Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by outhouse »

John T wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:55 am That is, mysticists are not interested in history but only in promoting their fictitious ideology that Jesus did not exist.



John T
You give them to much credit. They don't have an ideology other then perverting evidence. If they leave evidence alone, they cannot explain it unless they pervert it.

Mythicist do not, nor have they ever had a working hypothesis for the origin of Christianity. It factually started, but not a one can explain by their own methodology, how when or even why. Not even close.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by outhouse »

Nothing explains the evidence like a martyred Galilean that was crucified and that crucifixion generated theology that helped divorce Hellenism for cultural Judaism while retaining monotheism. Hellenist did not want to be identified as rebellious Jews, but they wanted the religion of one god instead of worshipping the Emperor as "son of god" they could now worship the "son of god" who sacrificed himself for the good of the people.

The temple made monotheism popular in the Diaspora for Roman citizens, and these people did not want to cut their junk up like Jews.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by MrMacSon »

outhouse wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:15 pm
Mythicist do not, nor have they ever had a working hypothesis for the origin of Christianity. It factually started, but not a one can explain by their own methodology, how when or even why. Not even close.

The NT books are narratives based on and developed from other, previous narratives. A celestial angel ended up becoming fully humanised (ie. personified; reified as a human; anthropomorphized). As with Paul. Many if not most of the disciples are add-ons.

As you say yourself, outhouse, -
outhouse wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:10 pm
The authors were marrying the OT textual traditions found valuable, to show without question he was the messiah as described in the previous text.

... They took and stole the previous context of lineage.
and
outhouse wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:04 pm
It is the authors combating Jewish traditions he was not of Davidic descent. Much of the text was written in ... rhetorical form, fighting not only competing versions, but heretical views as well.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Secret Alias »

Nothing explains the evidence
But what is the evidence? Isn't the gospel the only evidence and where our gospel(s) was/were only one/several of many and not necessarily the earliest.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by DCHindley »

John T wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:32 pm
Secret Alias wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:58 am John T

Eusebius writes AFTER THE CITATION of Hegesippus:

Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says,516 “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”
Yes, that is correct. That is, Eusebius is done with the testimony of Hegesippus and now moves on to the testimony of Josephus.

Although your translation is not exactly the same as C. F. Cruse. it is close enough, please proceed.

The big problem we have here is that too many mythicists do not understand who is writing about whom and when. Something a historian would have little trouble deciphering.
Yes, Josephus did indeed express his opinion about events that caused the destruction of Jerusalem, but it had nothing to do with the James of Ant 20.9.1:
20.200 When, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. And, when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. 201 But as for those who seemed the most equitable [εδοκουν επιεικεστατοι = "those who think correctly"] of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified;
That this James was executed is implied in the Greek phrase "παρεδωκεν λευσθησομονους," which means something like "led him away for disposition". The stoning part is not in the original, but is rather Whiston's own interpretation.

Let's unravel this thriller a bit more, to see whom is citing whom. Eusebius, in History of the Church 2.1.3,5 says:
3) But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposeis [not extant] writes as follows: ... 5) But there were two Jameses, one being the just one, who was cast down from the pinnacle and was beaten unto death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.
Then in History of the Church 2.23.3ff Eusebius says:
3) The manner of the death of James has been already indicated by the above mentioned words of Clement, who records that he was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club. But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. He writes as follows: ...
After relating several paragraphs about the wonders of James, Eusebius sums up the things said about James the Just by both Hegesippus and Clement in History of the Church 2.23.19:
19) These things Hegesippus at any rate also relates at length along with Clement. And James was so marvelous a one, and so acclaimed among all the rest for his justice, that the sensible ones [ἔμφρονας δοξάζειν = "sensible thinking"] of the Jews opined that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him.
Origen, in several places, relates that he was aware of traditions that Josephus had himself said that the death of James the Just was the cause of the destruction of the city. Origen, Against Celsus 1.47b-d:
b) Now he [Josephus] himself, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put Christ to death, who was a prophet, nevertheless says, being albeit against his will not far from the truth, that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ, the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.

This is also repeated in Against Celsus 2.13, and his Commentary On Matthew 13.55. However, none of these seem to reference anything about the nature of his death by throwing from a high place or dispatch by a club.

Search as one may, though, there is no place in any of the preserved works of Josephus where he actually says that the "the sensible ones of the Jews opined that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem." That "the most equitable of the citizens" in Ant 20.201 disliked what Ananus had done with regard to this James, whatever that implied, is a far cry from saying that the "sensible ones" among the Judeans thought that the destruction of the city was caused by the throwing of James the Just from the pinnacle of the temple and then clubbing him to death with a fuller's club, as Eusebius claims that Clement and Hegesippus both recount!

