maryhelena

Two historical sources for the existence of Antigonus - plus, of course, the Hasmonean coins....

For Philip the Tetrarch - Herodian coins.

If the tall tales of 'Josephus' can't be historically upheld - then interpretation of these stories is as valid as is interpretation of the NT stories...

Yes, 'Josephus' has mixed up an interpretation of historical events with actual historical events - pretty much as does the NT with its stories re Pontius Pilate...

So, my suggestion is that the historical reality of Antigonus and Philip the Tetrarch should be considered in any attempt to search for a historical core to the mythological Jesus story within the NT ....

maryhelena

Yes, particularly the dying and rising god mythology - the oldest version being the Sumarian myth - but interestingly, a myth that did possibly have a connection to a King mentioned in the Sumarian King List. No - no historical Jesus - regardless of how many historical figures have been used to add colour and character etc to the Jesus mythology.

Juststeve

Doug Shaver, thank you for a reasoned response, and one without capitalized, bolded or underlined phrases. There is at least one among us how seems to believe that capitalization adds intelligence to a phrase. Now some questions and comments:

1. You wrote “I believe the gospels are fiction because I believe Jesus never existed. I did not infer Jesus' nonexistence from any prior belief that the gospels are fiction.”

I wonder how you formed the belief that Jesus never existed without reaching a prior conclusion that the Gospels were an insufficient evidentiary basis for believing he did. The Gospels clearly describe a man who had a life of about 30 years, a ministry of indeterminate length, followers and a nasty death on a Roman cross. Is there an a priori reason for believing that Jesus did not exist that overcomes the evidence presented in the Gospels, those in the Canon and those outside the Canon, that compels the conclusion that the Gospels must be not only deeply flawed but outright fiction?

2. You are correct that evidence must be admissible to be considered in court, but admissibility is not determined by the plausibility of the evidence. Absolute rubbish may be admissible, it is for the fact finder to determine whether or not to believe it.

3. I am glad you and I agree that the Gospels have evidentiary value. I would be pleased if you would tell me what you find in the Gospels that support the proposition that there was no first century itinerant preacher named Jesus around whom legends grew which is the thesis I find more plausible than the these that a fiction writer made him up out of whole cloth.

4. Actually trial lawyers are well aware that different people will view the same evidence differently. That’s why good ones put so much effort into jury selection.

Steve

Juststeve

Toto:

I think we can agree that dating the evidence is an important consideration. I am hardly a specialist so I rely on those who are. Having gone myself to prestigious universities my strong bias is for scholars at those Universities. My strong bias is against “scholars” at Bible colleges or those whose scholarship is limited to writing inflammatory book and articles. I am well aware that there is a range of opinion on the formation of the Gospels from written by eyewitnesses almost immediately after the events to written by Constantine in the fourth century. My bias for leading scholars at fine universities leads me to accept the dates I posted, between about 65 C.E. and 100 C.E. That is an assumption with which I am comfortable but if I’m wrong then my conclusions may also be wrong.

Modern scholarship has dealt with the fact that the Gospels were written at least 40 years after the events described. In fact it is the consensus of modern scholars at elite universities that set that date. The consensus is that they were written by unknown persons, at the time of or after the destruction of the Temple, and were not eyewitness accounts. They are derived from a verbal tradition that was extent during the latter part of the first century C.E. The same consensus of scholars would deny that the Gospels first came into existence in the second century as some but not you so far have suggested here.

I agree that there is no reason to invent special rules for Biblical Studies and haven’t suggested that we should. We should apply the same rules in drawing historical conclusions from the Bible as any other ancient documents. If I want to know if Socrates existed and what he was like I read Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon and Aristophanes and draw some tentative conclusions. Can I be sure they are correct? Of course not, we’re talking about a guy from more than 2000 years ago. I do suggest that we treat the Bible like another historical source, not merely declare it non-evidence all in caps.

Regards,
Steve

gurugeorge

A historical Jesus candidate would need to be identified as a historical Jesus candidate through independent evidence of a historical Jesus candidate.

Take the whole of the surviving products of that period - ok we have a bunch of cult texts about an obviously fantastic entity, and these texts could possibly have a human being at the root of them. Of the other products, the non-cult texts, the archaeology of the time, etc., is there anything to suggest there was a person who might have formed the basis of the Jesus myth?

Not so far.

And in the absence of evidence for such an entity, the historical Jesus theory is just so much hot air. So far, it's possible, sure; but nothing has yet been pointed to that would ground the possibility in actuality.

Now, once you had a plausible candidate for an euhemerist origin, THEN all the apparatus of biblical scholarship could come into play. THEN it would be a valid line of thought to look at the cult texts and tease historical facts out of them.

But until that candidate is found, the several other origin types for this myth have equal claim to plausibility. (And actually, as plain as the nose on your face, we have - pace aa5874's line of argument - screamingly loud positive evidence that for at least one very important early Christian, his Jesus was an entity seen and conversed with in visionary experience - if there's anything that should tip the balance in the direction of a serious investigation of the origins of the Jesus myth, it seems to me obviously to be that.)

i.e. Euhemerism can't kick in as a viable explanation UNTIL THAT CANDIDATE IS FOUND. The logic goes that way round, not the other way round (the way everyone just assumes it does). Until that candidate is found, we have no reason to look to the cult texts for historical anything about anything. We have no logical basis to tie the texts to history in that way.

And now at this stage some people start talking about overall plausibility - well, has it been established that Euhemerism is the best explanation of most myths such that it's the first port of call for explanation of any fantastic story about a fantastic entity? Until that investigation has been made, again, we're in no position to say Euhemerism is plausible in this instance because it's overall the best explanation for myths (which is the rough outline of such arguments).

It's only one type of explanation and (so far as I can tell) NOT the most commonly accepted one amongst academics, NOT the default type of explanation for myths, such that given some cult texts about a fantastic entity, X, suddenly discovered in a jar in the desert, the first thing that would occur to people would be, "ah there must have been a historical X - and you must be a total idiot of you don't think so".

I hope I'm giving an inkling of how ludicrous that is? The only reason we do it with the Christian myth is that there was a hangover of historicity about the mythical entity (at one time people did believe in the historicity of the fantastic version) that has just glommed itself onto the euhemeristic root entity. But that euhemeristic root entity needs to be identified independently.

gurugeorge

IIRC that has been argued to be a later Jewish invention meant to stigmatize the Christians' cult entity.

What's a continual source of amazement for me is why Jesus historicists don't take seriously the idea that any of the other Jesuses mentioned in Josephus might have been the human Jesus at the root of the myth. Has anyone done such an investigation?

After all, some of them made a bit of a stink in Palestine at the time, had some followers, and were punished by the Roman authorities; and they are, in a quibble-free way, independently historically attested in Josephus!

Clearly they were passed over by Christians at the time, because they lack the requisite dignity from the Christian point of view, they don't fit the piety of the synoptics. But for us moderns investigating the matter, surely they're far more likely as human-Jesus candidates? We moderns understand that religions can indeed start from such undignified origins.

gurugeorge

See, there's the thing right there - you mention 4 independent contemporary sources to triangulate with.

We have nothing of the sort for the Jesus myth.

If this character Socrates were only mentioned in Plato - what then? If someone said "oh Plato's stories about Socrates are obviously about a real human being" Well, would it be so obvious if we didn't have Xenophon, for example?

And, furthermore, would it be valid to draw conclusions about a "historical Socrates" solely from the information in Plato, under those hypothetical circumstances? I hope you see how silly that would be.

But isn't that's exactly what biblical scholars are doing when they talk about Jesus nowadays, solely on the basis of a bunch of cult texts, with no triangulation from any other contemporary sources whatsoever?

bacht

It's not that the gospels are useless are evidence, it's a question of what exactly they can tell us. They are not objective history or biography, I think you would agree. They can be read as reflections of the religious syncretism of the times. They can be read as Catholic propaganda.

We have to consider the people who would write this kind of material and what their purposes were. We know that the Old Testament books are not reliable as straight history, and that those writers had agendas.

Toto

But no respectable ancient historian accepts an ancient document as historical truth without verification. Biblical historians have inverted this, and ask us to accept the gospels as a reflection of history where they are merely plausible.

spamandham

We are considering two alternatives:
1. There is a historical core of some kind to Jesus
2. There is not a historical core, but rather the character is constructed

I think we can pretty much dismiss the idea that Jesus just evolved from other myths without any intent.

Under the first possibility, it *might* makes sense that things that are unflattering are more likely true. This seems common sense, even if it is not a validated methodology. I think I'd want to see it validated before making too much of it though.

But under the second possibility, we are starting with a constructed story. Jesus thus is *not* intended (at least originally) as a historical person, and both the author of the ideas as well as the audience would know that. That which is unflattering serves some theological or story telling purpose under this scenario. Look at other pure myths. Does Ehrman argue that the aspects of Zeus which are unflattering are rooted in history!? What about Adam. Does the unflattering submission to temptation indicate that there is a historical Adam?

Ehrman is taking an approach which might be valid to help extract the historical aspects of the story *if* there really is a historical core to them, and inappropriately using it to argue that such things are evidence of a historical core. They are not. Every mythical hero of the day had flaws and "embarrassing" stories associated with them.