact is incorrect - it is, as I have repeatedly said, a more than likely probability but any historian or history student who states it is an established fact will be required to provide evidence to support this - there is no evidence so the claim cannot be supported according to the rules of the discipline of history.

oldrnwisr

Jernal wrote: »

I don't wish to derail this but I am very curious. How does the historicity of the actual crucifixion hold up? Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of all humanity.
All of Christianity, to borrow from Kierkegaard, is dependent on whether Jesus died on that cross or not. If He didn't everything changes. Regardless of whether a person known as Jesus existed or not. Though obviously if Jesus didn't exist then Christianity falls apart too.

The short answer is it doesn't.

The longer answer is, well... (inhales deeply)

1. The Crucifixion

The first problem with the crucifixion account is the concept of Jesus dying under Roman authority in the first place.

I have previously dealt with this in detail here but the basic premise is that the idea of Jesus being crucified by the Romans leaves too many unanswered questions and creates too many inconsistencies with the other things we know about the society of that era. To summarise briefly:

1. Why would Jesus have been executed by the Romans for blasphemy? The Romans couldn't have given two ****s about blasphemy, particularly blasphemy against YHWH (I mean if it was writing Romanes Eunt Domus that would be a different story).
2. Why didn't the Sanhedrin, having (supposedly) found Jesus guilty of blasphemy not just stone Jesus to death? It was well within their power and blasphemy is a capital crime punishable by stoning under Deuteronomy 21:22-23. In fact the Sanhedrin would have been vacating their responsibilities to the law by handing Jesus over to be crucified since the method was just as important as the act.
3. Why is Joseph of Armathea so eager to get Jesus' body back from the Roman authorities in Mark 15:43? This could be explained by Joseph seeking to fulfill his obligations under Deuteronomy 21 but not when you consider point 2 above. There is a fundamental inconsistency in Joseph's behaviour in the crucifixion narrative.
4. Jesus is ostensibly crucified by the Romans for sedition. Why? Even in the gospels Jesus is portrayed as being a thorn in the side of the Sanhedrin and not Rome. He even publicly states "Render unto Caesar".

Then, of course, there are the problems with the trial itself as outlined in the gospels:

1. The trial would never have been held at night as it would have been contrary to Jewish law.
2. The trial would only have taken place in the Hall of Hewn Stones in the temple and not in the home of a council member.
3. The trial would never have been conducted so close to Passover (Passover eve in the synoptics)
4. Sentences in such trials were pronounced after 24 hours had elapsed and not immediately in the case of Jesus.

Next, we have the traditional depiction of the crucifixion:





However, when we examine the scant archaeoligical evidence we find that this too doesn't fit.


The CrucifiedM an fromG iv'at ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal

The evidence from the sole crucifixion victim that has been unearthed shows that the actual configuration of crucifixions at the time looked something like this:



Furthermore the configuration shown above is one shared by a Greek execution method of the time known as apotympanismos. This was a death mostly reserved for traitors but is one possible origin for the Roman crucifixion.





I'm aware of the current consensus on the issue but I don't find it persuasive. There are too many gaps and inconsistencies with the idea that Jesus was executed by the Romans. It's an idea that appears in the Gospels but not in the earliest NT writings. It reads (as Wibbs pointed out) like something shoehorned in after the fact.



2. The Resurrection


The detail that makes the crucifixion important is the resurrection. Even if we were to accept that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, that still doesn't help to address the claim of Christianity that Jesus rose from the dead and thus proved his divinity. However, the historicity of the resurrection is where things really get problematic for Christians.


The first point to note is that there are only four accounts of the resurrection. At best, Paul testifies to the risen Jesus (at best since it's only a claim) but really we only have the gospel accounts. Having said that we only really have one gospel account to go on. We already know that both Matthew and Luke borrow heavily from Mark, including the empty tomb narrative. While there is some disagreement over John, I think that the author of John's gospel was at least aware of Mark's gospel, especially given that he tries to correct Mark's mistakes in several places. So really, at the end of the day, what we are really trying to establish is whether Mark's gospel account is reliable.


The first thing that should be noted about Mark's empty tomb narrative is that it doesn't contain a resurrection. The original ending of Mark ends at verse 8, with the other Pentecostal stuff being a later addition.



Now, it is difficult in the absence of evidence to establish or refute the veracity of one particular story in Mark's gospel on its own. If we were to judge the gospel in its entirety by the standards against which such things are measured:


Federal Rules of Evidence


then we would have to conclude that Mark's gospel is unreliable. It is anonymous, biased, filled with inconsistent statements and, even if we were to believe traditional authorship, hearsay.


However, the narrative itself is not so easily discarded IMHO. I think that the empty tomb narrative is probably accurate (i.e. that some women went to the tomb and it was empty) since it remains essentially unchanged in all four versions. It is probably one of the earliest stories which circulated about Jesus and caused the Jesus movement to grow. On a side note, I find that the best explanation for the empty tomb is not resurrection but reburial/disposal by the servants of Joseph of Aramathea who having fulfilled his obligations to the law, had Jesus body disposed of.



In conclusion, I think we can answer the historicity questions thusly:


Was there someone called Jesus? Probably.


Did he die for his teachings? Probably.


Was he crucified by the Romans? Personally, I don't think so.


Did he rise from the dead? No.

Sarky

You're my lord and savior, oldrnwisr.

Red Nissan

Jernal wrote: »

I don't wish to derail this but I am very curious. .

Christ did not die on the cross, he was killed by Peter who went on to lose the 'church' to the Romans, this is well known by Christians and will not cause Christianity to fall apart.

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

You're my lord and savior, oldrnwisr.

Not Rob, Dades, or I? Interesting.

Banned.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

Not Rob, Dades, or I? Interesting.

Banned.

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Queen Elizabeth I died in 1603 - that is an established fact. There is no probable about it. We can state this with certainty due to the amount of conclusive evidence available.

The existence of Gráinne Ní Mháille is an established fact. There is no probable about it. We can state this with certainty due to the amount of conclusive evidence available. However I have seen claims that she was born in 1530 and died in 1603 - there is no evidence to support these claims so the period of time we can state she was alive with absolute certainty is between 1576 and 1601 during which time her name appears in a myriad of primary sources.

Because no such evidence is available for the existence of Jesus anyone who claims his existence is an established fact is incorrect - it is, as I have repeatedly said, a more than likely probability but any historian or history student who states it is an established fact will be required to provide evidence to support this - there is no evidence so the claim cannot be supported according to the rules of the discipline of history.

But Elizabeth I and Gráinne Ní Mháille are modern figures. We look for, and find, evidence in relation to their existence which we cannot expect, and do not find, in relation to figures from the ancient world. This does not mean that figures from the ancient world are any less likely to have existed, though.

When do we consider a fact to be “established”? When we are satisfied by the evidence pointing to it. “Satisfied” is inherently a subjective standard, not an objective one. And it’s a relative standard; we do not apply a uniform standard to all fact-claims; historians, for example, apply different standards to the fact-claims they investigate than physicists do in their field, or lawyers in theirs. More to the point, historians apply different standards to different fact-claims even within the discipline of history.

So, if somebody says that a particular historical fact-claim is “established”, they are implicitly referring to a subjective standard of satisfaction against which they are measuring the available evidence. It’s reasonable to ask them what that standard is. It’s also reasonable to point out that, however exacting the standard chosen, we can conceive of a higher standard and question whether the fact-claim is established by that standard. (No birth certificate is available for either Elizabeth I or Gráinne Ní Mháille, for example, so if we adopt a standard of satisfaction to establish claims of personal existence which includes a birth certificate, then their existence is not an “established” fact.)

So, any suggestion that a particular historical fact-claim has been “established” can be scrutinised by looking at what standard of satisfaction has been applied to determine satisfaction. The standard is always subjective and always relative, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t make a judgment as to whether it is a reasonable and defensible standard. It is plainly unreasonable to look for a birth certificate for Elizabeth I. Even though we do have a birth certificate for, e.g., Adolf Hitler, anybody who suggested on that account that the existence of Elizabeth I was a less certainly established historical fact that the existence of Adolf Hitler would be met with justified derision. By the (subjective) standards that historians apply to fact-claims about the existence of European monarchs from the early modern era, the existence of Elizabeth I is abundantly established. The fact that we lack some of the evidence that we might require to satisfy us in relation to entirely different fact-claims about the existence of different figures from different eras is irrelevant.

So, if someone claims that the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is historically established, it seems to me you can critique that claim in two ways. First, you can say “the evidence you have got doesn’t meet the standard you are applying”. (This is effectively the line people take when they allege, as you occasionally see done, that all our primary sources for Jesus of Nazareth date from hundreds of years after the time he is supposed to have lived.) Or you can say “you’re applying an inappropriately lax standard of satisfaction; the evidence you have is kosher so far as it goes, but it ought not to be enough to satisfy you”.

I’m not seeing any serious attempt in this thread to argue that the standard by which the existence of Jesus is taken to be established is inappropriately lax. I’ve suggested, and no-one has contradicted, that standard being applied is at least as robust as that applied by academic historians of the period to judge whether fact-claims about the existence of individuals are established. Of course, that’s still a subjective standard, but nonetheless is one grounded in professional experience and judgment, and anyone who thinks it is unreasonable to accept and apply that standard at least needs to be able to say why. The fact that academic historians would apply a different standard if Jesus was claimed to have been born in Europe in the sixteenth century, and was claimed to have been a reigning monarch, seems to me completely irrelevant.

smacl

I'm not a historian, but I take the implication from Bannasidhe's previous post that the term established when used by a historian in reference to a past event can be interpreted as meeting a minimum set of very specific and well defined criteria. Meeting these criteria would correspond to a degree of confidence that could correspond to a statistical expression, e.g. there is 67% probability that person A was in place B at time C plus or minus D years. This statistic is useful, as it can be used to weight other statistics. My guess is that the required criteria for an event to be considered established are looser the further back in time you go, but in any case you use the degree of confidence rather than a simple true/false when using the information to establish the veracity of other information.

As I say, not a historian, but dealing with uncertainty is common to all measurement. The way we handle this is by collection of redundant supporting measurements, such that we can improve on the accuracy and confidence of our primary measurement, and state our results. The point of the exercise is to properly isolate and document any subjective data, such that the remaining results are objective, transparent, and reproducible to within the stated tolerances.

Yes history is a wooley subject, and our understandings of events are prone to change as more information is presented, but IMHO good history is about dealing with the totality of the information available and a point in time in such a way that it is as objective as possible, and where it is not, subjective elements are highlighted as such, preferably alongside any stated biases the historian might have.

I’m not seeing any serious attempt in this thread to argue that the standard by which the existence of Jesus is taken to be established is inappropriately lax.

Actually, no one has even stated the standard, possibly because it doesn't exist. Comparing the confidence of historicity of Jesus in relation to other contemporary histories can only really only be done on an event by event basis. My very limited experience suggests that our understanding of many pieces of ancient history are constantly evolving, and as such ancient history is more dynamic than many people might imagine.

The term inappropriately lax could also be replaced with fit for purpose, but what purpose? For me to convert to Christianity for example, they'd want to be stringent in the extreme. To accept that there most probably was a figure very roughly approximating to the Jesus as presented in the bible, they're fine, but then they have no impact on my life whatsoever so it is a very loose standard.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Actually, no one has even stated the standard, possibly because it doesn't exist.

Oh, it exists all right. So far in this thread it has only been articulated as “the standard applied by academic historians of the period”, or similar language, which doesn’t get us very far; what standard(s) do they apply? But they do certainly apply standards, and if you want to know what they are you can ask them. If you ask a historian of the period why he considers Jesus to be a historical character his reply will illuminate the standard of establishment that he uses; he’ll talk about multiple primary independent sources, closeness in time to the event, etc, etc. Equally, if you find a historian who doesn’t accept the historicity of Jesus and ask him why, his reply too will point to the standard of establishment that he is applying, and that he considers not to be met by the evidence.

There is a second line of reasoning in this thread which people appeal to which doesn’t depend on identifying the standard, and it’s this. We know that the historical evidence pointing to the existence of Jesus is considerably stronger than the evidence we have for some other figures of the period - Alexander the Great has been mentioned. We also know that the historicity of Alexander the Great is widely accepted. Whatever standard is being applied, then, we know that if Alexander meets it Jesus also meets it. Given that, even without knowing the precise standard applied, we can conclude that Jesus is accepted as historical.

Unless, of course, someone offers an argument as to why we should apply a much more rigorous standard to claims that Jesus existed than we do to claims that Alexander existed. Which neatly leads in to your second point.

smacl wrote: »

The term inappropriately lax could also be replaced with fit for purpose, but what purpose? For me to convert to Christianity for example, they'd want to be stringent in the extreme. To accept that there most probably was a figure very roughly approximating to the Jesus as presented in the bible, they're fine, but then they have no impact on my life whatsoever so it is a very loose standard.

Nobody in this thread has suggested that, if you are persuaded of the historicity of Jesus, you therefore ought to accept religious or theological claims about Jesus. (Some people have said that this argument has been advanced by others, but nobody has advanced or defended it here.) In my view, that would be completely unarguable. It’s entirely possible that Jesus of Nazareth existed, taught and was executed pretty much as the gospels say, but that he was neither divine nor the redeemer of humanity, that he was not born of a virgin and that he did not rise from the dead. Acceptance of his historicity does not imply acceptance of any of these other claims.

Consequently the fact that people make these claims about his divinity, etc, is not at all a justification for applying extraordinarily exacting standards to the question of his historicity. To do that is to buy completely into the idiocy that his historicity necessarily entails his divinity.

smacl

Given that, even without knowing the precise standard applied, we can conclude that Jesus is accepted as historical.

Accepted by whom, and in what context? As a paragraph in a 1st year secondary school history book, the statement that there was a person in Nazareth called Jesus involved with religion, who was executed by the Romans seems as reasonable as many other paragraphs from the same textbook dealing with ancient history. That the execution was by crucifixion seems less likely, as per oldrnwisr's illuminating post. So we have points of divergence between history and Christian theology, where it could be very easy to confuse the two. I imagine the school text book could include the crucifixion, and maybe even go as far as illustrating it.

My interest in history covers different periods and places entirely, but it typically goes as follows. I take an interest in an event, e.g. the Boxer rebellion. I read one or more pop histories of the event, e.g. Diana Preston's book in this case. I then take a deeper interest and start reading some of the more academic material, e.g. Esherick, and material from different contemporary sources from different points of view (European, Chinese, Japanese). My understanding of the history changes significantly from the time I start to the time I finish. Often this would run contrary to the single paragraph secondary school history book reference.

In terms of this thread, the consensus appears to that there was a religious figure called Jesus executed by the romans, but very little of substance beyond that. By the historicity of Jesus are we talking about the existence of the man, or more events in the Jesus story? If the latter, which events?

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Accepted by whom, and in what context? As a paragraph in a 1st year secondary school history book, the statement that there was a person in Nazareth called Jesus involved with religion, who was executed by the Romans seems as reasonable as many other paragraphs from the same textbook dealing with ancient history. That the execution was by crucifixion seems less likely, as per oldrnwisr's illuminating post.

Bit of a quibble: my reading of oldernwiser’s post is that, if the evidence persuades us that Jesus was executed by the Romans, then we won’t baulk at the idea that he was crucified. (His crucifixion might not have looked exactly like the conventional artistic representations, but close enough.) But if we think he was executed by the Temple authorities, then we’d think it more likely that he was stoned or, at any rate, not crucified.

smacl wrote: »

So we have points of divergence between history and Christian theology, where it could be very easy to confuse the two. I imagine the school text book could include the crucifixion, and maybe even go as far as illustrating it.

Um. To my mind the question of whether Jesus was crucified or stoned is a historical question. The theological question is whether his death was a perfect sacrifice effecting the redemption of humanity, but I don’t think anyone’s views on that are going to be determined by whether they are persuaded in favour of stoning or crucifixion. In other words, I don’t the historical and the theological is as easily confused as you suggest.

smacl wrote: »

In terms of this thread, the consensus appears to that there was a religious figure called Jesus executed by the romans, but very little of substance beyond that. By the historicity of Jesus are we talking about the existence of the man, or more events in the Jesus story? If the latter, which events?

Well, I suggested earlier that there is a good deal more that is generally accepted as probably historical - his mother was called Mary, he did have a brother called James, he started as a follower of John the Baptist but later established an independent ministry, more likely amicably rather than as a result of a rancorous split but we don’t know that for sure, the teachings attributed to him in the gospels are probably reasonably grounded in teachings he actually delivered. But of course that last generality in particular wraps up a multitude of doubts, arguments, quibbles and uncertainties with respect to a huge range of particular teachings.

You could also make a list of things that are generally not accepted as historically established, or that are regarded as most likely false - birth in Bethlehem and indeed every detail of the nativity stories apart from the name of his mother, a first-cousin relationship with John the Baptist, the flight into Eqypt, all the infancy stories. All of the miracle/sign stories, even those that are capable of a non-supernatural reading, would be in this list. Parts of the Passion story are doubted - oldernwiser points to the trial before the Sanhedrin in particular. And of course the resurrection and the post-resurrection Christophanies are not established. Oldrnwiser suggests that he does accept the empty tomb as historical; I don’t know for sure, but I’d suspect there might be historians who would say that that is not historically established.

The more detail you go into on all this, of course, the more room for doubt and disagreement among historians there will be. For example - Jesus was executed - widely accepted as historical. Jesus was executed by crucifixion - the last detail is doubted by some. Jesus was executed by crucifixion following a trial before the Sanhedrin - now you have rather more doubters putting up their hands. And so forth. The more specific you get, the larger the number of historians who will say “I can’t necessarily accept everything you’ve just mentioned there”.

You can read entire books on this, and depending on the take of the historian who wrote them, they'll offeer you a slightly different perspective on what's accepted, what's doubted, and what is just the subject of suspended judment. If you want to get a picture of consensus views - things that are mostly accepted or mostly rejected, then stick to big-picture questions - was Jesus real? Where did he come from? Why was he noticed? What became of him? But avoid questions like whether James was Jesus' older brother, or his younger.

smacl

Thanks for the response, seems pretty reasonable.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don’t (believe) the historical and the theological is as easily confused as you suggest.

I'm not so sure. There seems to be a widely held view among many Christians that the bible is historically accurate, as evidenced by this post earlier on.

georgieporgy wrote: »

It would seem professional historians can have different opinions on history. Some actually claim that the bible is not a historical document (loaded with contemporary references to Christ), others , both believers and non believers, say it is.

In addition to this most accurate ancient historical narrative, we have archeological evidence to verify biblical stories. Not to mention the physical evidence of Jesus' body.

What many modern theologians take as metaphorical, more lay Christians take as literal. As an atheist who hasn't ever attempted to study the history behind the Christ story, the lines between accepted history and theology / mythology seem rather blurred. Somewhat less so after following this thread to be fair, it could make for an interesting discussion on the Christianity forum.

enfant terrible

oldrnwisr wrote: »

However, I think it is important that two important caveats be introduced because of the wider arguments that circulate about Jesus (i.e. divinity, resurrection etc.).
The first is that the conclusions about Jesus' existence reached in this discussion do not add any evidentiary support for other claims about Jesus. I know it seems silly but you'd be surprised how many times Christians use this fact as a buttress for their other claims about Jesus. It happens with god claims too. Some people (e.g. William Lane Craig) seem to think that they can use arguments like Kalam to logically prove the existence of God and therefore the Christian God.
The second caveat is that Jesus is different from the other figures in this discussion. If they didn't really exist then who cares. Their teachings stand on their own merits. Jesus' teachings don't. They are pointless without the existence of Jesus.

I think its better to stick to the topic of the thread.

I came into this thread to learn about the historicity of Jesus and bringing other topics into the discussion just derails the thread.

If people want to talk about "wider arguments that circulate about Jesus" then they should start a thread about it.

Wibbs

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I think that the empty tomb narrative is probably accurate (i.e. that some women went to the tomb and it was empty) since it remains essentially unchanged in all four versions. It is probably one of the earliest stories which circulated about Jesus and caused the Jesus movement to grow.

What I have always found interesting about this account are the witnesses. Women. Women were considered unreliable witnesses in much of the ancient world(you see this most clearly later on in Islam and Sharia law, which borrows wholesale from earlier traditions). I would also reckon the empty tomb account is most likely accurate, simply because if it was added after the fact they would have said the witnesses were men.

Of the crucifixion itself, I find that a harder nut to crack and get my head around. I think oldrnwisr's points brilliantly outline the idea that he wasn't crucified by the romans. That said the idea that he was seems to have legs early enough on. Josephus states he was executed by Pilate. Now Josephus is considered problematic and likely stuff was added later, but the kernel of it seems solid enough.

Tacitus, (who generally seems pretty reliable and an independent source) not long after Josephus states that the leader of these Christians was executed in the reign of Tiberius by their governer Pilate(though doesn't name him directly IIRC). So the crucifixion narrative was strong even among Romans within a century of his supposed death date(though neither mention his resurrection IIRC?). A Roman like Tacitus would well have known they wouldn't be arsed executing someone for blasphemy or other colonial religious stuff, so I wonder what gives there? If he was merely repeating what he had heard from Christians(whom he shows zero sympathy for), he'd still know that Rome didn't get involved in local religious guff.

Maybe and I beg your indulgence for my indulgence, it went like this; Jesus was crucified, but not for blasphemy as reported later, but rounded up(maybe with others as part of a "clear the decks of local troublemakers" drive) for actual sedition as the Romans saw it and rather than the crucifixion, the whole Jewish trial stuff (and choice between him and Barabas) which as oldrnwisr points out makes no religious or historical sense was tacked on later. If nothing else to get the Roman Christians off the hook.

Plus if he had been tried and stoned to death solely by Jewish authorities that would have played even better for the later Roman church as it would have them completely absolved from any involvement and the overall story arc would have remained pretty much exactly the same(minus the symbol of the cross which came later in popularity anyway).

This makes more sense to me than adding in Roman guilt by having him crucified after the fact.

Peregrinus

All the primary sources on the execution of Jesus, including Josephus and Tacitus, explicitly attribute responsibility to Pilate. If anything, the gospels attempt to water this down, presenting Pilate as having his hand forced by the Temple authorities' manipulation of the mob. I gather that, from what we know more generally of Pilate and his career, this is generally considered an implausible scenario. So the likelihood is that the Romans took more of the initiative than the gospel suggests, and the Temple less.

But of course as you rightly say the Romans would never have executed him for blasphemy. Blasphemy might have helped to explain why the Temple authorities were happy to see him killed, but it wouldn't account for the Roman involvement. The reason the Romans wanted rid of him was almost certainly that he was a troublemaker. Jerusalem was a volatile place with a delicate balance of power negotiated between the Romans and the Temple, and a population deeply alienated from the Romans and even, to some extent, from the Temple authorities. By his challenge to the Temple authorities Jesus was a threat to the pax romana and, somewhat ironically, the Romans were brutal in the way they dealt with such threats.

Brian Shanahan

smacl wrote: »

Accepted by whom, and in what context? As a paragraph in a 1st year secondary school history book, the statement that there was a person in Nazareth called Jesus involved with religion, who was executed by the Romans seems as reasonable as many other paragraphs from the same textbook dealing with ancient history.

I wouldn't consider that statement good enough for any history book:

a) we don't have conclusive evidence for the existence of Jesus. Therefore it would have to be qualified with a "probably", "there was likely" or similar.

b) as Oldrnwisr has shown below, there is no evidence at all for crucifixion, and that if Jesus were killed, he would have been killed by the Jewish rabbinical authorities, as blasphemy against YHWH was a Jewish crime not a Roman one.

smacl

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I wouldn't consider that statement good enough for any history book

My knowledge of the history surrounding Jesus is poor to say the least, as already mentioned. I was basically taking the summation of what oldnwiser had below, along with speculation as to what's likely to appear on a simplified junior cert curriculum.

Was there someone called Jesus? Probably.

Did he die for his teachings? Probably.

Was he crucified by the Romans? Personally, I don't think so.

My eldest has just started 2nd year, so I'll have a look to see what is actually in the history texts as currently taught as fact in this country. The point I was trying to make was that the boundary between history and theology to me at least appears very blurred, possibly intentionally so by the church. I'm interested to know what is taught as religion and what as history.

Wibbs

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

b) as Oldrnwisr has shown below, there is no evidence at all for crucifixion, and that if Jesus were killed, he would have been killed by the Jewish rabbinical authorities, as blasphemy against YHWH was a Jewish crime not a Roman one.

I'd half disagree with this, or put it another way take Oldrnwisr's bloody valid points and take em in a different direction. For the reasons I gave above.

Basically him being crucified/executed by the Roman governor is about the only repeated detail of his life that's in the earliest non christian(Roman) external sources. The Jewish trial is highly likely to be a later insert. Why? well because any Jewish sources(early Jewish followers) or sources with knowledge of rabinical law would know it to be BS, exactly because of the reasons Oldrnwisr gave.

I've thought of another even earlier example(though Christian). St Paul's letters. He mentions the crucified Jesus more than once. Now before he had his conversion he was a Jew and zealot/fundamentalist one at that and he was in the employ of the "official" Jewish church seeking out and punishing heretics. Of all people he would have known the Jewish religious trial was wrong and wouldn't have played out like that and IIRC he never mentions it. So we have a Jewish guy writing letters to non Jews and Jews alike(Jesus' followers in Palestine, including his brother who would have known the story first hand) stating crucifixion as mode of death. We have Josephus also a Jew BTW(IIRC his da was a rabbi), who then put his lot in with the Roman world(not unlike Paul in some ways), who would also have know the Jewish trial of Jesus would have been impossible and he doesn't mention it either and states Pilate offed him under Roman law. Then we have Tacitus, a Roman, who mentions nada about the trial or Jesus being handed over by the Jews, but he again states that "Chrestus" the leader of the Christians was executed by the Roman governor Pilate. That's three different sources with wildly different backgrounds and beliefs and allegiances stating the same thing.

So if we take the probability that Jesus existed(feck off Ban!:p:D) and take that probability from what historic sources we have, then the only other detail we have is that all such sources agree he was executed by the Roman authorities. The question then is why. Clearly not for blasphemy, our Italian friends couldn't give a damn about that. The only other reason is crimes against the state. Murder, banditry? Unlikely, so given the region and the PITA it was for Rome, sedition, political unrest(borne from religious stuff is possible) etc is the likely reason and one dreamt up by Rome alone. No Jews involved. IMHO the whole Jewish trial is a later(and obvious) add in to take the blame from Rome. Hell we even have the scene with Pilate actually washing his hands of the whole thing. I mean c'mon. It couldn't be more blatant.

oldrnwisr

Wibbs wrote: »

What I have always found interesting about this account are the witnesses. Women. Women were considered unreliable witnesses in much of the ancient world(you see this most clearly later on in Islam and Sharia law, which borrows wholesale from earlier traditions). I would also reckon the empty tomb account is most likely accurate, simply because if it was added after the fact they would have said the witnesses were men.

Of the crucifixion itself, I find that a harder nut to crack and get my head around. I think oldrnwisr's points brilliantly outline the idea that he wasn't crucified by the romans. That said the idea that he was seems to have legs early enough on. Josephus states he was executed by Pilate. Now Josephus is considered problematic and likely stuff was added later, but the kernel of it seems solid enough.

Tacitus, (who generally seems pretty reliable and an independent source) not long after Josephus states that the leader of these Christians was executed in the reign of Tiberius by their governer Pilate(though doesn't name him directly IIRC). So the crucifixion narrative was strong even among Romans within a century of his supposed death date(though neither mention his resurrection IIRC?). A Roman like Tacitus would well have known they wouldn't be arsed executing someone for blasphemy or other colonial religious stuff, so I wonder what gives there? If he was merely repeating what he had heard from Christians(whom he shows zero sympathy for), he'd still know that Rome didn't get involved in local religious guff.

Maybe and I beg your indulgence for my indulgence, it went like this; Jesus was crucified, but not for blasphemy as reported later, but rounded up(maybe with others as part of a "clear the decks of local troublemakers" drive) for actual sedition as the Romans saw it and rather than the crucifixion, the whole Jewish trial stuff (and choice between him and Barabas) which as oldrnwisr points out makes no religious or historical sense was tacked on later. If nothing else to get the Roman Christians off the hook.

Plus if he had been tried and stoned to death solely by Jewish authorities that would have played even better for the later Roman church as it would have them completely absolved from any involvement and the overall story arc would have remained pretty much exactly the same(minus the symbol of the cross which came later in popularity anyway).

This makes more sense to me than adding in Roman guilt by having him crucified after the fact.

Peregrinus wrote: »

All the primary sources on the execution of Jesus, including Josephus and Tacitus, explicitly attribute responsibility to Pilate. If anything, the gospels attempt to water this down, presenting Pilate as having his hand forced by the Temple authorities' manipulation of the mob. I gather that, from what we know more generally of Pilate and his career, this is generally considered an implausible scenario. So the likelihood is that the Romans took more of the initiative than the gospel suggests, and the Temple less.

But of course as you rightly say the Romans would never have executed him for blasphemy. Blasphemy might have helped to explain why the Temple authorities were happy to see him killed, but it wouldn't account for the Roman involvement. The reason the Romans wanted rid of him was almost certainly that he was a troublemaker. Jerusalem was a volatile place with a delicate balance of power negotiated between the Romans and the Temple, and a population deeply alienated from the Romans and even, to some extent, from the Temple authorities. By his challenge to the Temple authorities Jesus was a threat to the pax romana and, somewhat ironically, the Romans were brutal in the way they dealt with such threats.

Both of your posts have caused me to have a bit of a rethink about the method of execution so I just wanted to make a little rejoinder.

The first thing is to expand on something I commented on earlier in the thread, namely the weaknesses of the extra-biblical sources for the historicity of Jesus.

Josephus

Josephus' commentary in Antiquities Book 18 presents a number of issues.

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

1. Origen, the early Church leader points out in Contra Celsus that Josephus didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah: "For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ,..." which doesn't fit with the highlighted sentence in Josephus.
2. The language used in the passage is far too complimentary to have been written by a Pharasaic Jew like Josephus.
3. The text directly contradicts the gospel version by depicting Pilate as having proactively sought the execution of Jesus rather than having been brought to him by the Sanhedrin.
4. In Book 20, Josephus recalls how Anaus convenes the Sanhedrin to convict James and other Christians and have them stoned to death: "so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and someothers (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned."

Tacitus


The reference in Tacitus is much shorter than in Josephus but just as problematic:


"[Christians] derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate"

1. The sentence reads as hearsay, as if Tacitus is merely restating what Christians believe.
2. Tacitus is a Roman historian and would have had access to official Roman records. Had he been using these (which seems reasonable) then he wouldn't have made the mistake of calling Pilate a procurator when he was a prefect, nor does it explain why he uses a Christian honorific in describing Jesus, something that would not have been found in Roman records.

Tacitus is weak evidence at best and seems just as likely to be a Christian interpolation as it is an original comment.


Now, just as there are three sources from three different backgrounds which point to crucifixion as Wibbs points out here:

Wibbs wrote: »

I've thought of another even earlier example(though Christian). St Paul's letters. He mentions the crucified Jesus more than once. Now before he had his conversion he was a Jew and zealot/fundamentalist one at that and he was in the employ of the "official" Jewish church seeking out and punishing heretics. Of all people he would have known the Jewish religious trial was wrong and wouldn't have played out like that and IIRC he never mentions it. So we have a Jewish guy writing letters to non Jews and Jews alike(Jesus' followers in Palestine, including his brother who would have known the story first hand) stating crucifixion as mode of death. We have Josephus also a Jew BTW(IIRC his da was a rabbi), who then put his lot in with the Roman world(not unlike Paul in some ways), who would also have know the Jewish trial of Jesus would have been impossible and he doesn't mention it either and states Pilate offed him under Roman law. Then we have Tacitus, a Roman, who mentions nada about the trial or Jesus being handed over by the Jews, but he again states that "Chrestus" the leader of the Christians was executed by the Roman governor Pilate. That's three different sources with wildly different backgrounds and beliefs and allegiances stating the same thing.

there are also multiple attestations from different authors within and without the bible supporting the stoning idea:


"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed."
1 Peter 2:24

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.""
Galatians 3:13

"The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead - whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree."
Act 5:30

"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree."
Acts 10:39

"When they had carried out all that they had written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb."
Acts 13:29

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says: “Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'"
Sanhedrin 43a




I have to say that the course of this discussion has pushed me into a state of indeterminacy. I can't say for sure what method was actually used other than it probably doesn't matter in the larger scheme. In the end, however Jesus died it seems to have been a very ordinary death.


I'm just left now with two questions:

• What solid evidence is there for the Romans taking notice of Jesus to the point that they would have executed him for sedition? I acknowledge that Peregrinus' point about the Pax Romana may be the best explanation for this scenario but it is not really hinted at in any of the sources.
• If we are to take Josephus as a credible source (and secondarily if we take information from Suetonius and Pliny at face value) then it seems like the Christians of that era were a feisty bunch and not of a mind to back down in the face of a confrontation (e.g. "those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him") That being the case, why would the Romans not just have had the Sanhedrin stone Jesus and be done with it instead of bringing this bunch of disciples on themselves and instigating a mini-rebellion. It would seem that the most stable approach would have been to have Jesus stoned by his own people.

Red Nissan

enfant terrible wrote: »

If people want to talk about "wider arguments that circulate about Jesus" then they should start a thread about it.

To an extent, yes. But, it is usually something in relation to this thread, at what point it becomes another study may impact badly on both threads and the forum in general.

I don't think discussion about a fictitious character in history can have the same dictate as an engineering question, or a propulsion system for a Mars mission.

It is going to have a lot soft edges and posters believing Christianity means the Holy Roman Catholic Church that they grew up with in Ireland, said Church being based on Peter, as Islam is based on Mohamed and both claim Jesus as their inspiration and prime prophet.

smacl

Also, it is not unheard of for boards threads hitting twenty pages to wander some.

enfant terrible

Red Nissan wrote: »

To an extent, yes. But, it is usually something in relation to this thread, at what point it becomes another study may impact badly on both threads and the forum in general.

I don't think discussion about a fictitious character in history can have the same dictate as an engineering question, or a propulsion system for a Mars mission.

It is going to have a lot soft edges and posters believing Christianity means the Holy Roman Catholic Church that they grew up with in Ireland, said Church being based on Peter, as Islam is based on Mohamed and both claim Jesus as their inspiration and prime prophet.

Did anyone in this thread even claim that if Jesus was historical then he also was divine?

I don't think pandering to people who can't stay on topic is the best course of action.

I can settle the side debate now anyway, Jesus being a historical figure does not mean he was the son of God.

Wibbs

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Josephus

I always had a couple of issues with this guy TBH. It smells a lot like additions to the original text goin on. Still I would bet the farm when you take out the "jaysus was deadly" bits you'd end up with something like this;

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man sorcerer who wrought surprising feats. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of highest standing, had condemned him to be crucified. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

Tacitus


The reference in Tacitus is much shorter than in Josephus but just as problematic:


"[Christians] derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate"




The sentence reads as hearsay, as if Tacitus is merely restating what Christians believe.

Maybe, though why would he? As you say he was a Roman historian and he wasn't exactly on the side of these crawthumpers.

Tacitus is a Roman historian and would have had access to official Roman records. Had he been using these (which seems reasonable) then he wouldn't have made the mistake of calling Pilate a procurator when he was a prefect

Couple of things; 1) the dating on the stone is up for grabs and is incomplete, so he may have been awarded higher office afterwards, but more 2) He doesn't actually use the word procurator, he uses the word for governor*.

nor does it explain why he uses a Christian honorific in describing Jesus, something that would not have been found in Roman records.

Well not really. In the original he writes Chrestus, not Christus and studies on the earliest versions extant have shown that later Christian types took out the oul proto tippex and substituted an I for the E. As to the title? Let's imagine if Tacitus in his travels ended up writing "Buddhism which originated in India carries the name of it's founder, the Buddha" , would we then conclude that some well traveled saffron hued chap had climbed into the records to add in the honourific, or that Taccy was a closet Ommmmm merchant? The simplest explanation is that he was just describing the origin of the name. It would be interesting to read the original Greek to see if he writes "christ" or "the christ", though in what passes for my bad memory in Greek there's no diff?

there are also multiple attestations from different authors within and without the bible supporting the stoning idea:


"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed."
1 Peter 2:24

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.""
Galatians 3:13

"The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead - whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree."

Hanging/hanging from a tree(rather from wood) are also descriptions of crucifixion(as are being staked/impaled). The biggest problem with the tree bit is the word in the original Greek. Dendra is the Greek word for a tree, however in those passages above they don't use that word, they use the word for "wood" "xulon/xylon". So he was hung not on a tree, but on something made of wood. The Jewish rite after stoning was an actual "cursed" tree.

"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree."
Acts 10:39

It states they killed him by hanging him on something made from wood, not a tree and not stoning. That's a bit of an omission. Like saying some bloke executed by electric chair, "They killed him by burial". Why not just state stoning? They happily state stoning for others. James was apparently attacked by a mob thrown off the temple walls and what was left of him was stoned.

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says: “Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'"
Sanhedrin 43a

Well that's a third century talmudic document and might well be described as a tad hostile. And yet... again they say his ultimate fate is hanging not stoning. They also get his name wrong spelling wise, so a bit of a disconnect there. The interesting part for me is the "connected/influential" part. Though likely just a third century "ahh he got away with it, cos of who he knew"

I dunno O, I love the idea of stoning as an alternative end that has legs, but I'm beginning to drift more towards the oul crucifixion TBH. Though like you I reckon it means feck all in the greater scheme of things. That said I'm not so sure I'd agree that his death was "ordinary". I mean stoning or crucifixion are pretty non ordinary ways to shuffle off. Plus his death seems to have been different, because the splinter faith didn't die off with his death like so many others did. Even before Paul gets involved there was a coterie of followers still kicking around that initially he was charged with squishing.

[*]What solid evidence is there for the Romans taking notice of Jesus to the point that they would have executed him for sedition? I acknowledge that Peregrinus' point about the Pax Romana may be the best explanation for this scenario but it is not really hinted at in any of the sources.

Oh IMH there's a large chunk of the puzzle missing. Maybe the Barrabas/Jesus scene hints at it? IE that he was both a "blessed be the peacemakers" and a seditious type. After all we have hints in the official texts. The biggie is in the garden of Gethsemene(sp). The cops who show up to arrest him are resisted by his followers, in particular one bloke who gets the full Van Gogh and gets his ear lopped off for his trouble. At least one of Jesus' disciples was tooled up with swords. Would a passing Roman patrol have taken kindly to this? A Jew and a fringe one at that carrying weapons? Me thinkie not. IIRC one of the first things your Romans did in such territories was to ban personal weapons among the locals. Good sense too.

That being the case, why would the Romans not just have had the Sanhedrin stone Jesus and be done with it instead of bringing this bunch of disciples on themselves and instigating a mini-rebellion. It would seem that the most stable approach would have been to have Jesus stoned by his own people.

Because(and again IIRC the texts mention this too) in a Roman controlled province the local courts lost their ability/right to hand down capital sentences. The ultimate punishment was meted out by Rome. In the texts don't they pack him to Herod's court because of this? Herod could execute people as he was ruling a protectorate, but somewhat autonomous. Like Vichy Palestine. Again I don't buy the whole trial thing. Indeed the Herod bit adds to the daftness as that would have required a journey of a couple of days to get him to Herod. However it does add to my belief that that whole section was a stitch up job on the Jews.

So IMH the most likely narrative is the crucifixion. The torture beforehand that had Mel Gibson feverishly jerking off was also a noted element of the Roman crucifixion. Pretty much all of the texts both inside the nascent faith and beyond say crucifixion, by the first century AD they're even busy having longwinded debates on the shape of the cross involved(which range from a simple stake, to the "official" cross, to the tau) and one of the earliest graffiti taking the piss out of the christians have some guy the artist knows bowing to a donkey suspended on a tau cross. Plus crucifixion was such a shameful end in the Greco Roman world you would have expected them to be only too gung ho to have him die by other means and better yet to be directly killed by non Romans, leaving them well out of it. Even by the time of Islam they considered it so shameful they avoided the whole sorry mess by having an imposter(or Judas, can't recall) magically take Jesus' place on the cross, while Allah beamed him up to heaven.

I love this kinda discussion.





*was having this very debate with a client of mine who is a classical scholar type. Feck wiki he also had some interesting thoughts on Judas and his role and the nature of his betrayal in the original greek. Something about his description is kinda like JC's trusted master at arms, a job in the classical world that entailed officially handing over his master after his masters surrender and this was not a betrayal as such. That the story needed a fallguy and he looked the best bet after the fact. Something like that anyway.

Peregrinus

I have very little to add to what Wibbs has said, but just a couple of thoughts on oldernwiser’s final points:

oldrnwisr wrote: »

What solid evidence is there for the Romans taking notice of Jesus to the point that they would have executed him for sedition? I acknowledge that Peregrinus' point about the Pax Romana may be the best explanation for this scenario but it is not really hinted at in any of the sources.

It is, actually. The gospels present the Temple authorities as having their own reasons for wanting rid of Jesus, but when they bring him before Pilate, they don’t offer the reasons the reasons which actuate them, the Temple authorities; as you’d expect they offer reasons which they think will appeal to Pilate. So, it’s “This man said, ‘I am the king of the Jews’” and “we have no king but Caesar!” In other words, they present Jesus to Pilate as a political revolutionary, seeking to displace Roman political authority.

To someone who doesn’t know much about Jesus or what he has been saying, this isn’t completely implausible - there was an active revolutionary movement, the Zealots, who were also enemies of the Temple, so it was entirely credible that the Temple authorities would denounce Zealots to the Romans.

Did Pilate believe the story that Jesus was a Zealot? Hard to say. But he might not have been that bothered; it was enough that Jesus was causing a commotion by his confrontation with the Temple authorities. Even if they weren’t explicitly directed at Roman authorities, riots and commotion were a Bad Thing, since they disrupted trade, pissed off merchants and led to lower tax returns and complaints to Rome about the governor’s failure to maintain order. Plus, even if the riots themselves were not a manifestation of zealotry, they could only give heart and hope and support to the Zealots, who would certainly try to turn them to advantage. And Jerusalem was a volatile place, especially at Passover-time. (Passover does, after all, celebrate the liberation of Israel from political subjugation.) All of that was a sufficient reason for getting rid of Jesus, whether or not he was a Zealot or a politically-inspired revolutionary.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

If we are to take Josephus as a credible source (and secondarily if we take information from Suetonius and Pliny at face value) then it seems like the Christians of that era were a feisty bunch and not of a mind to back down in the face of a confrontation (e.g. "those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him") That being the case, why would the Romans not just have had the Sanhedrin stone Jesus and be done with it instead of bringing this bunch of disciples on themselves and instigating a mini-rebellion. It would seem that the most stable approach would have been to have Jesus stoned by his own people.