But wait, what's this! Josephus actually does tell us what caused the destruction of the city. In War 4.5.2 (314-320), which relates an episode that occurred in the early years of the Judean rebellion, when the Idumeans finally gained entry into the city, to assist the Zealot party, after having been shut out at first in an insulting manner by the ruling elite, especially the former HP Ananus:
314 But the rage of the Idumeans was not satiated by these slaughters [of the common people]; but they now betook themselves to the city, and plundered every house, and slew every one they met ... 315 … but they sought for the high priests, and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; 316 and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus [son of Ananus] with his kindness to the people, and Jesus [son of Gamalas] with his speech made to them from the wall. 317 Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial ... 318 I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they [the people of the city] saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. 319 He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honor of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of parity, even with regard to the meanest of the people; 320 he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered.
How Josephus' very clear statement that he thought that the death of Ananus at the hands of the Idumeans was the cause of the overthrow of the city, was turned in Christian tradition into him saying that the "sensible ones" of the Judeans thought James' death was the cause of the city's destruction, requires a bit of interpretation.

The only common term between these two accounts is Ananus, son of Ananus, so I think any explanation that we offer needs to find a way to include him in the explanation. Because the portrait of Ananus was so positive in War 4 but so negative in Ant 20, this must also be explained. Personally, I think that between the writing of War 4 and Ant 20 (some 20 years or more) Josephus learned, as part of his research, that Ananus, who he had considered a friend before the War, had actually sought to have him killed after he became active in the Galilee, leaving him bitter about Ananus' legacy.

Now I've offered my own explanation involving marginal comments to the James affair in Ant 20, made by someone (not necessarily a Christian) who had also read War 4 and noted the differences in depiction of Ananus, which had been misread by some Christian link(s) in the chain of tradition as actual opinions of Josephus himself, but you'll have to search for it.

At the moment, though, I don't think anyone else has seriously ventured an explanation that centers on the Ananus connection, although the marginal comment angle has been used by others.

DCH
Last edited by DCHindley on Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:34 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Secret Alias »

The attribution of the death of Ananus as the cause of the destruction is also in the Yosippon (perhaps not surprisingly). But it's there too.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by DCHindley »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:14 pm The attribution of the death of Ananus as the cause of the destruction is also in the Yosippon (perhaps not surprisingly). But it's there too.
Yeah, but I was trying to limit the field to those within a hundred years or so from Josephus' own times. So I leave out Jerome and all the others.

DCH
User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Kapyong »

Gday all,
outhouse wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:15 pm Mythicist do not, nor have they ever had a working hypothesis for the origin of Christianity. It factually started, but not a one can explain by their own methodology, how when or even why. Not even close.
I explained how it could have started without a historical Jesus right here.


Kapyong
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Ulan »

John T wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:53 pm All of your personal insults aside, are you saying you do believe Jesus existed?
That is a simple yes or no question.

Thanks in advance.
I have always declared that I find the existence of some historical person at the base of the kerygmatic Jesus figure of the gospels as the easiest explanation of what we find.

I find it commendable though that you make this question one of belief. Given that the idea of Jesus as a historical person depends on just about a dozen or so mentions spread over a handful of texts, this verdict depends mostly on the belief that the texts we have are faithful representations of words that come from people who would have known something about these matters. Needless to say, this belief stands on shaky foundations at best, as the sheer existence of the synoptic gospels shows us. However, as these few mentions in those texts is all we have, without any proof whether they are genuine or not, it's completely okay to just flow with what they say. Of course, I don't expect there to be any proof regarding your question, one way or the other. But that's how things are.

I have a more than 500 pages long book (by G. Theissen and A. Merz) that was written to meticulously present the case for the historical Jesus. In the end, it just shows that the main argument is "it fits the texts, and we don't have anything else". That's about it.

Which means:
1) Yes, I think there was some historical figure at the base of Christianity.
2) No, I don't think the case for historicity is in any way as clear-cut as people who deal with this question often claim.
3) In the end, this question is utterly unimportant for the Christian faith, its texts or the messages therein. Most texts can be explained both ways.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:55 pmYes, Josephus did indeed express his opinion about events that caused the destruction of Jerusalem, but it had nothing to do with the James of Ant 20.9.1....
Excellent post, David. Here is what Andrew Criddle had to say many moons ago:
There are IMO three possible explanations for the major differences between this and our text of Josephus

1/ The two are independent Origen's claim is not derived from the text of Josephus and our current text of Josephus is in no way based on what Origen says. This seems possible but unlikely, the two passages agree in such things as calling James the brother of Jesus called Christ.

2/ Origen's claim is a Christian distortion of Josephus but based on something actually in Josephus' text, most simply on our present text of Josephus. IMO this is the most likely.

3/ Our present text of Josephus has been affected by Origen's claim. IMO this is the least likely option. It requires Origen's claim to be rewritten into something less related to Christian concerns.
Further down the page I add:
I would add that Josephus himself uses language that would perhaps seem, to a Christian, to tie the punishment of Ananus (for his unlawful actions against James and certain others) with the punishment of the country as a whole:
But as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

....

Now all this was contrary to the laws of our country, which, whenever they have been transgressed, we have never been able to avoid the punishment of such transgressions.

And spin adds on page 2:
It is much more reasonable to see that someone got their wires crossed when dealing with the reports by Josephus and shifted the claim we see in BJ from Ananus to James on seeing the James report in AJ, especially seeing as Ananus is mentioned here. Had Josephus really made the claim about James, one would expect a eulogy on James such as the one we see for Ananus in BJ. He didn't write one. The claim that Josephus said that the death of James was the cause of the ensuing troubles is painfully bogus.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply