Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
The Crow
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 2:26 am
Location: Southern US

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by The Crow » Mon Sep 01, 2014 2:21 pm

Thanks Neil.

User avatar
Posts: 3578
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by neilgodfrey » Mon Sep 01, 2014 2:24 pm

I will try to find also where I read the way twelve was seen to represent the hours -- not the constellations -- among the non-Christians of the day. Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by ghost » Mon Sep 01, 2014 2:24 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:Christ-Helios in the Vatican tombs. ... an-tomb-m/
It's a Julian tomb, and it's under the center of the altar of Saint Peter's basilica.

User avatar
Posts: 6215
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Carrier's Euhemerized celestial deities

Post by MrMacSon » Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:09 am

maryhelena wrote:
Kapyong wrote:Gday maryhelena,
maryhelena wrote:If historical figures are relevant to the creation of the gospel Jesus - then, 1) identify them, 2) ask questions of 'why' these figures were of interest to the gospel writers. If it's early christian origins that we are seeking, then such questions have to be asked. As it stands, the Carrier/Doherty mythicist theory is of no use in that search.
Carrier identifies a certain Jesus ben Ananias as one model for G.Mark's Jesus :

Carrier, OHJ, pp428-430, on Jesus ben Ananias

"Indeed, even how Mark decides to construct the sequence of the Passo­ver narrative appears to be based on the tale of another Jesus: Jesus ben Ananias, the 'Jesus of Jerusalem', an insane prophet active in the 60s ce who is then killed in the siege of Jerusalem (roughly in the year 70).84 His story is told by Josephus in the Jewish War, and unless Josephus invented him, his narrative must have been famous, famous enough for Josephus to know of it, and thus famous enough for Mark to know of it, too, and make use of it to model the tale of his own Jesus. Or if Josephus invented the tale, then Mark evidently used Josephus as a source.85 Because the parallels are too numerous to be at all probable as a coincidence.86 Some Mark does derive from elsewhere (or matches from elsewhere to a double purpose), but the overall scheme of the story in Josephus matches Mark too closely to believe that Mark just came up with the exact same scheme indepen­dently. And since it's not believable that Josephus invented a new story using Mark, we must conclude Mark invented his story using Josephus—or the same tale known to Josephus.

"It would appear this story inspired the general outline of Mark's entire Passover Narrative. There are at least twenty significant parallels (and one reversal):
  1. "Both are named Jesus.
  2. Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival.
  3. Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple.
  4. During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah.
  5. Both then preach daily in the temple.
  6. Both declared "woe' unto Judea or the Jews.
  7. Both predict the temple will be destroyed.
  8. Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews.
  9. Both are accused of speaking against the temple.
  10. Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges
  11. Both are beaten by the Jews.
  12. Then both are taken to the Roman governor.
  13. Both are interrogated by the Roman governor.
  14. During which both are asked to identity themselves.
  15. And yet again neither says anything in his defense.
  16. Both are then beaten by the Romans.
  17. In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him.
  18. ... but doesn't (Mark):... but does (JW).
  19. Both are finally killed by the Romans (in Mark, by execution: in the JW. by artillery).
  20. Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die.
"Given that Mark is essentially a Christian response to the Jewish War and the destruction of the Jewish temple, it is more than a little significant that he chose this Jesus to model his own Jesus after. This also tells us, yet again, how much Mark is making everything up. (It also confirms that Mark wrote after the Jewish War.)

"84. According to Josephus his arrest and trial take place between 62 and 64 ce, as that was the term of office of Lucceius Albinus. the prefect overseeing his trial.

85. The Jewish War of Josephus was written between 74 and 79 ce, as it was written after Masada was destroyed in 74, and was dedicated to Vespasian, who died in 79.

86. Theodore Weeden. Two Jesuses. Jesus of Jerusalem and Jesus of Nazareth: Provocative Parallels and Imaginative Imitation". Forum N.S. 6.2 (Fall 2003), pp. 137-341: Craig Evans, 'Jesus in Non-Christian Sources', in Studying the Historical Jesus led. Chilton and Evans), pp. 443-78 (475-77). "
Hi, Kapyong

There is no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Jesus ben Ananias. If one is prepared to grant artistic licence to the gospel writers - then, likewise, lets not deny this same ability to the Josephan writer. Carrier, interestingly, seems willing to consider that Josephus invented this figure.

As to gMark using this Josephan story for his Passion story - he had no need to do so. Hasmonean history was right in front of him. Antigonus, the last Hasmonean King and High Priest, was executed by Roman in 37 b.c.e. - hung on a cross, scourged and later beheaded - no parallel with the Josephan figure. 100 years after this historical event, the Josephan writer has a story about Jesus ben Ananias, in 63 c.e. (7 years prior to 70 c.e.) 7 years after the execution of Antigonus, Herod had Hycranus II executed in 30 b.c.e. No need, for the Markan writer, to wait until 70 c.e. to develop his Jesus story. The Josephan story - well now, that could be interesting if that writer had a look at gMark's story.....and borrowed a few ideas.....

If we seek to look for historical models for the gospel Jesus figure - then historicity is the name of the game. No point in proposing figures, from wherever, that can't be historically verified.

My copy of Carrier's book has yet to arrive - so thanks for this quote. My, but your doing a lot of typing..... :)
There's a range of possibilities: a development of a combination of previous narratives, or theological responses to previous narratives.

Increasing talk that gMark is anti-Paul raises some interesting possibilities as to what might have motivated that, or what might have been considered in writing an anti-Paul narrative

Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Adam » Sat Jun 27, 2015 6:40 am

Anti-Paul? Anti-Paul! Hey, havn't you read Acts of the Apostles? Try 15:37-40!

User avatar
Posts: 2832
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by DCHindley » Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:30 am


I'm sure a conservative will just argue that:
A) The "Mark" of Acts 15:37-40 wrote the gospel attributed to "Mark."
B) That after this split "Mark" was "rehabilitated" while acting as an "interpreter" for Peter in Rome.
C) Paul worked with gentiles, while Peter worked with Judeans.
C) ALL early Christians were in FULL harmony with one another, thus there MUST be a unified message behind Paul and G of Mark.

MUST be! :crazy:


Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Adam » Sun Jun 28, 2015 3:49 pm

Yet again, peace and harmony here at Pete's Place.
(Gotta get a better name, there's another Pete somewhere or other, no peace nor harmony there.)

Post Reply