By the time we get to Suetonius and Pliny, Christians are a feisty bunch, but the available evidence doesn’t suggest that this was so at the time of the execution of Christ - quite the contrary. The story presented by the gospels is of Jesus initially attracting a large following, but that following fairly rapidly falling away, and by the time of these events he has a much-reduced, and somewhat confused, group of followers. And the gospels suggest that his followers completely bottled out when it came to the actual execution - denied Jesus, scattered, fled, went into hiding, etc. Since this must be embarrassing to people like Peter and the Twelve, and since the gospels were written by followers of these men, this doesn’t look like a constructed fiction; it looks more like an embarrassing truth which is already too well-known to be plausibly denied or glossed over when writing the gospels. Josephus, etc, encounter a different bunch of Christians in a different place at a much later time.

Wibbs

Peregrinus wrote: »

By the time we get to Suetonius and Pliny, Christians are a feisty bunch, but the available evidence doesn’t suggest that this was so at the time of the execution of Christ - quite the contrary. The story presented by the gospels is of Jesus initially attracting a large following, but that following fairly rapidly falling away, and by the time of these events he has a much-reduced, and somewhat confused, group of followers. And the gospels suggest that his followers completely bottled out when it came to the actual execution - denied Jesus, scattered, fled, went into hiding, etc. Since this must be embarrassing to people like Peter and the Twelve, and since the gospels were written by followers of these men, this doesn’t look like a constructed fiction; it looks more like an embarrassing truth which is already too well-known to be plausibly denied or glossed over when writing the gospels. Josephus, etc, encounter a different bunch of Christians in a different place at a much later time.

Good point. The story goes by the time of his death all that's left is pretty much his close family. I would say the story rather than suggest they all legged it, makes a big point about this.



Thinking more about the crucifixion v stoning debate and to reduce it down... Many of us would agree the whole trial by the Jewish elders story looks very dodgy. The "rome frees a capital prisoner on a local religious holiday" also looks wrong. So why add it in? If he was condemned and executed by stoning by the locals there would be no later need to. Indeed the story would play out better for a non Jewish audience. However if he was crucified by the Romans for whatever reason, it then does make sense for Roman sympathies to add/tweak what actually happened later.

Thinking more on in Roman controlled province the local courts lost their ability/right to hand down capital sentences... One problem comes up, namely stonings are mentioned in the gospels and elsewhere, Jesus saving the prostitute for example. Other martyrs being stoned too. So how do we explain that? From reading of these stonings they appear to be by the mob, off the cuff extra legal lynchings basically. No "official" trial and judgement involved. Officially the locals couldn't hand down capitol sentences, but if the mob were to smell blood, well what could we have done Claudius? Out of our hands. Fair enough Samuel. Ah sure we have our own mob too. Can get right bloody unruly with it. Fancy a few vinos?

smacl

Wibbs wrote: »

I love this kinda discussion.

Really enjoying myself, as an ignorant bystander who wasn't even aware he had any interest in the subject up until now.

Standard Toaster

smacl wrote: »

Really enjoying myself, as an ignorant bystander who wasn't even aware he had any interest in the subject up until now.

+1

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Really enjoying myself, as an ignorant bystander who wasn't even aware he had any interest in the subject up until now.

I love these kind of discussions too but am so completely up the bloody walls at the moment that I only get to skim the recent posts at a time of night when I am also completely brain dead... like right now for example.

Wibbs

Bannasidhe wrote: »

am also completely brain dead...

Welcome to my world.

roosh

Just watched this documentary. Jesus was a Buddhist monk. A large part of it discusses the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection, which echoes what people have been saying about no first hand accounts of Jesus. I was just wondering about the latter claims about the possibility that someone, who could potentially have been Jesus, came from Israel and settled in Kashmir - just wondering if anyone knows about those claims?

I'll be looking into it myself, was just wondering if anyone else has already done it which might save me some time.

EDIT: I know the claims by Nicolas Notovitch have been discredited but there are claims about Kashmiri history as well, which I'm not sure about.

Red Nissan

roosh wrote: »

Just watched this documentary. Jesus was a Buddhist monk.

For those on slow connections: This is faster:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxwqAYSsKjY

kelly1

ok, I just read up to page 19.

Very interesting and informative I must say.

Re the comment from Bannasidhe, "Yet, the vast majority of the (all secondary) sources on him stem from his own camp, as it were, so must be viewed as hagiographies " in post #201, my only comment on this is that there is embarrassment factor in the New Testament to consider.

e.g. the reporting of the empty tomb by women witnesses, when women in ancient Jewish society were considered to be unreliable witnesses.

Then, it was evident from the text that the disciples didn't understand what Jesus meant by rising after 3 days, so when it did happen, they were taken by surprise. I'm sure they thought they had backed the wrong horse when their master was crucified like a common criminal.

I would expect that if they were fabricating the story, they would paint themselves in the best possible light.

[Oh, last comment was from 2014. Sorry for resurrecting this thread ]

oldrnwisr

kelly1 wrote: »

Re the comment from Bannasidhe, "Yet, the vast majority of the (all secondary) sources on him stem from his own camp, as it were, so must be viewed as hagiographies " in post #201, my only comment on this is that there is embarrassment factor in the New Testament to consider.

e.g. the reporting of the empty tomb by women witnesses, when women in ancient Jewish society were considered to be unreliable witnesses.

The criterion of embarrassment or dissimilarity as it is better known in academia is a fairly limited tool.
Firstly it's only real purpose is confirmatory. It can be used to show that something not in the vested interest of the author is more likely to be true. It can't be used to falsify a hypothesis. You can't show that because something is in the vested interest of an author that it is likely not true. So it's got limited utility.
Secondly, dissimilarity only looks at whether or not the passage would be in the author's interest to claim from a theological standpoint. It doesn't consider other reasons why it may be included. For example in his lecture series on The Historical Jesus, Bart Ehrman lists seven examples of what he considers classic examples of dissimilarity. One of them is the betrayal of Judas. If Jesus was really the Son of God and the author of the gospel believed that then why have him betrayed by Judas. Why would Jesus keep a disciple who he had to have known would betray him. So it must be true. Except we have very good reasons why the Judas betrayal story is there and why Judas is a fictional character, an invention of Mark for use as a plot device. I've explained this in more detail on the naturalism thread here.
Also, if the women were the first witnesses to the empty tomb and women were unreliable witnesses such that it makes the story more likely to be true then why doesn't Paul mention them. Paul is writing 20 years earlier than any of the gospel writers and yet makes no mention of the women, a story which if true, would have been one of the most prominent stories about Jesus.
Finally, it's very likely, as I'll explain in the next section that the appearance of the women at the tomb (not the fact that they're women but the entire empty tomb narrative) is really just a plot device of Mark's designed as the final revelation of the nature of Jesus.

kelly1 wrote: »

Then, it was evident from the text that the disciples didn't understand what Jesus meant by rising after 3 days, so when it did happen, they were taken by surprise. I'm sure they thought they had backed the wrong horse when their master was crucified like a common criminal.

But misunderstanding is one of the major themes of Mark's gospel, you could even argue that misunderstanding is the entire point of Mark's gospel. I have spelled this out before but Mark's gospel borrows heavily from the Homeric epics in content, structure and tone. It is a "hidden hero" story like the tale of Odysseus. The degree to which The Odyssey influences Mark's gospel is extensive and could fill a thread all by itself so I'll be brief.
One example of a scene borrowed from The Odyssey is found in Mark 14:

" While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head. But some were indignantly remarking to one another, “Why has this perfume been wasted? For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.” And they were scolding her. But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me. She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial. Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.”

Now the parallel story in The Odyssey is too long to quote verbatim here so I'll just give the synopsis. The Odyssey concerns Odysseus' adventures as he returns home to Ithaca after the fall of Troy. It takes Odysseus ten years to get home because he is constantly waylaid by a series of incredible adventures (think Star Trek Voyager). Eventually Odysseus returns home but since 10 years have elapsed the people in Ithaca think he is dead. He gets back to his house to find a number of men acting as suitors to his wife Penelope. Rather than confront the many suitors he decides to covertly get the lowdown on the situation. He disguises himself as a beggar and wanders into the house. His wife Penelope doesn't recognise him but bids Eurycleia his wet-nurse to attend to the beggar. Eurycleia begins washing Odysseus' feet when she notices a scar which he acquired in his youth. She then recognises him as her master Odysseus. He then commands her to be silent and not tell Penelope or anyone else in the house. This is so that his disguise can be preserved until the right moment and give the reader a sense of dramatic irony.

When we compare the two stories as well as the rest of Mark's gospel we see the influence of one on the other.
Firstly, the woman recognises who Jesus really is when his own disciples do not (which is why she anoints him for what is coming down the track), just like Eurycleia recognises Odysseus when nobody else does.
Secondly, although not featured in Mark 14, the whole way through Mark's gospel Jesus repeatedly shuts people and demons up when they attempt to tell everyone who he really is. For example:

" Just then there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, saying, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!” And Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be quiet, and come out of him!”
1:23-25

"And He healed many who were ill with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He was not permitting the demons to speak, because they knew who He was."
1:34

" Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed. And He sternly warned him and immediately sent him away, and He *said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone;"
1:42-44

"Whenever the unclean spirits saw Him, they would fall down before Him and shout, “You are the Son of God!” And He earnestly warned them not to tell who He was."
3:11-12

"Immediately the girl got up and began to walk, for she was twelve years old. And immediately they were completely astounded. And He gave them strict orders that no one should know about this, and He said that something should be given her to eat."
5:42-43

It is the guest stars in the story who recognise Jesus, the minor characters, the woman who anoints Jesus, the demons, the centurion at the cross. The principal characters don't understand who Jesus is and Mark wants to preserve this sense of dramatic irony to the very end. So everyone close to Jesus is shown not to get him. His family don't understand him (3:5), his neighbours don't understand him (6:3), his own disciples don't even understand him. Even the Pharisees, those most schooled in religion don't understand who Jesus really is and constantly try to lecture him. It's only the outsiders who know so that the denouement in 16:8 has that much more impact. When the women go to the tomb they find just a young man who tells them that Jesus is gone and they run away in fear. What has happened to Jesus is left as an exercise to the reader but with all the examples of healing and exorcism throughout the Gospel the reader is left with very little doubt as to what really happened. It is a very carefully constructed novel with a cliffhanger ending.

kelly1 wrote: »

I would expect that if they were fabricating the story, they would paint themselves in the best possible light.

