Toto

How does creating a spurious sense of accuracy "get it right"?

The historically accurate statement is that Athronges is described in surviving copies of a work by Josephus, who had no particular motive to invent someone like him. There is no question of later Athrongistas interpolating the text, because there were none - his followers died with him.

The conclusion that one can draw from this historically accurate statement is that A. was probably historical, but we can't be 100% sure. I don't think that we can state that Jesus was even probably historical, given the equivocal nature of the evidence.

(Yes, I realized after I wrote that that Josephus was not a contemporary. And he has his biases, but none of them would induce him to invent a tall shepherd with four brothers who proclaimed himself king of Israel.)

If there are no modern religious or nationalist interests at stake, no one worries about whether a character was historical or not.

Ben C Smith

You must have misunderstood me. You had opined that nobody cared enough about the historical Athronges to discuss options besides historicity (you offered imaginative fiction, Josephan mistake, and Josephan confusion). I am saying: If Athronges did not in fact exist, let us find that out. Why wait for Athronges to become as big as Jesus (or even bigger, as John Lennon might add ) before getting it right about him?

I gave a possible motive, which you dismiss as follows:

What about this picture of Athronges makes you think that Josephus would not invent him?

How did Athronges die? But yes, let us assume for the moment that the Tacitus reference to Jesus is not an interpolation. I am trying to draw out a comparison.

What historically accurate statement? Is it not incumbent upon you to demonstrate that it is, in fact, historically accurate before drawing historical conclusions from it?

If you feel you have demonstrated its historical accuracy, I apologize for missing it. Please enumerate the exact arguments that have led you to this assessment.

As for being 100% sure, we can never (short of time travel) be 100% sure. Fortunately, that is not the standard for ancient history.

Given your standard of inquiry for Athronges, it would seem that the reference in Tacitus alone should establish a reasonable probability of historicity. If Josephus was no Athrongista, to borrow your term, Tacitus was no Christian. Might Tacitus have taken his information from Christian sources? We do not know, because he does not tell us. What sources did Josephus have for Athronges? We do not know, because he does not tell us.

Yet you still feel far more confident about Athronges than you do about Jesus. This is what I am trying to get to brass tacks about.

That is not true. Historians worry about such things all the time, with nothing so grand as religious or nationalist interests at stake. Often they are just trying to make a name for themselves within the guild.

Ben.

Gamera

Josephus was "a disinterested historian"? Honestly Toto, you've got to be kidding. If there ever was a "historian" caught up in the complexities of Emperial and ethnic politics, it was Josephus. The idea that he was even an historian in the sense that we mean it defies logic.

Gamera

Josephus' motives were complex and often subterranean. I can't think of an "historian" in a more ambiguous situation. However, creating (or propagating) a myth of big Jewish men who rose up (from the people) against both the Romans and their puppet seems tailor made as a pious myth of Jewish nationalism and nostalgia. There is example after example of this kind of historical nostalgia in the writings of most national histories.

I'm not saying this is. I am saying that applying standards of motivation regarding the gospel writers to Josephus, and honest skeptics should either accept them both or reject them both.

Toto

Can you think of a motive to invent a presumptive king who failed and died, and left no followers? It's possible, but it doesn't sound likely. Athronges had his 15 minutes of fame in world history, and he's gone. He doesn't seem to have lived on as a spirit to urge his people on to resist the foreign occupier.

I don't get this - let's assume there is some evidence for Jesus, and then we can draw the conclusion that he existed?

The only accurate fact that I claimed was that we have a copy of a manuscript that is (claimed to be) written by Josephus.

Is there a well recognized standard for ancient history?

You've assumed that there is a valid reference in Tacitus, but I don't make that assumption. Tacitus was no Christian, but we only have his works because Christians copied them, and Christian copyists have been known to insert extra material.

But even if the Tacitan reference is valid, we don't know his sources, and there are people around with a motive to create a historical Jesus who might be his sources. I don't see anyone around with a motive to invent a historical failed pretender to the throne.

Can you name another such controversy?