They didn't paint anything. We have no writings from any of the apostles. I've mentioned this on the naturalism thread but out of 27 books in the New Testament we only know who wrote 7 of them (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians and Philemon). Everything else was either anonymous or written by someone pretending to be who they're not like a fake celebrity twitter account.
For example Peter is supposed to be the author of 2 epistles in the New Testament. However, there are several reasons why Peter didn't write any epistles.
Firstly, there is evidence from the Bible itself. Acts 4:13, for example describes Peter (and John for that matter) as illiterate. Even in 2 Peter itself, its should be apparent that this was not written by Peter. 2 Peter 3:3-4 talks about people mocking Christians for the apparent failure of Jesus' prophetic claim in Matthew 24:34. If this was written by Peter before his death, say sometime around 60CE, then there wouldn't be much of a reason, yet, to mock Jesus' prophecy. However, the mocking makes more sense when you consider the work as pseudepigraphal with a composition date (according to scholarly majority) of 100-150CE.
Secondly, 2 Peter quotes and borrows heavily from Jude. This creates two problems. Firstly, someone so ostensibly close to Jesus shouldn't need to borrow from another writer to tell his story. Secondly, even conservative scholars date the composition of Jude to between 66 and 90 CE, a time when Peter would already be dead. Other more objective scholars place Jude's composition somewhere between 90 and 125CE.
Thirdly, there are several other lesser indicators that this work was not written by Peter. It is written in a very cultured Greek style, something not becoming of a fisherman. It makes references to the Hebrew Bible but only to the Septuagint, something Peter would be unlikely to have used. It contains very little personal anecdotes to connect the author with Jesus, an aberration for a book claimed to be written by Jesus' most trusted confidant. Peter makes reference to Rome as Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13, something that Christians only began to use after the publication of Revelations around 90CE.
The gospels were written by people who never even knew the disciples personally. Mark's gospel was written by someone probably in Rome who had never set foot in Palestine. Matthew's account is unlikely to be personal since it borrows the vast majority of its text from Mark, by someone living in Syria. Luke borrows heavily from Mark just as Matthew did but also from Josephus. John's work is a pastiche written by several authors with no evidence that any of them actually was John.


EDIT: There's one other parallel between the anointing story in Mark 14 and The Odyssey that I forgot to mention. At the end of the anointing story Jesus remarks that wherever in the world the gospel is preached the woman who anointed him would be remembered for her actions thus earning her worldwide fame. Well, remember who it was anointed Odysseus in the parallel story, his nursemaid Eurycleia. The name Eurycleia means "widespread fame". Just like in other stories Mark can't resist giving a little nudge nudge wink wink moment to his readers to show where his story comes from.

Nick Park

oldrnwisr wrote: »

But misunderstanding is one of the major themes of Mark's gospel, you could even argue that misunderstanding is the entire point of Mark's gospel. I have spelled this out before but Mark's gospel borrows heavily from the Homeric epics in content, structure and tone. It is a "hidden hero" story like the tale of Odysseus. The degree to which The Odyssey influences Mark's gospel is extensive and could fill a thread all by itself so I'll be brief.
One example of a scene borrowed from The Odyssey is found in Mark 14:

" While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head. But some were indignantly remarking to one another, “Why has this perfume been wasted? For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.” And they were scolding her. But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me. She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial. Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.”

Now the parallel story in The Odyssey is too long to quote verbatim here so I'll just give the synopsis. The Odyssey concerns Odysseus' adventures as he returns home to Ithaca after the fall of Troy. It takes Odysseus ten years to get home because he is constantly waylaid by a series of incredible adventures (think Star Trek Voyager). Eventually Odysseus returns home but since 10 years have elapsed the people in Ithaca think he is dead. He gets back to his house to find a number of men acting as suitors to his wife Penelope. Rather than confront the many suitors he decides to covertly get the lowdown on the situation. He disguises himself as a beggar and wanders into the house. His wife Penelope doesn't recognise him but bids Eurycleia his wet-nurse to attend to the beggar. Eurycleia begins washing Odysseus' feet when she notices a scar which he acquired in his youth. She then recognises him as her master Odysseus. He then commands her to be silent and not tell Penelope or anyone else in the house. This is so that his disguise can be preserved until the right moment and give the reader a sense of dramatic irony.

When we compare the two stories as well as the rest of Mark's gospel we see the influence of one on the other.

No, I think you need to have your head in the trees to see any influence of one on the other.

The two stories are entirely different in every respect except that they both refer to the common ancient practice of foot washing (albeit in drastically different contexts).

The mental stretching it takes to argue that they are related is so bizarre that I actually laughed out loud.

oldrnwisr

Nick Park wrote: »

No, I think you need to have your head in the trees to see any influence of one on the other.

The two stories are entirely different in every respect except that they both refer to the common ancient practice of foot washing (albeit in drastically different contexts).

The mental stretching it takes to argue that they are related is so bizarre that I actually laughed out loud.

As I pointed out in my previous post this is a long and complex topic of which the Eurycleia story is but one example. There are many parallels between The Odyssey and the Gospel of Mark. However, the principal influence of Homer on Mark's writing is in its structure. Mark is a hero biography, a tale of the exploits and adventures of its central character. This literary form is common across almost all cultures with notable examples such as The Odyssey, The Mahabharata, Beowulf, The Epic of Gilgamesh, Paradise Lost, The Divine Comedy or even our own Táin Bó Cúailng. The stories in Mark are borrowed from Greek myth and literature as well as the Septuagint but there the basic literary structure belongs to Homer. However, Mark isn't shy about this and offers a degree of fan-service to his readers who would have been Greek speaking converts (more on that later) by dropping in references to his source material.

I'm going to outline the thesis in more detail below with more examples to reinforce the original point. The central premise of the thesis is that Mark isn't an eyewitness account or even trying to be an eyewitness account. It is a deliberate work of fiction which tries to flesh out the character of Jesus by providing a backstory. This novel relies heavily on Homer in structure and content as well as borrowing from other sources. This is what I will show.


1. The real Mark

The first thing we need to establish is the information we are able to glean about the real Mark (well, whatever his name might have been) from the text of his gospel. The gospel is anonymous both internally and externally. The traditional attribution of the gospel to John Mark, an attendant of Peter is based on an attribution by Irenaeus which in turn is based on a letter by Papias which is no longer extant and is only fragmentarily preserved in the writings of Eusebius. However, even this fragment is doubtful. In Ecclesiastical History Vol. 3 39:15-16, Eusebius notes that Matthew is a collection of Jesus' sayings in Aramaic while Mark was an unchronological recording of the teachings of Peter. However, Matthew was not written in Aramaic but Greek (and bears no evidence of being a translated work) and is not just a sayings gospel (like Thomas) but has an extensive narrative structure (albeit mostly borrowed from Mark). Mark on the other hand is not an unchronological collection of teachings but a very ordered narrative. Consequently, the very basis of traditional attribution is highly doubtful and has been almost universally abandoned by scholars.
So, if the traditional attributions are wrong, what can we know about the author of Mark?

1a. He was well-educated
The story in Mark's gospel is written in Koine Greek. Furthermore it is a complex narrative told from the perspective of an omniscient (e.g. Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane) 3rd person narrator. It employs sophisticated literary techniques like:

• dramatic irony (the reader is aware of who Jesus is long before any of the main characters)
• a cliffhanger ending (the original text ends at 16:8 before there is any confirmed resurrection)
• intercalation (a technique where a separate story is sandwiched in the middle of another story, often as a means to impart a theological message, e.g. Mark 2:1-12)
• foreshadowing (references to events which will happen after the story concludes, e.g. the "I will make you fish for people" reference in Mark 1:16-20 which references the apostles preaching after Jesus' death)
• suspense building (Mark often repeats a certain story element three times, increasing it's impact each time to heighten the drama of the story, e.g. in Mark 1:10-11, there are three reactions to Jesus' baptism, the heavens open, a spirit descends and a voice is heard. This is mirrored by three reactions to Jesus death in Mark 15:38-40, those of the centurion, the women and the ripping of the temple curtain)
• Parataxis (the idea of stringing together vignettes or otherwise only loosely connected stories into a themed group, e.g. there are five stories involving some kind of controversy or opponent of Jesus given together between 2:1 and 3:6. Also Mark tends to use the word "and" a lot to string everything together like a five year old with too much sugar. Two-thirds of the verses in the original greek text begin with "and")
• In medias res (opening your story in the middle of ongoing events. Unlike Matthew, Mark's story cold opens with the preaching of John the Baptist rather than beginning with a nativity. The Odyssey begins similarly by starting with Odysseus' journey home and only later recounting the events which lead up to the story's opening).

Now the fact that Mark could write at all was a wonder in itself. As William Harris points out in Ancient Literacy:

"The likely overall illiteracy of the Roman Empire under the principate is almost certain to have been above 90%"


In this region, at that time, only about 10% of people would have been educated enough to read. To write, those people would have been educated further still and to write a complex narrative of the type found in the gospel would have required advanced training. This training would have been much like the Junior and Leaving Cert cycle English programmes are today, with much emphasis on classic works and homework on comprehension and essay writing. So in the same way that a student now would practice their English by studying, reading and writing about Shakespeare, a student then would have done the same with Homer. So someone who is able to write the type of story found in Mark's gospel would have been intimately familiar with the works of Homer.

1b. He was from Rome
Being well educated would also require that Mark was from a wealthy background and as is generally true today, there was at that time an uneven distribution of wealth such that those in urban centres were more likely to come from wealthy backgrounds than those from rural areas. Now given the fact that any eyewitnesses would have to have originated from modern day Palestine, we know that this wasn't the case with Mark.
Firstly, Mark knows very little about the country he is writing about, both its customs and geography. In Mark 7:31 Mark describes Jesus leaving Tyre and going through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee. This is similar to someone going from Galway through Mayo to Tipperary. Also in Mark 7:10, Mark references the Ten Commandments as the Laws of Moses. Matthew corrects mark on this, changing the passage in Matthew 15:4 to show that the commandments come from God.
Secondly, the language that Mark employs also indicates that he is not from Palestine. He employs very scant references to Aramaic and they are almost always limited to words or short phrases (e.g. 3:17, 5:41, 7:11, 15:22, 15:34). He also translates these phrases for his readers indicating that he is writing for a Greek speaking audience who would have no knowledge of Aramaic. Coupled with this is the fact that Mark makes use of a number of Latin loanwords in his gospel (e.g. 4:21, 5:9, 6:37, 12:42, 15:39). In fact out of 18 Latin loanwords across the New Testament, 10 of them are found in Mark. Mark also contains phrases that are influenced by Latin (e.g. 3:6, 5:23, 11:32, 14:65).

So, in conclusion, we can say that Mark was probably from a wealthy, urban background, probably in Rome who was highly educated and a Gentile convert. What does this mean for the overall thesis? Well, as demonstrated above, the education that Mark would have received in writing to the point that he is capable of such a complex story would have required an in-depth study of Greek classics like Homer including mimesis (writing stories which copy the basic idea but change the little details, like improv).


2. Mark's Jesus and Genre

As I've pointed out before, Mark (or the other gospels for that matter) don't read as histories. There are many reasons for this but the principal ones are:

1. The gospels make little or no attempt to identify the sources they draw upon in writing their stories. (e.g. Luke mentions that he draws on sources but does not name them)
2. The later gospel authors make no attempt to resolve contradictions with earlier works (e.g. Luke makes no attempt to reconcile his nativity narrative with Matthew's)
3. The author does not place himself in the story.
4. The gospels are written for the common man rather than the social and literary elite audience of Greek and Roman histories/biographies.
5. The gospels contain far too many hagiographical elements to be historically reliable.
6. There is no attempt to warn the reader that certain events or words may not be recorded clearly. None of the gospel authors make any attempt to identify where they speculate on content.
7. The interdependence of the gospels makes them unlike the historical writings of the time.
8. Unusual events disappear from the wider narrative. The aftermath of the graves opening in Matthew is not discussed in any other text.

However, dispensing with the notion of the gospels as historical accounts raises the question, what are the gospels supposed to be?



Well, they're certainly not biographies of Jesus. In "The Development of Greek Biography" Arnaldo Momigliano depicts ancient biography as a very diverse genre. However, there is one element which remains constant and is considered the minimum requirement for establishing a work as a biography namely "An account of the life of a man from birth to death". As discussed above, since Mark employs the technique of in medias res, it's clear that Mark is not a biography, at least not one that would have been recognised as such by people at the time.


Some scholars such as Pheme Perkins have argued that Mark's gospel is a laudatory biography similar to Philo of Alexandria's "On the life of Moses". However, Mark's gospel structured as it is without a story element of Jesus' birth and early life and being concentrated solely on a single year in his life, doesn't align terribly well with this laudatory biography structure.



However, the gospel of Mark as it turns out aligns very well with the ancient novel in general and with The Odyssey in particular. The parallels between the stories exist not only in story elements (as with the Eurycleia story previously) but also with recurring themes and motifs which are spread throughout the gospel. I will detail both types of parallel below as well as showing that the use of Homer by Mark aligns well with the on trend technique of the day, Dynosian Imitatio.

There is one final reason why Mark's gospel aligns with the ancient novel rather than a history or biography: dialogue. There is a startling amount of direct speech in Mark's gospel. This is odd for two reasons. Firstly, as we've already covered Mark is writing 2000km and 40 years from the events he describes. So, how is he able to record conversations so accurately. In particular how is he able to record some conversations at all. For example, in Mark 14:36 Jesus is quoted as saying:



“Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will.”

Who exactly recorded this conversation? The apostles are asleep and out of earshot. There's no witness to this event other than the omniscient narrator of the gospel.


Secondly, the level of direct speech in Mark pretty much rules out this being a historical account. Histories of the day refrained from direct speech because it was problematic. The levels of direct speech in contemporary historical accounts is very low (Josephus’ Jewish War I: 8.8%, Plutarch’s Alexander: 12.1%; Tacitus’ Agricola: 11.5%). Mark, however is composed of 46% direct speech. This aligns well with other fictional novels of the day (Judith 50%, Susanna 46%). So it's much more likely that Mark was writing a deliberate work of fiction than a historical account.



3. Jesus and the silence of history


One of the major objections to a thesis like this is why there is a need to borrow material from other sources when talking about Jesus' life at all. Surely the details of the life of someone so famous would have been well known. You'd think so, but no. There is a major disconnect between the claims of the gospels and the evidence of history.
In the gospels we are repeatedly told of the fame of Jesus. In Mark 1:28, we are told that word of Jesus' exploits spread all through the district of Galilee. In Matthew 4:25 and Luke 12:1 we are told that large crowds followed Jesus and that many thousands of people gathered to hear him speak. In John 12:11 the chief priests express frustration at Jesus on account of how many people he was converting. He comes to the attention of both the chief priests and the rulers of the day (Matthew 14:1). His death is accompanied by seemingly indisputable cataclysmic events, a worldwide darkness for three hours (Mark 15:33), a great earthquake (Matthew 27:51) and of course a zombie uprising (Matthew 27:52-53). How could anyone at that time be ignorant of the details of Jesus' life? However, that's exactly what we find. Some of the people whose interests are focused either geographically or thematically on the subject of 1st century Palestine make no mention of Jesus.
For example Philo of Alexandria was a Hellenistic Jew who lived from 20BCE to 50CE. In his writings we find references to Jewish offshoot sects such as the Essenes and Therapeutae but no mention of the Jesus sect. He wrote about Pontius Pilate and was living in Jerusalem around the time Jesus was supposedly killed but makes no mention of him. Here's a man who at least to some extent shared religious opinions with Christianity, was living in the region, at the time and yet makes no mention of such a famous character. Odd.
Then you have Justus of Tiberias. A historian and rival of Josephus, Justus composed several histories of the region around 80CE. Little is known of Justus' life apart from what is preserved in Jospehus' writings. However, Photius, the 9th century patriarch of Constantinople references some of Justus' work in his book Bibliotheke (a review of 279 books he had read). In particular, Photius notes that Justus makes no mention of Jesus's life.
Then there's Pliny The Elder who wrote a monumental 37 volume tome "Natural History" which mentions a myriad of scientific and natural phenomena but makes no mention of the cataclysmic events which surrounded Jesus' death.
Then there's Seneca the Younger (1BCE - 65CE) who wrote a series of letters and essays about moral teachings and ethics and yet makes no mention of Jesus' supposedly radical and humane teachings.
There are no contempraneous sources for Jesus. The earliest biblical source is Paul writing 20 years after Jesus' death and contains almost no biographical information (we are told Jesus was born of a woman and was crucified but that's about it). The other extrabiblical sources which mention Jesus or Christians are all younger than the gospels (Jospehus 93CE, Suetonius 120CE, Tacitus 115CE, Pliny the Younger 112CE).
So how does someone like Mark writing 40 years after Jesus death in a city 2000km away from where the events happened have access to such extensive biographical information when other writers (e.g. Paul) writing temporally and geographically closer to the events don't. The answer is, he didn't. Mark like early converts wouldn't have had any details on Jesus. He probably had Paul's letters and heard whispers of Jesus' life but that's about it. So where did he get such a detailed story? From literature.


4. Mark and Homer - Structural parallels

As I noted above, there are two kinds of Homeric parallels in Mark, recurring themes and motifs which pervade the story and specific borrowings where a particular event in Jesus' adventures is lifted directly from an earlier source. The first type of parallel is borrowed exclusively from Homer with particular focus on The Odyssey. The second type of parallel has multiple sources, Mark borrows stories from The Odyssey, The Iliad, Greek mythology and the Septuagint in building his narrative. However, The Odyssey, given its influence on the overall story structure gets used more often than most other sources.

The first type of parallel, that of recurring themes and motifs is shorter and more obvious than the next section.

4a - The Jesus boat
One of the most prominent recurring parallels between Mark and The Odyssey is Mark's use of the Sea of Galilee and boats in his story. The Odyssey is structured as Odysseus' return by sea to Ithaca following the Trojan war and the adventures that befall the crew on their way home. Mark uses this backbone to introduce or connect stories in his gospel. Jesus is referenced as using boats in 1:19-20, 3:9, 4:1, 4:36, 5:2, 5:18-21, 6:32, 6:45-51, 8:10.
In one story in Mark 4 Jesus calms a storm which rises up on the Sea of Galilee and threatens to sink the boat. This is a boat which happily contains 12 disciples and a sleeping Jesus. From excavations it's likely that this boat was approximately 27 feet long, 8 feet wide and 4 feet high giving it a total displacement of roughly 4 tons. Now the Sea of Galilee is actually a freshwater lake, somewhere between Lough Derg and Lough Corrib in size. So how come a storm builds up so quickly (to the point that Jesus is asleep right up to the point that the boat is in imminent danger) that it risks sinking a boat that big on a lake that small?

4b - Jesus' motley crew
Another prominent feature of Mark's gospel is the fairly pitiful characters that are the apostles. Several times they appear to be more of a hindrance to Jesus than a help. They all fall asleep when they're not supposed to in Mark 14, they are panicked by the storm in Mark 4, they all evidently flee when Jesus is arrested since none of the disciples apart from Peter is mentioned again in the story. The characterisation of the disciples in Mark is odd since they are only depicted as timid men lacking in understanding. It is only in later gospels that you begin to get the change into bold characters proudly proclaiming the gospel. It's an odd characterisation also because tradition ascribes the gospel to an attendant of Peter who gets some pretty bad press in Mark. It does however mirror the depiction of Odysseus' companions very well.

4c - Other parallels
There are other parallels too which recur through the gospel albeit with lesser prominence than those described already. Both Jesus and Odysseus face supernatural opposition. Both Jesus and Odysseus have to contend with rivals who are squandering their legacy (the suitors in the Odyssey are eating into Odysseus' wealth, the Pharisees in the gospel have distorted God's message to humanity). In both stories there is a foreshadowing of the trials that will be faced by the protagonist (in the Odyssey, Calypso warns Odysseus of what lies ahead, in Mark 8:31 Jesus warns his disciples of the dangers ahead). Both travel to the land of the dead and return again.


5 - Story parallels

Now to the specific parallels. There are several things to note here before we get to any of the examples. Firstly, as I've already pointed out the Odyssey isn't the only source that Mark borrows from. He also borrows extensively from the Septuagint setting Jesus up as the successor to the prophets of the Old Testament. He also borrows story elements from Greek myth. Secondly, the Odyssey is responsible for the how and not the what. Mark is promoting a theological message like all the gospels, a Pauline type Christianity. So very often Paul's letters form the basis of what Mark wants to say. However, the Odyssey forms the basis of how Mark frames that message and how it is delivered to the reader. Finally, because a parallel exists doesn't necessarily mean that it was intended. For example, in "The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh of Homer" Irwin and Lombardo point out that sometimes there are accidental associations not intended as allusion. They cite one such example where Marge's short lived career as a real estate agent mirrors that of Annette Benning's character in American Beauty. This is an accidental association since the Simpsons episode aired two years before American Beauty. Therefore, we need to establish some criteria for identifying an allusion rather than an accidental association. The criteria for this purpose are as follows:

1. They are numerous (there are multiple examples of parallel stories rather than just one or two)
2. Commonality (for any given examples there are multiple points where the stories overlap)
3. Oddities (there are features of the gospel story which are unusual or jarring when reading the story cold)
4. Explanatory power (the parallel explains more than a plain reading of the text does)

5a - Polyphemus and the demon-possessed man
At the beginning of chapter 5 of Mark, we see the story of a man possessed by demons in the land of the Gerasenes. Jesus gets out of the boat alone and interacts with the man. He engages with the demons and asks them their name. They reply that their name is Legion (for we are many). Jesus then casts out the demons who enter a herd of pigs and flee into the sea.

In the Odyssey Book 9 we see the story of the cyclops Polyphemus son of Poseidon. Odysseus and his men alight by a cave near the sea and feed on Polyphemus food and wine. Polyphemus returns and kills several of Odysseus' men and then questions Odysseus. He asks him his name to which Odysseus responds "nobody". Later Odysseus attacks Polyphemus who calls out for help saying that nobody is attacking him and thus no one comes to his aid. Finally, Odysseus and his men make their escape by clinging to the underside of Polyphemus' flock of sheep.


There are multiple points of commonality:

• The stories open with a boat landing on the shore near a cave
• There is a challenge of identification (Jesus of the demons, Polyphemus of Odysseus)
• The response to the challenge is a play on words (nobody, legion)
• There is an escape in a pack of animals

Both stories feature a unique element, the escape on a pack of animals.