Gamera

Jewish nationalism and ethnic pride, mixed with nostalgia for a "man of the people," and romanicism, tempered by the constraints of Josephus' subordination to Roman authority.

Everybody wants to hear stories about how their side fought back, even if they lost.

Ben C Smith

I already gave you a motive. Josephus needs people to blame the war on. He has chosen to blame the war on what he calls the fourth philosophy. He needs examples of rebels from this class of Judean. What if he invented a few such examples?

Besides, this same kind of reasoning could be used of Jesus. Can you think of a motive to invent a failed (crucified) messiah to follow? It is possible, but it does not sound likely.

If this piece of reasoning does not sound as persuasive to you on Jesus as your own on Athronges does, I suggest it is because you have trained yourself to question every detail of the Jesus story in a way you have not (yet) trained yourself to question every detail of the Athronges story.

Surely the nature of the exercise is not that opaque to you. What I am after, of course, is whether or not the relevant lines from Annals 15.44 would have any value to you as evidence for Jesus if they are genuine. It sounds as if they would for you, judging from this statement.

The reason I inquire is because, on my thread about what would damage the MJ theory the most, three people scored the Tacitus reference as a 0. That is, even if it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that Tacitus wrote about the execution of Jesus, three people on that thread (Doug Shaver, Solo, Young Alexander) thought that the passage would have absolutely no bearing on the question of an HJ. I am probing that state of affairs. What would you score the Tacitus reference?

You are right; I missed that nuance in your words.

In general, demonstrated probability is the standard. Certainty is scientific, but history is not science.

Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources (or via: amazon.co.uk), page 78 (boldfacing mine):

The difficulties of applying the so-called scientific method to historical research means that historians must often satisfy themselves with rules of logic that appear less watertight, making statements that seem probable, not "proved" in any "scientific" sense.

Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources, page 81 (boldfacing mine):

But historians never have just what they want or need. At one extreme is the historian limited to one source. Einhard's Life of Charlemagne is, for example, the only source scholars have about the private life of Europe's first emperor. Like many of the political biographies written today, this one is more hagiography than critical biography, and in the best of worlds historians might well refuse to use it as evidence about Charlemagne's life and his character. But historians, although conscious that they are prisoners of the unique source and bear all the risks that this involves, use it because it is all they have. At the other extreme are historians studying the recent past. They have a great many sources, and in many ways their problems are thus fewer. But even here there is no certainty.

Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History (or via: amazon.co.uk), page 163 (boldfacing mine, italics his):

Even when the fact in question may not be well-known, certain kinds of statements are both incidental and probable to such a degree that error or falsehood seems unlikely.

I have assumed it for the sake of argument. If it is a valid reference, how far does it go to demonstrating an historical Jesus? This is similar to the Josephus reference to Athronges: If Josephus did not make Athronges up, how far does it go to demonstrating an historical Athronges?

Except Josephus himself, right? Since he is busily engaged in blaming the war on such pretenders, and the more pretenders he can point to the better off his thesis is.

So, to turn your statement around: But even if the Josephus reference is valid, we do not know his sources, and the himself had a motive to create an historical Athronges.

Ebion, for starters. Just recently I ran across a debate on the accuracy of the patristic statements on the three main disciples of Mani (Thomas, Hermas, and Addas); some doubt that the disciple Thomas even existed.

There are other such debates, but my point is not actually along those lines. I submit that, on the standard of inquiry usually employed in historical endeavors, a reference in Josephus to Athronges and a reference in Tacitus to Christ would both tend to be taken seriously as evidence for an HJ.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

Maybe I wasn't reading it closely enough, but how would the Josephus reference to Athronges constitute evidence for an HJ? (I can see it for a historical Athronges, though.)

Stephen

Ben C Smith

Yes, I miswrote that. It should have read:

I submit that, on the standard of inquiry usually employed in historical endeavors, a reference in Josephus to Athronges and a reference in Tacitus to Christ would both tend to be taken seriously as evidence for the respective historical personages in question.

Thanks for catching that.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

No problem. Thanks for confirming that I was paying some attention.

Stephen