Then there's the point of the story. Mark's portrayal of Jesus is contrasted with that of Odysseus in the Odyssey. Mark uses the parallels to invoke the memory of the Odysseus story in his audience's mind. He then changes certain story elements to elevate the character of Jesus above that of Odysseus. Unlike Odysseus, Jesus faces the danger of the demoniac alone. Jesus takes on a multitude of demons rather than a single cyclops. At the conclusion of the story Jesus is humble about his identity and credits God as opposed to Odysseus' prideful taunting of Polyphemus.



5b - Priam and Joseph
I'm including this example because in some ways it is the exception that proves the rule. All of the other Homeric borrowings come from the Odyssey since Jesus is portrayed as Odysseus+. However, the death and resurrection of Jesus is a problem. Although Odysseus does visit the land of the dead, there is no actual death and burial in the Odyssey. So, instead Mark shifts gears and borrows a story from the Iliad instead. In Mark 15:42-16:2 we see the story of Joseph of Arimathea asking for the body of Jesus in order to bury him. In Book 24 of the Iliad Priam asks Achilles for the body of his son Hector. Again we see multiple points of commonality:

• Both stories open at night
• The task of asking for the body is described as daring
• The custodian of the body (Pilate, Achilles) is amazed at the request.
• The first witness after burial is a woman (Cassandra, Mary)
• A group of three women come to visit the body (Andromache, Hecuba, Helen; Mary, Mary and Salome)
• The conclusion of the story takes place at dawn (Hector's body is burned, the empty tomb is discovered)

So what's the point of the empty tomb story? Is it recounting a real historical fact or is it a literary invention. Well several facts feed into this idea. Firstly, the empty tomb is not mentioned in any other source before Mark. Secondly as JD Crossan in "The Passion of Mark" and Louis Ruprecht in "This Tragic Gospel" separately note, the other gospels derive their passion and empty tomb narratives from Mark. There is no independent corroboration of the empty tomb story. Also as Crossan points out, the empty tomb fits within Mark's redactional theology. Furthermore, when the theology and the literary perspectives are viewed together the empty tomb makes more sense. Mark's theology is inflluenced by Paul. Paul's letters speak repeatedly of Jesus' imminent return (albeit less imminent over time). So Mark needs a way of tying his backstory into the return of Jesus he's read about in Paul. What better way than a cliffhanger ending, having the women find an empty tomb and run away frightened with the ultimate fate of Jesus being left as an exercise for the reader?



5c - Aeolas and the storm
I've already mentioned the storm on the Sea of Galilee in Mark 4. This too has a parallel in The Odyssey. In Book 10 we see the story of Odysseus and Aeolas. Once again there are numerous parallels:

• The story opens with the crew boarding the ship
• The main character tells stories while afloat (Odysseus on a floating island, Jesus on a boat)
• Both stories involve a flotilla of boats
• The main character goes to sleep before the action kicks off
• A storm rises up quickly
• The crew complains
• The main character wakes up and settles the nerves of the crew
• The main character rebukes his crew (Odysseus for their greed, Jesus for their lack of faith)

Again there are unique features not otherwise explained by a plain reading, the sudden mention of a flotilla of boats without explanation why they were there, why Jesus is asleep as a storm kicks off. Once again, the use of Homer is a tool for Mark to impart a message the supernatural power of Jesus and the importance of faith.



5d - Eurycleia and the anonymous woman
We've covered this one already so I'll be brief. Like the others there are multiple points of commonality:

• There is an anointing
• Liquid is spilled (water in the Odyssey, nard in Mark)
• There is a recognition of the main character
• The story ends abruptly with a focus shift to a discussion of the main characters' enemies and unfaithful servants (the suitors & housemaids, the chief priests & Judas)

The story contains a unique parallel not otherwise explained by a plain reading, the fame that this anonymous woman will acquire in Mark vs. the etymology of Eurycleia in the Odyssey.

Once again this story serves as a signpost to the reader. It's intention is to stir the memory of the Odyssey story in the minds of the reader so that they know what's coming next.


5e - Other parallels
There are so many individual instances of parallel stories in Mark that it's not possible to go into all of them in any detail so I've included below a summary list so anyone can read the stories for themselves (using the links at the bottom) and see how many parallels there really are:

• Odysseus' entry into the city of the Phaecians (6.251 - 7.328; Mark 11:1-14)
• Why there are only male guests at the feeding of the five thousand (The Feast of Nestor 2.427 - 3.124; Mark 6:30-44)
• The naked young man in Gethsemane (The Death of Elpenor 10.552-574, Mark 14:50-52)
• The feeding of the four thousand (The Feast of Menelaus 4.1-144, Mark 8:1-9)
• Odysseus as a carpenter (5.1-255, Mark 6:1-6)
• The plot to kill Jesus (The suitor's plot to kill Telemachus 4.557-847, Mark 3:6)
• The sinful paralytic (Hephaestus 8.1-385, Mark 2:1-12)
• The foolish companions (9.62-107, Mark 8:13-21)
• The holy spirit descends on Jesus (The empowerment of Telemachus 1.11-324, Mark 1:9-11)
• The blind man at Bethsaida (Demodocus 8.454-555, Mark 8:22-26)
• The young man at the tomb (The burial of Elpenor 12.1-15, Mark 16:5-8)
• Peter's protest (Eurylochus 12.16-305, Mark 8:31-33)
• Peter's broken vow (12.333-419, Mark 14:32-41 & Mark 14:66-15:1)
• Jesus and the Syrophoenician woman (15.403-484, Mark 7:24-30)

I'm not sure you've grasped the scale of this parallel nor the scholarship allied against you. This isn't some tinfoil hat conspiracy but the result of serious scholarship by New Testament academics.


Conclusion

I must apologise that this post is very long and probably hard to follow and digest so I will try to summarise the overall thesis as best I can.

Firstly, the author of Mark's gospel is a well-educated, wealthy person writing around 70CE in Rome. They have very little knowledge of Palestinian geography, Jewish customs, Aramaic or the Hebrew bible. So the idea that they were an eyewitness or had access to eyewitness accounts is highly suspect.

Secondly, despite the claims of the gospel, there are no biographical sources for Jesus extant prior to Mark. Despite the fact that Paul could have interacted with Jesus' mother and all of his disciples he doesn't and he doesn't offer any biographical information. So Mark's sudden detailed biography is bizarre to say the least.
Finally, Mark from his education would have been deeply familiar with Homer having had to study it for both reading and writing. His story borrows individual epsiodes and recurring motifs from the Homeric epics as well as framing the entire story as an anti-Homeric archetype.
The closest modern day analog to Mark's gospel is this:




In Cryptonomicon, Neal Stephenson builds a carefully crafted story stretching from the codebreakers of World War 2 to the SE Asia tech boom of the 90s. It features a number of real verifiable historical figures (e.g. Alan Turing) but the story itself is entirely fictional.

You see, Nick, if my argument really were mental stretching then you could have clearly and concisely presented a counterargument backed up with supporting evidence. But you didn't. Instead you offered nothing but a feeble attempt to defend your mythology, a mocking condescension in a "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" kind of way. I kinda expected a more cogent argument from a pastor. Pity.


Sources

The Odyssey
The Passion in Mark
Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative (Ronald Hock)
Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative (Jo-Ann Brant)
The Ancient Novel and Early Christian and Jewish Narrative: Fictional Intersections (Marilia Pinheiro)
Profit With Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Richard Pervo)
The Problem of Markan Genre: The Gospel of Mark and the Jewish Novel (Michael Vines)
What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (Richard Burridge)
The Homeric Epics and the gospel of Mark (Dennis MacDonald)
Direct Speech in Acts and the Question of Genre
Literary Features of the gospel of Mark

Nick Park

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You see, Nick, if my argument really were mental stretching then you could have clearly and concisely presented a counterargument backed up with supporting evidence. But you didn't. Instead you offered nothing but a feeble attempt to defend your mythology, a mocking condescension in a "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" kind of way. I kinda expected a more cogent argument from a pastor. Pity.

I didn't make any attempt to defend anything. I pointed out the illogical nature of the claim you were making that two entirely dissimilar stories were somehow related. So maybe you should respond to that rather than imagining a lot of other stuff about my motives?

As for demanding clear and concise counterarguments - that's a bit like claiming "Green is the same colour as black" and then belittling someone for saying, "er, no they're not". The burden is on you to offer some evidence for why you claim two dissimilar events are related.

Now, let's examine your attempts at doing that:

There is an anointing

Yes, not that anointings were particularly rare in the ancient world. In fact, Mark's anointing isn't even specified as a foot washing in his Gospel. The ointment was poured on his head and body. It's other Gospel writers who specify it is a foot washing - even though Mark is the one who is supposed to be copying a foot washing. Funny that.

Liquid is spilled (water in the Odyssey, nard in Mark)

Er, how exactly do you think an anointing could occur without a liquid being used? Every anointing in history involved liquid being spilled.

Of course the liquids are completely different. In the one case its plain old water, in the other case it's a costly ointment. So that would be evidence of dissimilarity, not similarity.

There is a recognition of the main character

Actually, in Mark's Gospel there is no mention of any moment of recognition.

So that's another point of dissimilarity.

The story ends abruptly with a focus shift to a discussion of the main characters' enemies and unfaithful servants (the suitors & housemaids, the chief priests & Judas)

This is pretty vague. You're really trying very hard, and not succeeding very well, in forcing something into a preconceived scheme.

Here are some dissimilarities between the stories:

1. In the story of Odysseus it is identified as a foot washing. It isn't in Mark.
2. With Odysseus it is water. In Mark it is ointment.
3. With Odysseus the footwashing identifies a physical characteristic. In Mark it doesn't.
4. With Odysseus the hero is returning to family after an absence. In Mark he isn't.
5. With Odysseus the hero was disguised. In Mark he isn't.
6. In Mark the anointing is a prophecy of the hero's death. With Odysseus it isn't.
7. The recognition of Odysseus through the footwashing is a prelude to him killing his wife's suitors. In Mark there is recognition in the anointing, no wife, no suitors, and Jesus doesn't kill anyone.

The whole point of the Odysseus foot washing story and the details of the story are entirely different from Mark's account of the anointing.

Zubeneschamali

kelly1 wrote: »

I would expect that if they were fabricating the story, they would paint themselves in the best possible light.]

One of the things the Gospel authors try to do (which I have not seen oldrnwisr discuss recently) is shoehorn in stories and details which can be seen as fulfillment of OT prophecies. Often these are weird and unlikely, as the prophecies were poorly understood or not seen as prophecies at all before the gospel writers made them so.

Hence mad stuff like Jesus riding into the city on both a colt and a donkey at the same time.

In the case of the disciples betraying Jesus, the gospel author thought it was more important to have a story that could claim to be a fulfillment of a "prophecy" from Isaiah than to make the disciples look good.

Judas looks to me to be entirely built from snippets of OT "prophecy", bread at the last supper, betrayal, 30 pieces of silver etc. etc.